this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
254 points (95.0% liked)

Technology

59298 readers
5275 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The US just invested more than $1 billion into carbon removal / The move represents a big step in the effort to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere—and slow down climate change.::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mrgoodc4t@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Everyone here is mad that we’re doing this as if this is the only thing we’re doing. This… nor any of the other things suggested here… are either/or strategies. They’re all AND strategies.

People just wanna bitch.

Celebrate everything that is done to help slow down climate change and encourage more.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is, that this technology is already being used to greenwash fossil fuels. There's a gas power plant currently running that got subsidies and good press for building a CCS facility next to the power plant. Something like 1% of the emissions were actually sequestered, but millions were wasted.

If these subsidies are actually tied to reasonable requirements, I'm all in. History shows, though, that this is usually not the case.

[–] RohanWillAnswer@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Part of the problem with new technologies is that they’re inherently less efficient than the same technologies once they’ve been further developed. And the problem with that is that it takes millions of dollars develop and deploy new technologies.

This was once the biggest argument against solar and wind. It was expensive and markedly less efficient than coal. However, solar and wind are now pretty good and continuing to get better. All because people were willing to invest the many millions of dollars to develop those technologies.

This is almost always the argument with new technologies. But to make the argument that it’s a good reason to stop investing in a wide variety of technologies that could literally help save the world is shortsighted.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You completely missed my point.

This technology is currently used to greenwash fossil fuels. With tax payer money.

That is, you pay taxes, that are paid to big oil and gas firms to pollute the planet even further. The CCS is just window dressing. It does nothing. And that's what I'm afraid will happen again.

CCS only makes sense, if the CO2 is actually pulled out of the carbon cycle. Otherwise it's fraud.

[–] RohanWillAnswer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, I did completely miss your point. However, I think these are two different issues. One is that oil companies are benefiting from our tax system and using carbon capture for good PR. The other is that we are trying a variety of things to help reduce the effects of climate change and one of those things is carbon capture. Oil companies using using carbon capture to gain good favor doesn’t preclude it from being a potentially helpful process.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

But it's not helping, that's my point!

Fossil companies emit more CO2 because of this technology. That's not helpful.

It's a regulatory problem, but let's be honest, regulations are hardly written against major companies.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But you cannot escape the tyranny of the second law of thermodynamics. It will always be more efficient to not release the carbon in the first place.

I agree. But we are not there yet. And there is already a lot of carbon in the air.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The other thing many people miss is that the article is ONLY about these specific DoE DAC hubs but other private ones already exist. ExxonMobile is running one in Wyoming.

Tallgrass Energy is building another one in Wyoming.

CarbonCapture is building another one (Project Bison) in Wyoming that will be entirely solar and wind powered.

Those are just the private ones I'm aware of in my own state, which has a climate commitment of being carbon negative by 2050.