4 ms·
That's true, but then it is surely better to cut out the middle-man and just not use fossil fuels for static generation in the first place. The energy needs wh
by Jouvence 6y ago
That's true, but then it is surely better to cut out the middle-man and just not use fossil fuels for static generation in the first place.
The energy needs which are hard to meet with renewables (aviation, other large-scale transport) are the same places where CCS is non-viable due to the efficiency hit.
The best we can do is decarbonise as quickly as possible, and live with the fallout of our failure to act this far - unless a significant use for captured CO2 is identified, atmospheric capture technology will always struggle with commercial viability.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago> unless a significant use for captured CO2 is identified And a significant use that does not end in it being released to the atmosphere after being used :)
- elgfare 6y agoThe best we can do is to do everything we can. It might also be interesting to start burning biomass and capturing the CO2, which would be net negative. Maybe it's viable for cement production as well.