• AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Lol it was always a lie, just like “clean coal technology.”

    The capitalists will always use the crises they cause to part you with more of your capital. They’re just the evolution of ye olde traveling snake oil salesman that used their grift to become the world’s owners.

    And because so many poor, deluded peasants truly, darkly, hilariously believe capitalism can solve the problems capitalism propagates, we’re going to be pumping carbon shit into the air until the capitalists have no more surface peasants left alive to bark orders at from their temperature controlled bunker compounds.

    And even then, the owners will somehow still blame the corpses for not implementing their orders correctly or something.

  • FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s always seemed nonsensical to me. Now I studied the computer stuff, not physics but… it seems like you’d need a gigafuckton (SI unit right there) of energy to get the CO2 levels down in an appreciable way when the levels were talking about here are in the hundreds of parts per million… just seems like it’d be incredibly inefficient at best

    • wosat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m with you. Also, it seems like it would be much more efficient to do carbon capture at the source, where the fuel is being used, like a power plant, where the concentrations are relatively high, compared to atmospheric capture where CO2 is less than 0.1%.

    • serratur@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      We would need clean energy production to cover demand and then have the capacity to produce excess energy for it to ever be anything to consider at all, we are nowhere close to that.

    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’ll actually HAVE to do it at one point but yeah, it will take a good 30-50% of the world’s energy budget for decades to centuries to do so.

      However, until we’re on 100% nuclear / renewable, you’re just generating 100 carbon for every 30 you capture. That’s where the stupidity lies. Even if you use renewable energy to power your capture plant, it still be more efficient to just route that energy directly into the grid where it would then avoid someone else having to generate the carbon to use the energy.

  • JIMMERZ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I drank the carbon capture kool-aid for a time early on. It sounded too good to be true. Unfortunately it was.