There are plenty of arguments to be made against direct air capture, but entropy isn’t one of them. Nobody ever claimed this is some kind of perpetuum mobile.
While physically possible DAC is a waste of money and energy compared to effective measures such as constructing solar farms, batteries and power lines. Even hydrolysis may look attractive.
At the latest after decarbonization of the power grid (yes I am laughing as I write this), we will want to remove CO2 from the air which was emitted 50 years ago. Also I would like to point out that the IPCC scenarios about reducing global warming already include carbon capture. Plans to remove CO2 from energy production till 2035 already only work under the premise that we actively start removing CO2 from the atmosphere simultaneously.
That’s right. We should only do one thing, and that’s to switch away from fossil fuels. It won’t be a problem that we will still have all that CO2 warming the atmosphere and acidifying the oceans, we really shouldn’t bother trying to make that tech any better, it has clearly no use.
My man, the issue is that reluctance to decarbonize may be fuelled by this. Not that it will not be necessary. The current climate predictions are quite optimistic and shit is going to shit. This means we must not hope for a wonder weapon, but do what is possible and economic today, instead of active inaction and paralysis.
This sentiment is shared with a substantial part of the CCS critical experts.
There are plenty of arguments to be made against direct air capture, but entropy isn’t one of them. Nobody ever claimed this is some kind of perpetuum mobile.
This is a joke.
While physically possible DAC is a waste of money and energy compared to effective measures such as constructing solar farms, batteries and power lines. Even hydrolysis may look attractive.
At the latest after decarbonization of the power grid (yes I am laughing as I write this), we will want to remove CO2 from the air which was emitted 50 years ago. Also I would like to point out that the IPCC scenarios about reducing global warming already include carbon capture. Plans to remove CO2 from energy production till 2035 already only work under the premise that we actively start removing CO2 from the atmosphere simultaneously.
That’s right. We should only do one thing, and that’s to switch away from fossil fuels. It won’t be a problem that we will still have all that CO2 warming the atmosphere and acidifying the oceans, we really shouldn’t bother trying to make that tech any better, it has clearly no use.
You fucking armchair Reddit-ass commenter.
My man, the issue is that reluctance to decarbonize may be fuelled by this. Not that it will not be necessary. The current climate predictions are quite optimistic and shit is going to shit. This means we must not hope for a wonder weapon, but do what is possible and economic today, instead of active inaction and paralysis.
This sentiment is shared with a substantial part of the CCS critical experts.