maxiderpie t1_ivat00h wrote on November 6, 2022 at 4:37 PM

Reply to comment by BrainBoy000 in In the face on the Anthropocene by apple_achia

I really wished people stopped looking at carbon capture (as in, direct air capture) as a viable solution to climate change and considered it for what it truly is, a publicity stunt energy companies can use to say they're doing something about it while continuing to profit off fossil fuels without a care in the world and starving of funds those solutions that go against their interests (this video by AdamSomething gives some really nice info about it).

Reducing CO2 production at the source is the only viable way to tangibly slow down the effects of climate change. Nuclear fusion will hopefully be the silver bullet needed to actually turn around the situation.

Hell, at this point I would even be ok with skynet taking the reins of global government and go about fix this mess we've made. I mean, given the rate of advancement in the AI field in the last five years, we at least have some good reasons to hope so.

red75prime t1_ive1jo3 wrote on November 7, 2022 at 7:35 AM

Extra CO2 that is already out there is not going away if we stop burning fossil fuels. Well, it goes away by natural means like phytoplankton and forest carbon capture, but too slow. Anyway, usage of carbon capture as a publicity stunt doesn't contradict it's usefulness in combating climate change. People just need to recognize when it's being used as a deception (but, yeah, it may be a bit too high standard to meet).

maxiderpie t1_ive38dq wrote on November 7, 2022 at 8:00 AM

It's absolutely true that we need to find a way deal with the extra co2 in the atmosphere, thing is that, since carbon capture is a very inefficient process (gas density and all that), it only becomes a viable method when there are no more easy avenues to reduce other sources of carbon emission.

So, in a future society where every single energy source is green (i.e. nuclear, geothermal, solar etc.), carbon capture would absolutely be considered a good option to reduce co2 in the atmosphere. Today though, not so much, as every little bit of green energy should be directly dedicated to phase out fossil.

red75prime t1_ive4zwp wrote on November 7, 2022 at 8:26 AM

Solar and wind power has a problem with intermittency, you need to store energy oftentimes (or set negative prices). With right incentives air-to-syntetic-fuel process could probably be made a viable alternative to storing excess energy in hydrogen or some other form.

Solar updraft tower, for example, can provide both energy and airflow.

ETA: Ah, I see the problem. You also need to pay for permanent carbon storage and there's conflict of interests. Why would you bury all that carbon if you can profit on fuel? It applies to privately owned facilities as well as governments.

On the other hand, going carbon negative requires political will in either case, and if you go air-to-fuel route you'll have carbon-capture-ready infrastructure.