• Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Carbon extraction isn’t a viable solution until its whole area is running on green energy. With current technology, at least, running it on a green power source will make less of an impact than hooking that green power source up to replace some fossil fuels.

    In other words, don’t rely on heal spells until the battle’s over. They’ll never outpace incoming damage.

      • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you’re on the brink of death, yes. If you can take another round, better to take out more enemies first.

        But that’s not the way our situation works. Until the whole grid is green, carbon scrubbers just give corporations a way to virtue signal without having to make changes to their supply line, and actually do more harm than good. Because the power it takes to run them puts out more carbon than they collect.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We’re on the brink of death right now so I will support people trying to start CO2 sequestration even while coal plants in other countries no one can stop are still running, please and thank you.

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

            Does your country run on green energy? If so, cool. Go for it.

            If not, it’s better to switch from existing fossil fuel plants to green energy. Running a carbon scrubber on fossil fuels puts out more carbon than it saves. It’s like casting heals from HP when they cost more than they heal. There might be a time for that, but it’s not during combat.

            Even if the scrubber itself is on green energy, if the whole grid isn’t green, the energy it’s using could have gone to replace fossil fuel consumption, so it’s the same cost.

            If you want to sequester CO2 without putting out more than you take, plant trees.

            We are not on the brink of death. We may be on the brink of the point of no return (or past it depending who you ask,) but that’s not immediate death. The world isn’t going to die of heat in the next 10 years. There’s no need to rush to something that sounds good but does more harm.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, as far as resource costs go, planting tree is more efficient at capturing carbon then any industrial scrubber. Research should still be done, but anyone trying to sell a scrubber plant is just fishing for VC funds.

      • pedalmore@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re also typically embraced by fossil companies, selling both the disease and cure. If they can socialize the costs of sequestration they can keep drilling for profit. We are in desperate need of a carbon tax.