Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SnooCauliflowers8455 t1_jdbk6lc wrote

Both carbon capture and sequestration and something like direct air capture are going to be needed to reduce emissions and CO2 concentrations enough to… not die, imho

2

gobblox38 t1_jddgbul wrote

There's real scientific research going on with carbon sequestration. It's been a few years since I've studied the practice, but there's major thermodynamic hurdles to overcome. These methods can't be applied just anywhere, the underlying geologic is the primary factor. Carbon gasses can only be shipped so far before the net capture goes to zero.

I don't think direct capture from the air will ever be feasible. The energy requirements alone means that more carbon would be produced than collected. Thermodynamics is harsh.

0

SnooCauliflowers8455 t1_jddxm63 wrote

Energy generation doesn’t necessarily produce carbon that’s the whole point of the sustainable energy transition

0

gobblox38 t1_jde0oq9 wrote

The vast majority of energy produced in the US is from fossil fuel. After about a decade of heavy investment into renewables, they only make up about 20% of current production.

Granted, we can and should continue investing into renewables. If we want to get serious about getting off fossil fuels, we need to invest in nuclear power.

0

SnooCauliflowers8455 t1_jdgfow3 wrote

You’re not familiar with the topic. The sustainable energy transition is well under way. You may only have a mainstream view of the issue which, granted, I don’t really see very nuanced coverage in mainstream news sources, but inside the energy industry, there’s no long term projection that doesn’t account for massive decline of fossil fuel emissions. Nuclear has its own issues. wind and solar have come to dominate renewable energy because of their favorable LCOE. if you’re interested in learning more, you can start with that search term.

1