3 ms·

Carbon capture is not a cost-effecient use of resources. You are using fossil fuels to generate power to capture carbon.

• kisamoto 4y ago
  Renewables are used whenever possible. Even if fossil fuels are used the end result is captured carbon dioxide (net negative).
  • danuker 4y ago
    In any case it is strictly a better use of renewables to directly offset fossil fuel use for electricity, rather than allow greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, then capture it back. https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/the-amount-of-energy-required-by-direct-air-carbon-capture-proves-it-is-an-exercise-in-futility/2-1-1067588 https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/the-amount-of... "Removing CO2 directly from the air requires almost as many joules as those produced by burning the fossil fuel in the first place"
    • kisamoto 4y ago
      If it were that binary - yes. But we also need to progress the efficiency of carbon capture. As the linked article states, "economies of scale and efficiency improvements would undoubtedly help" and we can only get there by continuing to develop carbon removal methods.
      • danuker 4y ago
        As long as the technology does more harm than good, we should not see it as a solution, nor even a component of the solution. Funding research for improving efficiency, maybe. But the main actionable policy NOW is detecting and reducing emissions. The US still subsidizes fossil fuel.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]