• jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I mean I think carbon capture is kinda stupid on one level. It’s like an excuse for us to not change our behavior

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          An argument is that this is what we should use excess green electricity for. But it does not make sense to run such expensive equipment only a few hours each day. I prefer matching the supply to demand with hydro storage, not to mention that most grids are nowhere near 100% renewable.

      • jasondj@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No. Carbon neutral isn’t enough. We are going to have to go carbon negative.

        We can’t just take hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon and dump it into the atmosphere and leave it there to re-sequester itself. That’s going to take a long time to reverse enough to even buck the current trend of global warming, if we were able to just go carbon neutral today.

        Trees also don’t really sequester carbon for long. They die, and the carbon gets eaten by organisms and the cycle continues. Or it burns and most of the carbon is released instantly and only ash remain.

        Coal only got there specifically because there was nothing evolved to eat lignin for a long time and dead trees piled up so high that dead trees on top ended up compressing their ancestors into it.

        Crude only got there because plants and algae in shallow water died, mixed into sediment, rinse, repeat times a few million years, get compressed by the weight of all the layers above, and turn to crude.

        The sequestration of ancient carbon wasn’t just by virtue of being plants, but what happened after those plants died.

        • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Coal only got there specifically because there was nothing evolved to eat lignin for a long time and dead trees piled up so high that dead trees on top ended up compressing their ancestors into it.

          I thought this hypothesis was disproved and it was some geological process that buried the trees? I remember there was a study about lignin content in other fossils and it was compatible with fungi decomposing wood.