In todays more Positive Climate News: A Company Opens World's Largest Vacuum to Suck Carbon From Atmosphere. It has is now operational.
- Thread starter thanosotitan
- Start date
With recent tech advancements they can be built in more places than you'd think. Check out this recent Ars Technica article. Excerpt:
There are some really interesting diagrams and explanations in the full article, it's worth a read.
Bingo.
Of course it's a start. Imagine thinking early solar panels didn't do enough and therefore shouldn't exist. We can assume the technology will improve over time. Yes it's a drop in the bucket today but it may improve to more and more drops.
Cool. Now build ten more! I saw this interview from Obama where he said every small percentage won is the difference between a little bit of extra land being inhabitable. A few more people surviving. Every little bit you can get is valuable. And if this gets bigger and better? Great.
This is located in Iceland, and uses geothermal heat. Power that is readily available in that location, and is not used for anything else. This is literally already using that power to offset fossil fuels. There's no reason not to improve and upscale this tech, as long as other initiatives aren't also developed and looked at.
Even if other companies might try to use this to off set their emissions, the correct response would be to prohibit them from doing so. Not kill the initiative. Otherwise ANY carbon cutting tech is gonna run into that same argument. Which is saying you might as well not even try.
This is located in Iceland, and uses geothermal heat. Power that is readily available in that location, and is not used for anything else. This is literally already using that power to offset fossil fuels. There's no reason not to improve and upscale this tech, as long as other initiatives aren't also developed and looked at.
Even if other companies might try to use this to off set their emissions, the correct response would be to prohibit them from doing so. Not kill the initiative. Otherwise ANY carbon cutting tech is gonna run into that same argument. Which is saying you might as well not even try.
As much as I hate that we need to build things like this...we do need some of these.
There's too much carbon in the atmosphere to just let it sit even if we get to zero extremely fast. If systems like this can be built and be carbon sinks on whole (meaning they suck out far more carbon than their construction/operation produce) then we'll need them as part of a solution.
Hopefully such systems have very long usable lifespans so a place like Iceland with a large amount of renewable power potential can make a big impact. Impact of this particular one seems pretty marginal, but it's a start.
Article notes the danger of oil companies referencing this as a reason they can keep extracting as is, but I think they're basically like Trump or conspiracy theories - no matter what you do or say they'll find some way to make it a reason they're right, so at some point you need to focus on what's important and not on placating the shits making things worse.
There's too much carbon in the atmosphere to just let it sit even if we get to zero extremely fast. If systems like this can be built and be carbon sinks on whole (meaning they suck out far more carbon than their construction/operation produce) then we'll need them as part of a solution.
Hopefully such systems have very long usable lifespans so a place like Iceland with a large amount of renewable power potential can make a big impact. Impact of this particular one seems pretty marginal, but it's a start.
Article notes the danger of oil companies referencing this as a reason they can keep extracting as is, but I think they're basically like Trump or conspiracy theories - no matter what you do or say they'll find some way to make it a reason they're right, so at some point you need to focus on what's important and not on placating the shits making things worse.
I think there's something to be said about devices that can convert this carbon into something else. I've seen a fair bit of research recently on techniques for converting greenhouse gasses into clean fuels. I don't know how expensive that would be to implement, and I don't know if this stuff can facilitate those kind of outcomes in any way.
But I imagine that if fuel companies were financially incentivized to invest in that kind of technology, that would be a step in the right direction...? Hard to say. I think this work is good in principle and should be researched further.
But I imagine that if fuel companies were financially incentivized to invest in that kind of technology, that would be a step in the right direction...? Hard to say. I think this work is good in principle and should be researched further.
Oh I'm using this lmfao
Undoubtedly. This one seems like a failure off the bat, or at best a proof-of-concept that requires way more iteration and development to become a worthy technology. I just don't know how efficient we can get when it comes to breaking the bonds of oxygen and carbon, it feels like there's a bare minimum effort there that can't be ground down further. I know we're not at peak efficiency, but even then trees essentially do the same thing and are completely solar powered.
The development of 15 minute cities, urban power systems, and mass transit that doesn't suck is probably one of the more important ones, but the majority of pollution is commercial and industrial. While looking for ways to become carbon neutral/negative we should also be looking at ways to better our current situation from all angles.
Crushing capitalism with a boot seems to be the preferred way to deal with it, but that's as pie-in-the-sky as this carbon capture system in its current iteration if we're being honest.
I mean I'm paraphrasing from a climate scientist which said roughly these technologies are bad because they aren't the solutions, technology is not going to save us. No one is going to be able to roll this tech out in the scale that it needs to and even if they were it would still be dangerous. Because it encourages complacency in governments they think they can just continue pumping out C02 and it will be fine the tech will save us, when it won't. Also there's the ramifications of massive geo engineering projects that this would be required to scale to, the consequences could be worse than global warming. Say for one example there's suddenly a massive power cut of fault in these machines or maybe there's an electromagnetic storm which cuts power, and then there's a sudden massive amount of C02 in the atmosphere. There's enumerable potential ways these technological geo engineering solutions could go wrong and be very bad, whereas the known best solution with the least amount of draw backs is to just cut our emissions. But of course it seems too difficult for us or maybe we should wait for the AGI to solve because that's totally gonna happen.
