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

  • BackupRainDancer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    From an industry standpoint everything the article says at the end as a critique is correct. We should be playing moneyball, those fans that draw in the particles would be an additional toll on the power grid.

    Instead spend the money on removing the emission sources and modernizing our grid/reducing fuel emissions. After weve exhausted low hanging fruit there we’ll have to throw money at offset tech.

    I suppose we’ll have to get the tech made eventually but there’s just so much to be reworked on our grids as is.

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’re past the reducing emissions stage.

      We need to BOTH cut emissions, and find a way to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere to get to a healthy planet. Not all the CO2 traps are going to be the right way to do it, but we need to research and figure out how to sustainably pull CO2 out, stop methane emissions, switch to a carbon free grid, and… everything else.

      • BackupRainDancer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We are not beyond the emissions reduction stage and will not be until the grid is 100% renewable or other emissions free energy powered.

        Switching to clean energy is emissions reduction. Imo should be our #1 priority because we’re not reducing power demand without massive societal change.

    • BuelldozerA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Instead spend the money on removing the emission sources and modernizing our grid/reducing fuel emissions.

      These things are not exclusive they are complimentary.; things like CarbonCapture’s Project Bison show how this can work.

      They will buy power from Solar / Wind farms which causes energy suppliers to build more of them. They use the power to run their DAC and Carbon Sequestration Wells. Their plants are modular so as more power becomes available and the tech matures they add more modules. They’re supposed to start operating later this year and when it does it will be removing three times more CO2 from the atmosphere than the worlds next largest plant.

      That kind of project results in CO2 capture and accelerates the shift away from fossil fuels.

      We are past the point of either / or, we need and solutions if we are going to fix this problem in the required time frame.

      • BackupRainDancer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree, however as much as I wish our governments would do both - they won’t. At least not This is why I said we should be playing money ball. I don’t disagree with anything you said.

        I think the additionallity to the grid as these renewables come online is great…but if they only cover the energy to run them then they’re not expanding the grid for everyone else. This emissions continue. I agree it incentvizes renewable builds but only if it powers more of the grid vs just being dedicated to the wells.

        We’re headed towards a world where corps are incentvizes to buy up all the clean energy on the market and leave consumers with the fossile fuels right now. We just don’t have enough clean or renewable energy to power everything and demand is only increasing.