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

Reply to comment by red75prime in In the face on the Anthropocene by apple_achia

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.