[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)