For most countries around the world, sourcing energy entirely from wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower by 2050 would reduce their energy needs and costs, improve air quality, and help slow climate change, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology.
  • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
    161·
    4 days ago

    Well yeah that’s like saying it’s more costly to fix an oil spill in the ocean then just simply not use oil to begin with. Yeah obviously.

    The point of carbon capture isn’t to allow us to continue to use carbon producing fuels it’s to undo the damage that’s already being done. So this cost comparison is daft.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
        31·
        3 days ago

        That doesn’t fix the problem though. For one thing they’re not net zero because they’re not capturing 100% of the carbon and also that’s like putting a bucket under a leaky pipe and claiming you fixed the pipe.

        The bucket will overfill and then you’ve still got water on the floor.

        Or you could fix the pipe.

  • Korkki@lemmy.mlEnglish
    651·
    5 days ago

    Water is wet, researchers find

    Like basic thermodynamics can tell you that carbon capture sucks efficiency wise. It’s more work to pour water on the floor and then mopping it up and putting a back into the bottle, than just not not spilling the water in the first place.

    • Nalivai@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 days ago

      The problem is, spilling water on the floor is how the richest entities in the world keep their power, so that’s kind of out of the question. I don’t see a way to overthrow all the oil money. So either we sit there and hurumpf that the world is shit and unfair, or do something to make it ever so slightly better.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.orgEnglish
      29·
      5 days ago

      And even more basic: renewables are consistently cheaper.

      It’s not really rocket science that adding a costly postprocessing to an already more expensive solution makes that solution even morer expensiver.

  • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukEnglish
    20·
    5 days ago

    I think the idea with carbon capture is mostly that you power it with the excess you’re getting from renewables. Finland for example has so much wind turbines that when it’s windy they produce much more energy than the country consumes. In moments like this it makes sense to put this energy into something like carbon capture or hydrogen production.

  • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    352·
    5 days ago

    I’m confused why this is even a question that needs to be answered.

    We need renewables and carbon capture to even have a slight chance of having a barely livable planet.

    There’s no single solution out there that fixes things

    • MrVilliam@lemm.eeEnglish
      82·
      5 days ago

      Yeah but stupid people are plentiful and overly confident that they can spitball a better idea for solving the problem than literal experts with decades of expertise can because “they’re too close to the problem” or “they’re paid off by big [fill in the blank] to gum up any progress” or whatever. They just don’t believe in complicated solutions or complicated problems because most people aren’t doing anything particularly complicated with their lives. Incurious people aren’t interested in any explanations or nuance.

    • gnome@programming.devEnglish
      5·
      5 days ago

      True, though, we do need a quicker solution with a lower barrier to adoption ASAP. Carbon capture could be a good long-term approach to augment CO2 management, provided we figure out the details of CO2 solution “loads”/proportions, costs, maintenance, and capture locations.

  • Obelix@feddit.orgEnglish
    101·
    5 days ago

    Even if you’re capturing carbon - the average American is producing ~14 tons of CO2 per year. That is quite a lot to store if you have captured it.

  • Kairos@lemmy.todayEnglish
    4·
    5 days ago

    This makes sense. The cost of carbon capture would have to be less than the difference of installing new renewables and operating them, and operating existing fossil fuels.

  • sumguyonline@lemmy.worldEnglish
    85·
    5 days ago

    New tech is always more expensive. So this is a dumb headline. Keep advancing it, selling it, and using it, and it will get better and cheaper over time. Removing carbon and the slew of chemicals that are too heavy to float off the earth is a requirement because they don’t just go away…

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.mlEnglish
    43·
    5 days ago

    But those rich fucks (causing most of it) who don’t think climate change is made up, all think, it’s not their problem.