silence7How Big Oil says carbon capture works" vs "how carbon capture actually works
This is way overselling how effective it is in reality
The courts will have a real hard time figuring out who actually created this universe so they can be sued.
Malcolm Turnbull vibes:
The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.
Had to look that one up. incredible!
In this house, young lady, we observe the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I’m built different. Turns out if you stick your head far enough up your ass you turn into a Klein bottle.
I have read somewhere, that the scenarios for becoming Carbon neutral in 2045 allways involve calculations using also some way of carbon capture. Not sure if true but it‘s definitely not reasuring for the path we‘re on.
I’ve heard climate scientists argue that most estimates they see are bullshit that isn’t grounded in the science and seems to exist purely to properly up the fossil fuel industry
metoosalemWith every fucking ai company asking for ever more data centers and in turn ludicrous amounts of electricity demand we can kiss carbon neutral by 2045 goodbye
But, bro, it’s the future. Gonna save the world, man!
About our only actual hope is a MASSIVE switch to nuclear power across the world and most cars switching to electric. And even then, we would need to address cow farts, industry, the burning of forests along with a host of our sources of greenhouse gasses.
It’s almost guaranteed that one of the larger countries with more population at risk from climate change will perform some unilateral attempt at geo-engineering, which could be either very good or very bad.
It’s interesting that you envision this radical change and still think people should be driving cars. EVs are a solution to keep the auto industry going in the face of scrutiny, not a reasonable response to climate change.
still think people should be driving cars.
I am talking about what’s realistically feasible with current attitudes and infrastructure and lack thereof, I get how rail is the socialist utopia dream, but we’re about as far from light rail and walkable cities in the US as we are from motherfucking FOOD REPLICATORS.
Also:
It’s interesting that you
Just fuck right off with that internet chud language.
It’s no smaller thing to build infinite nuclear power than it is to build railways and walkable cities etcetera, quite the opposite.
Just fuck right off with that internet chud language.
You’re right, it was not an interesting opinion at all. But it seemed more rude and confrontative to lead with calling it a deranged fantasy cosplaying as realism.
Happy to hear I was able to offend either way 👍
About our only actual hope is a MASSIVE switch to nuclear power across the world
Even if it wasn’t the most expensive and second most stupid form of power generation there is, it’d be a 50+ year “solution” (at the very least) for a 10 year problem. Look at the actual current project times for single new reactors, and then factor in every industrial nation trying to build a massive amount of them at the same time competing for a very limited amount of people who know how to do that.
Capturing is good for cleaning up the last percentages. All the rest is stop blowing the stuff in the air in the first place.
Any kind of carbon neutral scenario will almost definitely require carbon capture, simply because many processes are extremely difficult to decarbonise, e.g. heavy industry such as cement and steel manufacturing. Even beyond niche industries, fossil fuels still remain a crucial input to so many things; oil for example is required for aviation, road bitumen, and polymers in plastics, resins, and fibers.
As despicable as the petro giants are, the extremely high energy capacity of fossils fuels and their use as raw materials means that replacing entirely them with renewables is unviable for neutrality.
As despicable as the petro giants are, the extremely high energy capacity of fossils fuels and their use as raw materials means that replacing entirely them with renewables is unviable for neutrality.
This is factually correct. Given the assumption that ”we”* want to remain a global economy that makes a ton of Labubu dolls and burn though advanced computer chips like it’s toilet paper for crytpo and AI stonks, where people lead so hollow lives that they ”simply must” fly to [Insert Warm Global South Country] once a year for some sun, and where single-use plastics are considered a legitimate alternative to doing the dishes –or any other perverse absurdity of modern abundance – we have to do figure out massive carbon capture and burn more fossil fuels.
I get that fossil fuels are used for a ton of non-frivolous things too, like farming. And that, even for strictly necessary things, it’s difficult or impossible to quickly replace fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. But the insistence, in terms of energy expenditure, on not even picking the low hanging fruits – what fucking societal gain do private super yachts offer? – tells you everything you need to know about the industrialized world’s commitment to mitigating climate change. Not happening.
- I don’t feel any agency at all over this supposed ”we” and no shared values or connectedness, it really is an amorphous ”they” disguising itself as a we by hinting at an imaginary possibility of collective agency, whether through consumerism or ”democracy”.
Carbon Capture is hardly anything other than an excuse to not lower emissions and potentially their profits, on par with the nonsense argument we don’t need to lower emissions because unspecified magic technology will be invented to solve anything any day now.
We absolutely do need carbon capture research and development, along with gradually scaling up carbon capture projects.
Unfortunately, carbon capture is useless if we’re still burning fossil fuels for power, heat, and transport.
Carbon capture is actively harmful when used as an excuse to build new fossil fuel power plants.
Carbon capture is the best way to convert vague promises to subsidies.
If you can scale it up on renewables only to somewhere around a few million tons a year, then maybe.
Unfortunately, carbon capture is useless if we’re still burning fossil fuels for power, heat, and transport.
Carbon capture is actively harmful when used as an excuse to build new fossil fuel power plants.
Yeah, it’s a blank check to just produce more CO2.
Look into the finances of carbon capture companies
They spend 90% of their budget on marketing across the board because they’re just fossil fuel companies in disguise
Carbon capture is easy. Plant more trees.
Guys, hear me out. We take a gigantic carbon capture machine, and just pump as much electricity into it AS WE CAN. Because of the incredible energy consumption, we’ll be using the wood from the amazon rainforest as fuel, BUT IT’S OKAY because we’re just capturing that carbon. Oh also, governments gonna have to pay, it’s a social project after all.
FreeBeardThe irony is that the pumpkin actually captured quite a bit of carbon
The further irony is that by decomposing it will release the carbon back in the atmosphere, plus the carbon it took to produce it and deliver it
☂️-