[HN Gopher] The Quest to Trap Carbon in Stone-and Beat Climate C...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Quest to Trap Carbon in Stone-and Beat Climate Change
        
       Author : sam100
       Score  : 38 points
       Date   : 2021-12-28 20:01 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
        
       | wombatmobile wrote:
       | > to grab a million tons of carbon, a direct air capture plant
       | could devour on the order of 300 to 500 megawatts of energy per
       | year--enough to power some 30,000 American homes.
        
         | toomuchtodo wrote:
         | Great insight as to why we shouldn't stop ramping renewables
         | deployments. You need not only cover current electrical demand,
         | but demand growth over time, transportation, HVAC, _and all of
         | the energy needed to sequester excess atmospheric CO2 emitted
         | during human industrialization_ ( >1000 gigatonnes based on
         | 280ppm atmospheric CO2 pre industrialization and 420ppm current
         | state).
         | 
         | Burning ancient sunlight is expensive.
        
         | Ratalala wrote:
         | Watts are not energy.
        
       | macanchex wrote:
       | https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/11/03/Tech-Will-Not-Save-Us...
        
       | victorbstan wrote:
       | If you want a history of failed technologies just lol at a Wired
       | back issues catalog.
        
       | jeffrallen wrote:
       | Climeworks' technology is the real deal, and needs to thrive. The
       | only good CCS is 100% carbon negative and sequesters the carbon
       | in chemically stable forms. This is it, and we need more.
       | Petroleum industry CCS is a scam, but Climeworks is not that.
       | 
       | Disclaimer: I'm biased because I'm Swiss and so is this
       | technology.
        
         | kornhole wrote:
         | We hackers like to believe there is a technological solution
         | for everything. These projects feed that delusion. Massive
         | reductions and degrowth are hard for us to accept. This article
         | somewhat fairly explains how extremely impractical and unlikely
         | carbon capture technologies will be. The investments in the
         | technology and the PR around them serve more to feed the
         | delusion and keep us burning as usual.
        
           | eikenberry wrote:
           | I think you can forgive people for wanting to look for
           | solutions that don't require millions/billions of deaths, as
           | that's the only way you'll see the level of change necessary.
           | It will happen naturally over time as economic levels rise
           | and reproduction rates drop below sustaining. But that will
           | take centuries and lots of resources, so I'm doubtful that is
           | what you are proposing.
        
           | drusenko wrote:
           | Burning as usual is clearly not sustainable. If you think
           | massive degrowth is the only way out then I'm afraid we're
           | totally fucked.
           | 
           | Massive emissions reductions can also be paired with CDR to
           | have even more impact since reductions alone -- basically no
           | matter how steep at this point -- are not going to get us to
           | where we need to be.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-12-28 23:00 UTC)