Carbon capture has been tested in Canada by conservative prairie governments, and it's been widely seen as a failure.
I swear, if someone released a handheld device tomorrow that captured all carbon emissions worldwide, you'd still have people saying "but when it inevitably breaks down, we're fucked again, so this changes nothing".
Are there any numbers on what the *net* reduction of this thing is? Assuming it takes a shitton of energy to run it.
I'm assuming it doesn't run off renewables but even if it did I don't really care - I think technology like this is mainly viable if it would remove more than it added if it was running on fossil fuels. Because that way you could mass produce them.
I'm assuming it doesn't run off renewables but even if it did I don't really care - I think technology like this is mainly viable if it would remove more than it added if it was running on fossil fuels. Because that way you could mass produce them.
This plant is running off of geothermal energy, so while there is undoubtedly a carbon deficit from its production its on-going operation shouldn't involve burning fossil fuels.
7800 vehicles? There are 1.47 billion vehicles on earth, not factoring in heavy duty which emits far far more per vehicle. and alllll of that only accounts for about a quarter of global emissions. Most of it comes from manufacture, steel refinement, construction etc.
you would need to fill basically the entirety of greenland with these things, and rig them up to an equivalent amount of solar panels for this to have the desired effect
or we could just stop buying useless shit and ruining the world through endless and mind fuckingly pointless consumption and stop pinning our hopes on even more gizmos to save us from ourselves
sorry this post triggered me. its just that this thing ain't shit.
you would need to fill basically the entirety of greenland with these things, and rig them up to an equivalent amount of solar panels for this to have the desired effect
or we could just stop buying useless shit and ruining the world through endless and mind fuckingly pointless consumption and stop pinning our hopes on even more gizmos to save us from ourselves
sorry this post triggered me. its just that this thing ain't shit.
According to that, he was never actually a billionaire though. Only made it halfway there before he transferred it all to his charity
practically none, research and development is moving towards using the carbon directly for chemicals, as chemical synthesis is also extremely energy intensive. furthermore, if we also want to use highly relevant infrastructures, e.g. airplanes, they need synthetic fuel from carbon-neutral or better carbon-negative sources. these capture devices would be carbon-negative as a source and completely carbon-neutral when the plane flies.
the other alternative is to use usable land for biomass. we are already killing 60% of our arable land for meat to gain 5% worth of calories and 10% for biofuel to drive stupidly large suvs and trucks so governments can greenwash co2 emissions for homeopathic effects.
and another 10% for other resources like cotton.
Napkin math does not work for these types of projects. Built to part naive investors of their money. We can not consume and build ourselves out of this carbon dioxide problem.
There's nothing positive about this. It cost a lot more energy to capture this carbon than the energy used to emit said carbon. That geothermal energy could have gone to actual people and to practical uses, thereby actually reducinf new carbon emissions,instead of being nothing but a performative show off to pump some VCs companies which will never accomplish anything of worth.
The best carbon capture, is to not utilize this type of energy in the first place. Coal reserves are literally ancient carbon capture that have been trapped away from our ecosphere for millennia. About the pollution in the air, it's kind of the point actually. You are releasing CO2 + energy in the combustion reaction. Anything to do less CO2 means less net energy. I just sort of did a brief search and unfortunately it looks like CO2 really is quite a stable molecule, there's not much you can do for free to avoid it and anything you do to produce less or create some intermediary should mean taking some efficiency out of your power plant.
The reality is that carbon capture may well become an inevitable and essential part of climate change reduction, surely we have to start somewhere?
There's a 4 way intersection with a $100 bill right in the middle, and down each of the four roads stand a different person: A good billionaire, an evil billionaire, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. This is a serious exercise. It's like an SAT question. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first?
Correct answer: the Evil Billionaire, because the other three are figments of your fuckin' imagination!
/Chasing Amy
The reality reality is that to go net negative via ccs would require the construction of renewable energy sources on a scale that would dwarf the entire power output of the world since the invention of the steam engine. Thats 250 years of steam, coal, hydro, nuclear, everything.
The scale is so astronomical and the incentive structures built into our economic systems so misaligned it's a fantasy for a centurys time, if we survive and we shrink the 30 years in fusion is 30 years away. Both are long shots :)
jesus christ bunch of negative nancies in here.
if i had more time id check post history for people saying we should plant more trees to off set carbon. talk about " pissing in the ocean" a single tree can absorb 48lbs of carbon per year.
but this thing is a failure and useless.
yes we need to reduce emissions completely and go with green, renewable solutions. but that doesnt eliminate the already existing carbon in the atmosphere.
if i had more time id check post history for people saying we should plant more trees to off set carbon. talk about " pissing in the ocean" a single tree can absorb 48lbs of carbon per year.
but this thing is a failure and useless.
yes we need to reduce emissions completely and go with green, renewable solutions. but that doesnt eliminate the already existing carbon in the atmosphere.
