• Thorry84@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Thermodynamics tells us it takes exactly as much to put the carbon back in as you got out of it by taking it out. So best case scenario we double the price of energy (which also means increasing the price of everything by a lot due to production costs increasing with higher energy costs) and capture as much carbon as we release.

    However this is the real world and in the real world processes aren’t 100% efficient. Even a hyper efficient combustion engine is only like 40% efficient in converting the stored energy into a usable form. Our carbon capture techniques suck hard at the moment, but say we improve the tech. That means in the real world we would need to increase energy costs by 4-6 times. Which probably means increasing the pricing of everything by a factor of 10.

    That shows just how unsustainable our current consume heavy economy actually is. And that is assuming we have a way of capturing carbon out of the atmosphere in a way that’s both efficient and long term. And do this in time before the processes we’ve set into motion spiral out of control.

    And like you say, it puts into perspective how big of a win not releasing the carbon is.

    • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      So best case scenario we double the price of energy (which also means increasing the price of everything by a lot

      This wouldn’t be wrong, because historicaly the price for polluting the environment and cleaning up the mess afterwards has never been priced in.