Technology

Yeah, though it’s better than releasing new CO2 that is still in the ground. Just re-releasing already released CO2.

It would be nice if a company or government focused on capturing the CO2 and not releasing it again.

Not much else to say except yes you're right. Unfortunately, the average person doesn't care or understand the difference.

it's all very complex but there are some simple bits of it - oil in crude is carbon that was cycling through the atmosphere before the dinosaurs and got collected by plants which got buried (due to there not being bugs to eat them) it's been locked there for ages so when we take some out the ground and add it to the atmosphere that increases the total amount, when we take it from the atmosphere and use it then we're doing the same thing that plants have been doing for billions of years and just borrowing it to make use of for a while then putting it back. without any question if we could wave a wand and replace all the crude oil to oil infrastructure with infrastructure for taking it from the air and reusing it then it would be a good thing.

Is taking carbon from the bottom of the atmosphere and putting it near the top a bad thing? probably, possibly, maybe - that gets into really complex physics which i wouldn't even pretend to understand, but it also gets into the existential angst of having to compare with the lifetime ecological and climate damage done by all the other options - is it better if people fly, take trains, or boats? cruise ships are really bad for everything, trains are great but require HUGE infrastructure which isn't always possible, and i don't even need to mention the ecological impact of a long distance car trip (or it's supporting costs). It might actually make flying a good option ecologically, it's possible with autonomous low-flying vehicles using it that it could be such a good option as to displace road transport in some areas thus removing the need for so many huge bridges and ecologically damaging road surfaces.

You mean carbon credits right? This sounds like legit tech. Do you have info on why it's flawed? I'd love to read up on it.

that's objectively false nonsense pushed by anti-technology crazies, carbon capture is without a doubt one of the most important technologies in defeating human caused climate change especially in systems utilizing things like biochar where excess biomass (non-edible parts of crops, food and container waste, coppiced trees, maintained space and etc) it can be incredibly effective - you collect up all the biomass which would have returned it's carbon, methane, etc to the atmosphere then use that to generate power or create fuels and materials while capturing 90% of the carbon (most technologies work at much higher rates than this) this is then used for industry in one of two ways - replacing carbon that would other wise be extracted from where it's stored in minerals (e,g, making jet fuel which then returns the carbon to the atmosphere) or in creating materials which is essentially the same as putting it back in the rocks where it'll stay for a long time. It can also be buried in old mineshafts, oil voids, and other handy spots thus removing it from the carbon cycle entirely and reducing the total amount of atmospheric co2 (the main thing causing all these climate issues)

we of course also need to switch to more efficient ways of operating society and providing people with the things they need to live good fulfilling lives but nothing is a one size fits all total solution to everything nor should we ever expect to find anything like that.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=BwP2mSZpe0Q

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

Attach wings to old steam trains?

the first three words of the article say it's using 'Direct air capture' it goes on to explain it's able to use carbon from any source so while it's intended to use sequestered carbon if that's unavailable they may use carbon captured from processes such burning biomass to collect carbon (which is actually a really good way of doing it ecologically as it uses less power, systems currently under testing can actually generate more power than carbon capture requires thus making them not only free to power but a net positive).

The article also talks about it's location in Washington state being selected to make use of hydropower for the energy intensive stages of development, what they don't mention that might have been interesting is due to the great position of Washington state for windpower it's an ideal location for integrated power systems where excess power which would otherwise have gone to waste is used in energy intensive chemical processes like electrolysis or sequestation - essentially in this process it's like making a chemical battery, the excess power is converted at source into carbon then used to create high density fuels suitable for jets and rockets.

They make the claim that with a 50:50 mix {new fuel : conventional fuel, as tested by USAF) it can reduce lifecycle emissions by 90% (overall greenhouse gas impacts of a fuel, including each stage of its production and use) which would be huge for the climate, likely making air travel the more ecological option for medium to long distance travel even beating out well run train networks (of which there are vanishingly few)