4 ms·

Carbon capture requires power. It’s never ever gonna be carbon neutral nor carbon negative. Unless you grow trees. They are - by far away - the most efficient

by Fiahil 4y ago

Carbon capture requires power. It’s never ever gonna be carbon neutral nor carbon negative. Unless you grow trees. They are - by far away - the most efficient and effective CC device that exists.

idiotsecant 4y ago
Except for all those pesky lignin and cellulose decomposing fungi this would be a perfect plan.
sokoloff 4y ago
Trees are a temporary store of carbon. When they die and rot, the carbon is re-released. (Turning them into building materials makes this overall process take longer, of course.)
- abdullahkhalids 4y ago
  A properly managed newly grown forest will continue to be net-carbon-negative for at least 4-5 decades or more, and after that net-zero if not burned or reduced in size. We need to sequester large amounts of carbon in the next two decades to avoid falling off the cliff of greater than 2 or 2.5 degree warming. Ergo, planting well-thought out forests in large quantities, which has no known downsides, and large upsides is one of the actions we must do. Not to mention that trees have excellent effects on local climate, on local pollution, on local human health, which are all great reasons besides carbon capture for planting more trees.
robocat 4y ago
Trees have their limitations: https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/05/carbon-climate-change-trees-afforestation/ https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/05/carbon-climate-change-tree...
- Fiahil 4y ago
  This article is a complete farce ! Everything they wrote is neither backed by facts nor by "experts" who don't have a project to sell.
usrusr 4y ago
This entire topic isn't about direct air capture (which I consider mockworthy myself, what if we had a field of science studying self-repairing, self-replicating capture devices - oh wait, botany!) but about burn site sequestration which isn't remotely as bad (but still bad I think: hydrocarbon leftovers have a long term storage problem just as bad as nuclear, it's just happens to be even better at hiding in plain sight)
vorpalhex 4y ago
Run carbon capture off renewables. Use oil for gas for vehicles. We don't care if carbon capture stops at midnight or doesn't run on a still day. As long as the average yearly carbon capture is slightly greater than carbon production. Millions of vehicles could still be used and not replaced. We still have real and meaningful issues with electric vehicles that may not be resolvable. Battery chemistry is extremely reliant on very gnarly chemicals with their own environment issues. The thing we want to fix is global warming.

by Fiahil 4y ago

Carbon capture requires power. It’s never ever gonna be carbon neutral nor carbon negative. Unless you grow trees. They are - by far away - the most efficient and effective CC device that exists.

idiotsecant 4y ago

Except for all those pesky lignin and cellulose decomposing fungi this would be a perfect plan.

sokoloff 4y ago

Trees are a temporary store of carbon. When they die and rot, the carbon is re-released. (Turning them into building materials makes this overall process take longer, of course.)

abdullahkhalids 4y ago
A properly managed newly grown forest will continue to be net-carbon-negative for at least 4-5 decades or more, and after that net-zero if not burned or reduced in size. We need to sequester large amounts of carbon in the next two decades to avoid falling off the cliff of greater than 2 or 2.5 degree warming. Ergo, planting well-thought out forests in large quantities, which has no known downsides, and large upsides is one of the actions we must do. Not to mention that trees have excellent effects on local climate, on local pollution, on local human health, which are all great reasons besides carbon capture for planting more trees.

robocat 4y ago

Trees have their limitations: https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/05/carbon-climate-change-trees-afforestation/ https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/05/carbon-climate-change-tree...

Fiahil 4y ago
This article is a complete farce ! Everything they wrote is neither backed by facts nor by "experts" who don't have a project to sell.

usrusr 4y ago

This entire topic isn't about direct air capture (which I consider mockworthy myself, what if we had a field of science studying self-repairing, self-replicating capture devices - oh wait, botany!) but about burn site sequestration which isn't remotely as bad (but still bad I think: hydrocarbon leftovers have a long term storage problem just as bad as nuclear, it's just happens to be even better at hiding in plain sight)

vorpalhex 4y ago

Run carbon capture off renewables. Use oil for gas for vehicles. We don't care if carbon capture stops at midnight or doesn't run on a still day. As long as the average yearly carbon capture is slightly greater than carbon production. Millions of vehicles could still be used and not replaced. We still have real and meaningful issues with electric vehicles that may not be resolvable. Battery chemistry is extremely reliant on very gnarly chemicals with their own environment issues. The thing we want to fix is global warming.