Comment on Entropy? Never heard of it.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Even if we went to zero emissions soon, we’d still want to decrease CO2 over time to reverse the effects of climate change. Capturing co2 is always going to be much more energy intensive than not emitting it in the first place, but sometimes you don’t have another choice.
mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
Or you know, we could plant trees…the original carbon capture device.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Yeah, but then you need to cut them down and burry them so that decomposition doesn’t release the co2 again. And it takes a lot of land, which can be prohibitive on the scale we’ll need.
Another interesting option is fertilizing parts of the ocean for algie to grow. Cody’sLab has an interesting video on a possible way to do that with intentionally crashing astroids into the ocean. youtu.be/z7u_IqzkJzE youtu.be/2zQb_OitsaY
All of these, plus mechanical direct air carbon capture are methods of carbon capture. The right answer will likely be some mix of all of them.
nonfuinoncuro@lemm.ee 5 days ago
that’s why I just throw all my used paper in the trash to be buried in landfills #doingmypart #onlykindajoking
psud@aussie.zone 5 days ago
You may be able to get away with stacking the cut trees in deserts, where the dryness may prevent bacterial action
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 5 days ago
yeah, i guess the algae would also have a counter-effect to global warming.
however, one must be a bit more sensitive about it, as it’s a biological process and can mess with the biological world around it. consider: somewhen in the 1970s, a huge cargo ship full of fertilizer (ammonia) sank in the ocean and it lead to a huge algae-growth in the middle of the ocean.
it definitely took some CO2 out of the air, but these algae often also produce lots of toxins as a by-product (to keep predators away), so that lead to a massive fish-dying. which is not so wishable, either.
so anyway, i guess taking CO2 out of the air can happen, but it should happen slowly, such as to not strain the environment too much.
bountygiver@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
yup, turns out burning coal is us literally releasing carbon that was already stored ages ago.
Lemminary@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Aren’t there better plants? I remember reading that some forms of algae are way more efficient or something like that.
psud@aussie.zone 5 days ago
The company that was trying to use bacteria to make fuel from water and the CO2 from the air shut down a few years ago
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 5 days ago
see my comment above … yes, algae can take out lots of CO2 from the atmosphere,
in fact i remember reading that 50% of the global photosynthesis actually happens in the oceans.
also, the algae have the advantage that they might automatically sink to the bottom of the ocean, thus taking the carbon out of the atmosphere permanently. but i’m not sure about that, in fact. also, something similar could be achieved with wetlands, such as marsh and swamp, which bind organic material underwater. that water is oxygen-depleted, so it conserves the organic material permanently. this is how peat is created.