• 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Algae does it for free all the time. Physically trying to capture carbon dioxide is dumbassery. We need more investment in algae production.

    • astrsk@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      It could be beneficial for densely populated areas, though. Because you have predictable airflow and low-hanging regions to implement physical capture and sequestering. We can do more than one thing at a time and targeted approaches combined with generalized approaches will yield faster results.

      • 3volver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        In order for that we need more renewable energy, otherwise we’re just burning fossil fuel, producing carbon dioxide, and then capturing it. Solar, wind, algae biofuel, renewable diesel, green hydrogen, etc. We have to be careful how we use energy otherwise we’re just producing carbon dioxide to capture carbon dioxide.

        • mriguy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          25 days ago

          People keep complaining that solar and wind give us “too much electricity at the wrong time”, causing power prices to go negative (as if this is a problem). Having a beneficial process like co2 removal that you can do at any time of day (the co2 isn’t going anywhere) that would soak up all that energy seems like a win win.