4 ms·
Carbon capture is so costly and energy intensive, that this likely won't come close to covering the cost. It is absolutely a step in the right direction, but ca
by gibolt 4y ago
Carbon capture is so costly and energy intensive, that this likely won't come close to covering the cost. It is absolutely a step in the right direction, but carbon capture is unlikely to end up commercially viable.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bboygravity 4y agoIt's also insanely dangerous if it goes wrong.
- _Microft 4y agoAre you thinking of any particular technology? Synthetic fuels don't seem to be more dangerous than fossil fuels for example.
- svorakang 4y agoThere are definitely examples of where CCS is commercially viable [1], but implementation is lagging, and the technology is very unlikely to scale to capture the amounts that we are releasing. It would generally make better sense to keep the C in the geosphere than to first pump it up, burn and capture it again. [1] https://research.chalmers.se/en/publication/531680 https://research.chalmers.se/en/publication/531680
- Ygg2 4y agoNot sure why you got downvoted. Not emitting carbon is always going to be more effective than emitting then capturing carbon. But most of green tech is a load of green washing (https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE warning long video). By most I mean non-nuclear, non hydro-electric. Fact is that battery tech isn't up to task of high capacity highly reusable energy storage.
- bombcar 4y agoIt's harder to police not emitting carbon, after all right now I'm not emitting five billion tons a second of carbon. I also lack the ability to emit that much, but that's not a major issue. In general it's hard to pay for someone NOT doing something without it being scammed.
- Ygg2 4y agoThen tax every m3 emitted. Sure it will be passed to consumer but there aren't any good alternatives tbh. Or just don't do anything and pray you aren't destroyed by climate change.