Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
-
@thomasfuchs I'll say it then: carbon capture and storage will never work.
Storing it as a gas underground makes no sense whatsoever.
Converting it to other forms takes more energy than we get from turning it into a gas in the first place.
I can always be proven wrong but as things are I am 100% confident that the way forward is to treat it as a laughable form of greenwashing by the most evil lobbies on the planet.
@renardboy @thomasfuchs Investments should go to parties that actually create solutions, like Carbonaide:
-
Anyway we need both at some point, but solar (and wind, etc) is way more important for now because it directly replaces emissions.
Hopefully we figure out the other part eventually.
@thomasfuchs yeah I'm all for cleaning up the atmosphere and ideally as fast as possible but it boggles the mind people prioritise it over *stopping setting it on fire*
-
@thomasfuchs I'll say it then: carbon capture and storage will never work.
Storing it as a gas underground makes no sense whatsoever.
Converting it to other forms takes more energy than we get from turning it into a gas in the first place.
I can always be proven wrong but as things are I am 100% confident that the way forward is to treat it as a laughable form of greenwashing by the most evil lobbies on the planet.
@renardboy we’re gonna need it eventually to fix the damage that’s already been done (i.e. even if we somehow manage to stop CO2 emissions).
but I’ve no idea what it will take.
the only thing other than “more trees” that I’ve seen that maybe goes into the right direction is building materials, e.g. concrete; but obviously even if that’s done on a large scale it’s not going to make a huge dent.
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs maybe solar powered carbon capture? (Oh no… I’ve become “tech bro reinvents the tree”)
-
@thomasfuchs I'll say it then: carbon capture and storage will never work.
Storing it as a gas underground makes no sense whatsoever.
Converting it to other forms takes more energy than we get from turning it into a gas in the first place.
I can always be proven wrong but as things are I am 100% confident that the way forward is to treat it as a laughable form of greenwashing by the most evil lobbies on the planet.
@renardboy @thomasfuchs
Exactly right. -
@thomasfuchs I'll say it then: carbon capture and storage will never work.
Storing it as a gas underground makes no sense whatsoever.
Converting it to other forms takes more energy than we get from turning it into a gas in the first place.
I can always be proven wrong but as things are I am 100% confident that the way forward is to treat it as a laughable form of greenwashing by the most evil lobbies on the planet.
@renardboy @thomasfuchs this is what I keep wondering. Best I can figure is we release the carbon to get energy in one place then use energy to store it in another place. I am not a scientist. I just don’t understand how it actually balances out except at a superficial level.
-
@renardboy @thomasfuchs Investments should go to parties that actually create solutions, like Carbonaide:
@liiwi @renardboy @thomasfuchs Does it come in glacier freeze flavor?
-
@liiwi @renardboy @thomasfuchs Does it come in glacier freeze flavor?
@shadows @renardboy @thomasfuchs I don't think there is budget for that scale of things, but the curves definately point into that direction.
-
@shadows @renardboy @thomasfuchs I don't think there is budget for that scale of things, but the curves definately point into that direction.
@liiwi @renardboy @thomasfuchs sorry, this is also a Gatorade joke.
-
@thomasfuchs maybe solar powered carbon capture? (Oh no… I’ve become “tech bro reinvents the tree”)
-
@thomasfuchs I'll say it then: carbon capture and storage will never work.
Storing it as a gas underground makes no sense whatsoever.
Converting it to other forms takes more energy than we get from turning it into a gas in the first place.
I can always be proven wrong but as things are I am 100% confident that the way forward is to treat it as a laughable form of greenwashing by the most evil lobbies on the planet.
My provincial government (a long-ago captured petro-state) has doubled down on CCS as the “solution” … it pays for them and the industry to “invest” $M to be allowed to increase extraction and maximize their yacht money before it all collapses and they run off to leave us with the clean up.
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs it's a scam.
-
@liiwi @renardboy @thomasfuchs sorry, this is also a Gatorade joke.
@shadows @liiwi @renardboy @thomasfuchs I have recently come back from the Alps, and the largest glacier has been reduced by half. There are huge cracks in the mountains growing millimetre by millimetre as the support from the ice disappears. It is heartbreaking
-
@renardboy @thomasfuchs this is what I keep wondering. Best I can figure is we release the carbon to get energy in one place then use energy to store it in another place. I am not a scientist. I just don’t understand how it actually balances out except at a superficial level.
@shadows @renardboy @thomasfuchs it doesn't. we have to stop emitting.
-
@thomasfuchs I'll say it then: carbon capture and storage will never work.
Storing it as a gas underground makes no sense whatsoever.
Converting it to other forms takes more energy than we get from turning it into a gas in the first place.
I can always be proven wrong but as things are I am 100% confident that the way forward is to treat it as a laughable form of greenwashing by the most evil lobbies on the planet.
Carbon capture works pretty darn good, when PLANTS AND SOIL get to do it...
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs one of the best solutions for carbon capture is to build out of wood instead of concrete.
Producing cement uses a lot of energy and is one of the largest sources of CO₂, while building with wood is not only more energy efficient but also stores carbon and makes buildings easier to recycle.
-
Carbon capture works pretty darn good, when PLANTS AND SOIL get to do it...
@violetmadder @thomasfuchs Absolutely true, but we can't increase that meaningfully, so relying on that as a solution to the increased emissions since the industrial revolution makes no sense whatsoever.
-
@renardboy @thomasfuchs this is what I keep wondering. Best I can figure is we release the carbon to get energy in one place then use energy to store it in another place. I am not a scientist. I just don’t understand how it actually balances out except at a superficial level.
@shadows @thomasfuchs If we use renewables to re-sequester carbon dioxide, what we should be doing is use those renewables to displace fossil fuels in the first place.
-
@renardboy we’re gonna need it eventually to fix the damage that’s already been done (i.e. even if we somehow manage to stop CO2 emissions).
but I’ve no idea what it will take.
the only thing other than “more trees” that I’ve seen that maybe goes into the right direction is building materials, e.g. concrete; but obviously even if that’s done on a large scale it’s not going to make a huge dent.
@thomasfuchs The first part, before anything else, is to eliminate use of fossil fuels. There is no amount of effort we can invest in sequestration that would not be better invested in reducing fossil fuel use in the first place.
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs
\o/
