Technology

59377 readers

3042 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

238

The US just invested more than $1 billion into carbon removal / The move represents a big step in the effort to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere—and slow down climate change. (archive.ph)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The US just invested more than $1 billion into carbon removal / The move represents a big step in the effort to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere—and slow down climate change.::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 30 points 1 year ago (9 children)

The problem is, that this technology is already being used to greenwash fossil fuels. There's a gas power plant currently running that got subsidies and good press for building a CCS facility next to the power plant. Something like 1% of the emissions were actually sequestered, but millions were wasted.

If these subsidies are actually tied to reasonable requirements, I'm all in. History shows, though, that this is usually not the case.

[–] RohanWillAnswer@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Part of the problem with new technologies is that they’re inherently less efficient than the same technologies once they’ve been further developed. And the problem with that is that it takes millions of dollars develop and deploy new technologies.

This was once the biggest argument against solar and wind. It was expensive and markedly less efficient than coal. However, solar and wind are now pretty good and continuing to get better. All because people were willing to invest the many millions of dollars to develop those technologies.

This is almost always the argument with new technologies. But to make the argument that it’s a good reason to stop investing in a wide variety of technologies that could literally help save the world is shortsighted.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But you cannot escape the tyranny of the second law of thermodynamics. It will always be more efficient to not release the carbon in the first place.

[–] RohanWillAnswer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

I agree. But we are not there yet. And there is already a lot of carbon in the air.

load more comments (6 replies)