• mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        It sounds good, and long-term it’s a nice tool to have, but it’s nowhere near fast or effective enough to counter even a fraction of actual emissions. This is a “we’re basically already at net zero and now we can start trying to recover” tool. Not a “Yay, we can keep burning!” tool.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think you missed the part where extracting CO2 costs huge amounts of energy, and converting it back to oxygen to capture pure carbon costs the exact same amount of energy as you got when you burned it in the same place. Add losses due to heat etc, and basically if you want to dial back the clock for CO2 levels, and given that no other extra CO2 is being emitted anymore, you’d need to spend about twice the energy the world generated. Want to dial CO2 back how it was 10 years ago? That’ll cost you about twice amount of energy that the world has spent over the past ten years by burning fossil fuels.

      And that is on top of the normal world consumption of energy, and that is also assuming that all CO2 emissions have stopped. That is also ignoring energy costs for storing the carbon as well

      So yeah, good luck with that.

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m a little confused they are taking CO2 from the ocean? Why would they collect CO2 from the ocean to counter fuke burned?