Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

newphew92 t1_iz17ffs wrote

CO2 recapture is a scam. It takes energy to capture CO2, meaning that instead of using that energy to replace dirty energy on the grid, you're just going through an inefficient process to undo the dirty process to begin with.

30

norem_greymane t1_iz198a7 wrote

Ultimately, if there was currently real economic incentive to capture CO2, we wouldn't be releasing it in the first place. The capture mechanisms would be installed directly onto the things that produce the CO2 in the first place, like the huge cargo ships and coal plants that make up a significant chunk of all CO2 emissions. This will obviously be a lot more efficient than trying to capture CO2 from open air.

That said, if we can continue to advance this science until it's actually financially preferrable to hold onto your CO2 emissions, we may see an enormous industrial shift towards CO2 capture. So it's definitely a science worth pursuing, in my opinion!

30

SpiritOfFire013 t1_iz1sl86 wrote

Maybe some day, but tech like that is a lot further off then commercial carbon capture technologies at scale. But carbon capture technology, when using clean energy to power it, is not bad like the commenter above is think.

Yet the have a valid point of said carbon capture mechanisms are running off of dirty energy sources like coal, oil, or natural gas.

But the whole idea of Carbon Capture tech like that in its initials form, is more about getting to a point of carbon neutrality. Not exactly sucking all of the carbon and greenhouse gasses straight out of the wire like a magic trick. Obviously that’s the eventual plan to an extent lol. But right meow, the point is forcing large companies that pollute with CO2 and other emissions to invest in carbon capture technology or to pay carbon capture facilities for their services, which theoretically, when done properly would effectively make them carbon neutral. If that makes sense.

5

nsefan t1_iz190wu wrote

When done in combination with a switch to green energy, it probably is helpful.

But you’re right, it’s not an alternative at all.

9

L1ttle_Joe t1_iz1e9cv wrote

Why cant we coal a shit ton of trees replant and repeat. Grind the coals and ditch it back into the bubbles we extracted oil from?

Make it mandatory for oil companies who pump the oil.

6

ThroawayPeko t1_iz6cvmr wrote

It's the absolutely humongous scale of it, and the temptation to use the coal as fossil fuel.

1

L1ttle_Joe t1_iz6kfkr wrote

Getting it out was a big scale... So after they dried it up make them do the dropping CO2 in it as much as they can. Volume for volume...

1

SpiritOfFire013 t1_iz1tpnf wrote

Not exactly, I mean to an extent you make a valid point, and there are probably companies out there investing in this tech that may not be sourcing their facilities energy needs from clean energy.

But a lot of them are and that’s the point. But at the same time, the point of Carbon Capture facilities in these early iterations of the technology has nothing to do with creating clean energy. It’s to help us reach carbon neutrality. The reality of the world is, that we will not be able to truly reduce carbon emissions on a massive scale for decades to come. Countries around the world will still use coal, natural gas, and oil for power, and there will still be major carbon contributors between agriculture, logistics, etc. Life will continue that way for the foreseeable future.

The whole point of these carbon capture programs is to take the first baby steps towards carbon neutrality first and then hopefully a net 0 or a negative carbon footprint (if that’s possible.) in the more distant future. The idea is, that companies with large carbon footprints will invest in and pay carbon capture companies for their services, and eventually they will have paid for enough to become carbon neutral between what they put out and what they pay to have removed.

5

SilverNicktail t1_iz2tbhd wrote

Someone didn't read the article. This isn't the DAC you're thinking of, it's microbial.

5

newphew92 t1_iz30an8 wrote

The microbes in question require a bioreactor, which typically requires energy to keep at appropriate conditions

0

SilverNicktail t1_iz31ppx wrote

Well yeah, surprise surprise, an industrial process requires some kind of energy input, but it's not in any way the same thing as creating renewable generation to directly feed a DAC unit.

This is the equivalent of taking an existing industrial process like the creation of steel and making the input cleaner.

3

AutoModerator t1_iz016e3 wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1