this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
9 points (100.0% liked)

Futurology

1776 readers
201 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

These machines, like air capture, are fine for a small area. As all of these companies and people doing the math know, it's not enough to reverse what is already in the atmosphere or oceans. If you put some of these in say, Singapore, you could mayyyybe improve the lives of people there, but these aren't like source capture machines on outflows (what we seriously need). It's capturing minor amounts of material from a huge amount of processed volume. Catching a few drops of water from a pool, if you will.

[–] Lugh@futurology.today 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm trying to keep an open mind about these kind of efforts, though I have suspicions about some of them being green washing. However if solar power becomes ultra cheap in the 2030s, and can power efforts like this, it is possible they may make a significant difference.

You make some good points. It's much easier to capture CO2 emissions at the source rather than after they have been diluted in the atmosphere and oceans. While source capture is a strategy for future emissions, we still need ways to address the past emissions, and I'm glad that people are working on such systems.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Equatic? Aquatic?