Word of the day of, Green-washing.
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the sky is moving from science fiction to reality
Submitted 1 year ago by bot@lemmy.smeargle.fans [bot] to hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
Comments
Amilo159@lemmy.world 1 year ago
datelmd5sum@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Wouldn’t be more efficient to just grow algae, bamboo, hemp etc. and throw it in a hole somewhere?
Smite6645@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
funkpandemic@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
We already have that, it’s called trees
habys@lemmy.world 1 year ago
sounds like orc mischief to me
Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There’s no way this will ever be economical at the scale we need to fix what we’ve done.
9point6@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Obviously there’s more to it than just saying go, but honestly the economics of it should not matter whatsoever.
It could cost every penny on the planet and still be worth it, the alternative is the end.
School_Lunch@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If it’s less effective than simply planting more plants, then it would be pointless. It’ll take a massive amount of renewable energy to have any impact. That renewable energy might be better used to help burn less fossil fuels.
Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is a nice sentiment that I agree with as a sentiment, but it’s not realistic.
If it takes the equivalent of 1ton of carbon emissions to capture 1ton of carbon emissions, you are literally going nowhere compared to just replacing fossil fuels.
So this technology needs to be extremely efficient, otherwise the amount of extra energy generation we need becomes astronomical. So far it does not look anywhere close to being sufficiently efficient.
Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
We pretty much have no choice. Stopping to put more CO into the atmosphere wont stop climate change unless we can also remove the excess we’ve already put there.
CeeBee@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It doesn’t need to be