I honestly can't even begin to explain how insanely far we are from ever achieving efficient carbon capture. We will achieve nuclear fusion en masse a hundred years before we figure out efficient carbon capture. And that's being optimistic that we will figure it out at all. There's a reason this being pushed by companies, not scientists.
It's neat tech. I'm sure whenever saving the world becomes profitable it'll pick up some steam—if we're still alive before then.
The idea isn't that CCS will offset 100% of emissions, it's that it can eventually handle legacy emissions and offset the 10-20% of things that cannot be decarbonized soon or ever.
Of course, I don't know if anyone would reasonably be able to suggest that we should just pollute at 2010-2020 levels forever, and just capture it all, that would be patently insane and impossible.
For carbon capture to be worth it, you'd need the entire world to already be 100% covered by renewables, and then some . Otherwise it's a literal net negative.
This shit isn't positive news. It's more carbon offset bullshit that'll never make it to scale. It's green capitalist nonsense that will just lead to more emissions and further reductions in steps that actually matter.
Before someone says "every little bit counts!", no, no it actually doesn't, and before someone says "it will be paired with carbon reduction to remove the existing emissions", no, it won't.
Before someone says "every little bit counts!", no, no it actually doesn't, and before someone says "it will be paired with carbon reduction to remove the existing emissions", no, it won't.
We're at the point where shit like this is the only way we're going to be able to put a dent in climate change.
Yes, it sucks that we couldn't get the world to cut carbon emissions. We can piss and moan and complain that corporations are ruining the planet, but relishing in the moral high ground over potential mass extinction is utterly fucking stupid and doesn't make you look cool.
Yes, it sucks that we couldn't get the world to cut carbon emissions. We can piss and moan and complain that corporations are ruining the planet, but relishing in the moral high ground over potential mass extinction is utterly fucking stupid and doesn't make you look cool.
I don't want to die because of climate change. We are going to have to use a whole lot of tools to help keep people alive as climate change's negative effects intensify and mitigate the worst of it. This is one of those tools. I want to know what the tools are that the people who are negative on this carbon capture tech want us to use instead of adding this technology to our toolbelt alongside everything else. Be they legal tools, technological tools, etc.
We need to get CO2 out of the air. Trees and shrubs and grass and other plants can only do so much. Carbon Capture Technology that can scale up and run off of renewable energy while we also start running more and more of our other societal infrastructure on renewable energy is good.
We need to get CO2 out of the air. Trees and shrubs and grass and other plants can only do so much. Carbon Capture Technology that can scale up and run off of renewable energy while we also start running more and more of our other societal infrastructure on renewable energy is good.
It is, in fact, carbon capture techs that can only do so much. The thing is, trees don't turn in profits. If, overnight, all governments decided to bring back forest coverage to -- say -- their pre-industrial levels, expropriating extensive agriculture on the way, we would be better off.
What? That isn't feasible? Oh, but waiting for a technology that we know to take much more energy than it can possibly save to become scalable and cheap is very much feasible, right? The United States could shut down a coal plant like today. Only one. It could afford to take the losses when solar grids make so much energy its prices becomes negative. But somehow, that's never on the table. No, we have to cheer on empty promises because "each square meter counts". Interesting, things that could be done by governments that exist today don't count. These are the "perfect", as if unobtainable.
Last edited:
Yep. Everything that isn't immediately solving it is garbage. Like we had the Sony plant trees for Horizon achievement thing and half the posts were Sony can afford to plant way more trees than this what a bunch of bullshit.
Well of course but it's a cooler initiative than almost anything else they could have done with the game so why not at the minimum say that's cool or ignore it.
I swear someone could share the steps they have taking individually to reduce their use and someone on here would ignore all that users changes just to scream out "you're still taking a 3 minute hot shower?!"
dunno, they inject it underground but i don't believe it stays there
also, who's paying for this? are they operating for profit?
i dunno, just plant plants
also, who's paying for this? are they operating for profit?
i dunno, just plant plants
Carbon Capture Tech isn't perfect. Trees are not perfect either. They're a carbon capture system that is vulnerable to a lot of weather, vulnerable to fire, and also vulnerable to parasites, disease, and more. We need as many tools as possible. Plant a lot of trees and we can let them reach their full CO2-gathering maturity, and we can also work on scaling up carbon capture technology. We need to throw everything we can at this issue.
I think the issue for me is that they should have been building these things decades ago and building 1, right now feels like giving someone an aspirin after they've been burnt to near death. If there were ten thousand of these in production I think this would be bigger news.