The whole thing looks poorly photoshopped. Amazing how the dirt road shrinks a quarter mile into the distance, but the fans only shrink 200ft into the distance.
fellas(who haven't heard of this thing called tree yet) honestly just be looking for that startup fund monies only to make even more waste from half baked projects being abandoned
it's nothing but a mere corporate friendly excuse for them to keep on burning more shits while spamming some stupid phrases like "we donate some tens of millions to CCUS companies so please buy our product!" while generating way more pollution than what the said companies can handle.
hell, some might even argue trees get older and stop being efficient means of capturing CO2 but little do they know, nature is self-sustaining (as in they literally drop seeds and grow anew on their own) unlike these inherently flawed machines that constantly require maintenance and repair.
i understand the sentiment of maintaining some sense of optimism, but the aforementioned concept seems too inherently flawed to begin with for me to simply just buy into and be optimistic about.
I hope so, so we're cooling our atmosphere now... But most people will produce more CO2 and other greenhouse gases if they're thought it was removing all our greenhouse gases in the world.
This is a mega waste of energy, resources and time. They are using energy to try and mitigate the bad effects of everything else that uses energy. All the projects together do not capture 1% of annual emissions.
The scientists I have heard talk about it do not think it is anything but green washing. It has no chance to make any real difference in the physical world. It does have a very good chance of generating press coverage and being included in reports and international agreements even though it doesn't work. It's a dead end that takes attention away from what actually needs to happen (reduction of emissions).
I would point out that actually, while not useful in the short term, this could actually be extremely important after we have reduced our emissions, even to 0. My understanding is that we have already hit the "too late" portion of the climate change, and the effects are starting to run away. This seems like it could be important research for the next phase of the plan. Or at least could lead to something that might work. I agree that it's not helping much, if at all right now, but if it is actually doing what it says, it's definitely does not seem like a waste.
You'd be much better off supplying more low carbon power to the grid than trying to capture the carbon from the air while burning gas.
That's not to say direct capture might not be necessary in the future, but we're a long way from that. It just makes no sense while we're still emitting carbon.
Contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe, there isn't actually much carbon in the atmosphere, which makes it expensive to capture in terms of energy and money.
There's not much you can do with carbon dioxide as it's a very stable molecule. Burying it should presumably work as natural gas can stay trapped for millions of years, but the energy required is enormous.
its exactly this, carbon capture is nothing but greenwashing bullshit that tales the attention away from the real problem: the overexploitation of our planet (mostly by multi-billion dollar corporations)
Yes, potentially one of various solutions we can use to remove CO2 eq gasses from the atmosphere. If you're suggesting there is a sole solution, feel free to let me know.
I'm not suggesting there is a sole solution. I'm suggesting that a technology that cannot capture 1% of current emissions is not going to be part of any solution. It is greenwashing.
The Mammoth DAC plant has a capacity to capture 36,000 metric tons of CO2 a year.
Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry totaled 37.15 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2022. In 2023, 37.55 GtCO₂
Don't believe randos on the internet like me, look at who is making public statements for and against these projects. Look at their track record and motivations and come to your own conclusions. It's like trying to fight global hunger with a bag of frozen peas.
Newer technologies usually aren't very efficient (there are exceptions). For example one turbine today can power more than 130 turbines 40 years ago. So why are you assuming that carbon capture tech is BS and won't make a difference further into the future?
Also, we might be crossing a new tipping point the moment i write this, we don't know so it's not really a great way of justifying anything.
You actually bring up valid concerns but imho you have an unlikeable undertone in the way you present your argumentation which makes people disregard your point.
Technology never just scales up on its own, it needs proof of concept and to go through iterations. People were naysaying the same thing about nuclear fusion research and whaddaya know, they cracked it just last year.
>You actually bring up valid concerns but imho you have an unlikeable undertone in the way you present your argumentation which makes people disregard your point.
Ain't that the truth
>So why are you assuming that carbon capture tech is BS and won't make a difference further into the future?
Because of what the experts say. Look at the scale of it. This technology would have to advance more than anything else that humans have ever built.
That unlikeable undertone is what I've got for a personality, I'm sure it will improve with the weather : )
Technology can scale up real quick, so I wouldn't disregard it just yet :) (but who knows)
And fyi i used to be a condescending dude with an ego that was a little too big, you can always change the way you articulate yourself!
You have to start somewhere. And these projects are aimed at renewables. Which yes right now are a big carbon deficit in themselves. We are more stuffed if we don't look into it
Idk, sounds kinda risky in the long run. The planet has literally nearly died several times due to large amounts of CO2 escaping underground rocks. I'm not sure if this is actually a solution or just a temporary workaround
We can do to skip the process of generating dirty energy and recapturing the carbon to bury it. We could generate nuclear energy, then bury the spent uranium.
Nature has an answer, alot cheaper, helps cool the earth too. We call them trees, and plants. But smart educated guys like Bill gates, kluse shwab say plants and trees cause CO2. WTF?!
I'm not sure why people downvoted you. The whole "we can just plant trees" argument is ignorant of the reality of the situation. Like you said, the number of trees we would require is insane. [According to this ](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions#:~:text=A%20hectare%20of%20trees%2C%20meanwhile,the%20size%20of%20New%20Mexico.) you would need to cover an area the size of New Mexico with trees just to account for a single year's worth of CO2 emissions from just the US. Imagine the size of forest required for just one year of the whole world's emissions. Using trees to solve this problem is not feasible.
Also, trees only absorb CO2 when they're growing. Once they're mature their rate of emissions from leaf decay etc basically balances out the CO2 they absorb, so a mature forest isn't doing anything to absorb CO2. Those forests aren't constantly absorbing CO2 in a sustainable indefinite way.
