• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    The problem is that this is a theoretical minimum, not an actual, proposed process. We’d need a way to attract CO2 to separate it from the rest of the air, and afaik that doesn’t exist. Any actual process is likely to be far less than 100% efficient, probably an order of magnitude or more less.

    This is an example of a real proposal, but I have no idea how efficient it is. It would be a lot more helpful if this article provided a realistic example instead of some back-of-the-napkin math.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Oh yeah, I agree it’s super inefficient currently. But if the theoretical 100% efficient process is 5% of our current yearly energy expenditure, that sounds promising and suggests we shouldn’t just write off the idea.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Exactly. I want to see some investment into CO2 removal. If that’s cheaper than retooling everything, we should do it. If it’s not, we should do a little bit of it to help remove the negatives of climate change as we transition to a more responsible society.

        I say we tax carbon emissions at around the theoretical removal cost, and then use some of that to invest in removal tech.

    • shrugs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      We’d need a way to attract CO2 to separate it from the rest of the air, and afaik that doesn’t exist.

      Call me crazy but what about plants and trees?! 🤷🏼‍♂️

      They might not be 100% efficient but it’s dirt cheap to plant them, let alone not destroy the rest we still have