The article puts it up as a question about whether this practice is worthwhile since the only logical solution to climate change is to de-carbonize. Personally I think that question isn’t very nuanced, certainly de-carbonizing 100’a of tons from the atmosphere from just this one plant is a small net positive. Can’t let it be an excuse to keep rolling coal in your F750’a but I’m still in favor of sucking as much carbon out of the air as we can.

  • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The developing world isn’t going to tolerate a reduced standard of living because Western Europeans got the industrial revolution party started first.

    Fossil Fuel Austerity is the thoughts and prayers of the climate change crisis. It’s not gonna happen, people. There will not be a global come to Gaia moment before everything goes to hell. So we best start figuring out how to capture carbon and actively manage the climate or our species is doomed.

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capture is needed, but futile if we don’t stop with fossil fuels. The math does not check out. We would need to dedicate like 5% of global electricity production to run DAC plants, unrealistically assuming they run at 100% efficiency at the physically possible optimum, just to keep emissions from rising. However expensive and unpractical it might be to stop using fossil fuels, relying on DAC is probably worse.

      • Instigate@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        We need to act on all fronts simultaneously. Reduce fossil fuels, build more tried and tested renewable energy generators, invest in new and emerging renewable technologies, AND direct air capture simultaneously and we have a chance to take ourselves off the current path to destruction. Doing only one or two of these in isolation just won’t be enough.