Futurology

2103 readers

200 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

160

Carbon capture more costly than switching to renewables, researchers find (techxplore.com)

submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Expensive or not, we're well past the point where it's optional. Even if 100% of new carbon emissions stopped today, let alone by 2050, we'd need to continue developing carbon capture technologies to take out what we've already put in the atmosphere. Not every part of the fixing process needs to be profitable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Expensive or not, the cheapest option is renewables. Coal plants in Australia have closed down, unable to compete with solar and wind. We now export our coal to China

[–] yardy_sardley 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I agree with what you're saying, but developing the technology right now is quite counterproductive. The stopping of carbon emissions needs to happen first, and it needs to happen quickly. Every bit of energy spent on carbon capture projects would be better spent implementing renewable processes.

Furthermore, the technology currently functions as an accountability sink for heavy polluters. It allows them to hand-waive away the entire problem of emissions since there is this "panacea" just around the corner, thus slowing down actual meaningful climate action.

Carbon capture needs to be discredited as a solution until its purpose stops being the continuation of the status quo.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

I’m confused about this idea that cdr isn’t possible today.

https://undergroundforest.nl/english/