mrlolloran t1_j5uvvf6 wrote
Reply to comment by CultFuse in Researchers unveil the least costly carbon capture system to date - down to $39 per metric ton. by PNNL
I’m not an expert but I think not all endeavors in carbon capturing are successful.
I’m also not sure how big this particular group of people are but there are people that see big corporations investing/spending money on carbon capture and because it’s big businesses doing, likely to be able to keep doing business as usual for as long as possible they seem to genuinely want these efforts to fail out of spite for companies. Pretty sure the Guardian ran a piece last week practically gloating that whatever company Microsoft(among other companies) pay to do carbon capturing to offset their output was failing to do so.
The only other reason I can think of is that people want to do this process more naturally. I can understand that but we need all hands on deck and we’re not going to regrow the vast sections of the Amazon overnight. Another solution I’ve seen is increasing the amount of algae in the seawater but this suggestion has several problems. For one thing I’ve never seen an actionable plan to do this. I’ve also seen marine scientists say that this would have an absurdly profound impact on Ocean ecosystems.
Again not my area of expertise, maybe somebody can help explain better. Basically people don’t like the solution because they have doubts as to its efficacy (fair but misguided, solar panels weren’t as efficient as they are now so the current efficiency shouldn’t be a long term consideration), they don’t like the majors players currently pushing this technology or they think a more natural solution is what we should pursue.
I’m an all hands on deck kinda guy myself
CultFuse t1_j5v9pdc wrote
I kinda agree with you. If it works & it doesn't cause some other problem that might turn out to be worse, we should probably be using it even if it's expensive.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments