Comment on Entropy? Never heard of it.

AlexisFR@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• meyotch@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Yes that’s the point but why take the extra steps. Use the low carbon energy directly and stop using the high carbon sources.

  source

  • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    The argument is that there exist some use cases where we do not have a viable low carbon energy source yet (things like heavy farming equipment or aircraft), and one can effectively counteract the emissions of these things until we do develop one. Or alternatively, by the time that we eliminate all the high carbon energy, the heating effect already present may be well beyond what we desire the climate to be like, and returning it to a prior state would require not just not emitting carbon, but removing some of what is already there.

    source

    • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It does also get pushed by organisations that profit from fossil fuels as an excuse to never need to decarbonise as they can hypothetically just capture it all again later, which is dumb and impractical for a variety of reasons, including the one alluded to above. Some kind of Carbon sink will need to be part of the long-term solution, but the groups pushing most strongly want it to be the whole solution and have someone else pay for it so they can keep doing the same things as caused the problem in the first place.

      source
    • iii@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      viable low carbon energy source yet

      Not limited to energy sources either: steel production requires carbon as part of the alloy.

      In the production of cement, calciumcarbonate gets heated and emits co2.

      Both of these products can not be made without the emission of co2

      source
    • artificialfish@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I just literally can’t imagine a machine that is both cheaper and easier to deploy than the green goo we call life. Plant a tree. It’ll even spread itself.

      source

      • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Unfortunately, this is one area human imagination and intuition fail. Trees are great, but the math shows they simply aren’t remotely viable as a means of bulk carbon sequestration.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Trees aren’t actually that great. Algee is what is really effective. Codyslab has some great videos and some wild ideas on application for it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • frank@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I think the ideal argument is both. Have a grid that’s (at least vast majority) green, and work towards using said green energy to recapture some CO2

    source
  • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    This guy gets it

    source
  • Contramuffin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I think the intention is that the switch is not going to be immediate, and so there will be a stretch of time where some places use renewable sources of energy and some places still use non-renewables. There’s nothing you can do if your neighbor doesn’t switch, other than to try to capture their carbon output

    source

    • ryedaft@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Ukraine is bombing a lot of their neighbour’s fossil fuel infrastructure.

      source
  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Image

    Renewable energy has many parts. I have listed the 5 most important here.

    As you can see, renewable biomass and hydropower are also part of renewable energy. That is because they have the advantage of being both power-sources and energy-storages. That means people will continue to use biomass and combust it in the long term.

    source