Post #4273205
2026-07-31 09:20 UTC
Replies (10)
-
@MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk 2026-07-31 09:28
I had a chat/debate with a guy about this, and the info is: - it costs 2.4 kWh per kg of CO2. - there are 18 of these in the world, and the largest can sequester 8,000 tonnes pa. - to operate at scale, it needs to be able to process billions of tonnes. So, it would have to scale to 12,760,000% - for 1 Bn tonnes of CO2 the energy cost would be the same as for the whole energy usage of all of the EU combined. On the other hand, simply planting trees won't fix this. Too little, too late. The only realistic scenarios are to - immediately halve our energy consumption. - insulate so we don't need as much energy. - produce as much energy as we can ourselves (solar, etc.) - Then to use as many renewable as possible to the supply of the remainder.
-
@MichelPatrice@jasette.facil.services 2026-07-31 11:17
@MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk And the additional ones need to also run on (free) geothermal energy...
-
@ithoughtisawa2@infosec.exchange 2026-07-31 11:44
@MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk The thing I don't understand about people and organizations who advocate heavily for fossil fuels above any form of renewable at all is that fossil fuels are a limited resource. We can debate about whether the current supply will last another 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years, but at some point it's going to run out. Why not begin the process of switching to something else? The conversion is going to take a very long time, so your fossil fuel profits are still going to be safe for a while.
-
@tbortels@infosec.exchange 2026-07-31 12:22
@MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk Research is research. Future units will be more efficient. Looking at this and extrapolating to the future is like looking at a model T and assuming you could predict modern car culture. Simply multiplying is both misleading and misses the point. The reality is we need to look at and try all potential remediations, and one is not exclusive of others. Direct carbon capture doesn't mean we aren't also looking at conservation and other mechanisms. The unfortunate reality is we need to not simply stop dumping carbon into the atmosphere - we need to reverse the flow. Carbon capture and sequestration technologies is that process, and needs to happen *in addition to* conservation. I suspect the eventual efficient solution will be something not invented yet. But to get there we need to iterate on what we can achieve. This isn't a solution - it's part of a process.
-
@RueNahcMohr@infosec.exchange 2026-07-31 13:40
@MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk wouldn't a single tree capture about 4x that in a year?
-
@tbegush@mastodon.social 2026-07-31 12:57
@MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk how much carbon to build it?
-
@peturdainn@mastodon.social 2026-07-31 10:46
@MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk agree with the conclusion but for 36 seconds of global emissions you need another 876K of them, not 8M
-
@guigsy@mstdn.social 2026-07-31 11:16
@MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk for the amount of money these cost, you could have instead spent it on efficiency (like insulation) or renewables. And you'd have made an order of magnitude larger net reduction in CO2. Carbon capture is just bonkers.
-
@Simon318ppm@mastodon.sdf.org 2026-07-31 11:27
@MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk but I think I’m right in saying that, apart from the obvious distraction they provide the fossil fuel industry, US gas producers have also been using sequestered CO2 under pressure to extract previously inaccessible gas so most plants there were actually producing more carbon than they remove
-
@YakyuNightOwl@mastodon.world 2026-08-01 02:15
@MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk Trying to imagine a diaper that works 36 seconds a year appealing to mothers. Nope.