• ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The energy required to take carbon out of the atmosphere is at best, double what it took to put it in the atmosphere in the first place. There’s seriously strong economic reasons that this is a bad idea.

    • Niello@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And it’s perfectly normal for technology to advance and become more effective and efficient over time.

      • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There are hard limits on recapture efficiency. The only way to make it remove more than it creates is to use energy like geothermal. Even then, the production of a carbon capture facility generates enough emissions that it would take years of constantly running, and you’d only ever reach it if you’re using 100% clean energy to power it.

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

          Grind up basalt slightly more than we normally do. Spread it out.

          It’s exothermic.

          Rate limited, but more than enough to undo the damage if we stop digging up 95% of fossil fuels.