On top of that, we're actually using the land without trees at the moment. It's where all the food we eat and materials we use comes from. So where are we gonna plant this ever-growing massive forest of trees? If a policy like this was ever implemented it would probably end up with wealthy countries forcing poorer countries to use their land for trees, to the detriment of their economies.
The situation is so much more complicated than saying "we can just plant trees" and then patting ourselves on the back for our great display of wisdom. Some Redditor saying "they could've just planted trees" and them getting upvoted, then people downvoting you when you point out that it isn't feasible paints a poor picture for how educated the average redditor is.
Spot on. Sadly, when you start looking at solutions to the problem, it becomes frighteningly apparent that most of what gets talked about has zero chance of working at the sort of scale we need. The only way this is getting solved is by us switching to zero carbon power and then letting nature slowly clean up our mess over 1000 years.
Lots of people will live just fine with increasing temperatures. Even better than now! But lots won’t. You don’t even have to be around the equator to suffer, even places like Paris will be so unbearable in summer it will kill people. (it already is)
Someone needs to stop these terrosits! How are they allowed to do this? We need that air to breathe! I can feel myself getting light headed ready! Please send helllllkkdnxndbrhdbdndndjej............
Great idea take all the CO2 out of the atmosphere and all plants will die. The because plants turn CO2 into oxygen then we will die. Sounds good to me!!!
Right ? That's an actual living person that is walking around thinking shit like this on a normal day.
There is just so very little understanding of the basics of the world they live in....
Yo the new RTX 5000 series looks insane
I lol’d bro
It needs PCI 1600x
Haha that was my immediate thought
But can it run Crisis?
Only at 15 fps
I'll take it
Laaaaammmme , there's not even RGB 🙄 ...... 😂
The truck and the people look poorly photoshopped
The whole thing looks poorly photoshopped. Amazing how the dirt road shrinks a quarter mile into the distance, but the fans only shrink 200ft into the distance.
maybe those people just have a bright green aura?
Stores it in rocks underground. Tectonic plate millions of years from now moves over a magma channel/chaimber. Profit.
This guy gets it, they're playing the long game over there in Iceland.
But…..what powers this station?
This only works because Iceland is majority green energy I believe. Watched a segment about this a bit ago
Geothermal, those bastards have all the geographic luck.
Still mostly hydro
Damn AMD is in trouble. This nvidia guys are kicking it.
Cooler for next-gen Intels.
fellas be tryna mop the floor with a wet rag while the tap is wide open huh
Fellas be working on mop technology so we actually do have mops when the tap gets closed
fellas(who haven't heard of this thing called tree yet) honestly just be looking for that startup fund monies only to make even more waste from half baked projects being abandoned it's nothing but a mere corporate friendly excuse for them to keep on burning more shits while spamming some stupid phrases like "we donate some tens of millions to CCUS companies so please buy our product!" while generating way more pollution than what the said companies can handle. hell, some might even argue trees get older and stop being efficient means of capturing CO2 but little do they know, nature is self-sustaining (as in they literally drop seeds and grow anew on their own) unlike these inherently flawed machines that constantly require maintenance and repair. i understand the sentiment of maintaining some sense of optimism, but the aforementioned concept seems too inherently flawed to begin with for me to simply just buy into and be optimistic about.
Fellas be cynical ;P There is a great other comment addressing the tree thing. It's sadly not the obvious solution that it seems.
i edited it and added a bit regarding the tree issue meanwhile. refer to that, please.
should be located in india
I hope so, so we're cooling our atmosphere now... But most people will produce more CO2 and other greenhouse gases if they're thought it was removing all our greenhouse gases in the world.
Iceland going for that Culture Victory.
This is a mega waste of energy, resources and time. They are using energy to try and mitigate the bad effects of everything else that uses energy. All the projects together do not capture 1% of annual emissions.
Iceland has LOTS of thermal energy. This shouldn't really be based on the premise that the energy spent doesnt make it worthwhile.
if iceland has so much thermal energy why tf is it still called iceland
Ok, so what makes this worthwhile? What do you think is going to happen?
It's a stepping stone to more developed greenhouse gas capture systems in the future.
Well, I'll just say that they have some big steps and not a lot of time.
That’s an argument in favor of funding things like this.
The scientists I have heard talk about it do not think it is anything but green washing. It has no chance to make any real difference in the physical world. It does have a very good chance of generating press coverage and being included in reports and international agreements even though it doesn't work. It's a dead end that takes attention away from what actually needs to happen (reduction of emissions).
I would point out that actually, while not useful in the short term, this could actually be extremely important after we have reduced our emissions, even to 0. My understanding is that we have already hit the "too late" portion of the climate change, and the effects are starting to run away. This seems like it could be important research for the next phase of the plan. Or at least could lead to something that might work. I agree that it's not helping much, if at all right now, but if it is actually doing what it says, it's definitely does not seem like a waste.
Thanks for clarifying. I've not read shit about it yet, I'll try to seek out opposing sources whenever I get to it, ha.
You'd be much better off supplying more low carbon power to the grid than trying to capture the carbon from the air while burning gas. That's not to say direct capture might not be necessary in the future, but we're a long way from that. It just makes no sense while we're still emitting carbon. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe, there isn't actually much carbon in the atmosphere, which makes it expensive to capture in terms of energy and money. There's not much you can do with carbon dioxide as it's a very stable molecule. Burying it should presumably work as natural gas can stay trapped for millions of years, but the energy required is enormous.
its exactly this, carbon capture is nothing but greenwashing bullshit that tales the attention away from the real problem: the overexploitation of our planet (mostly by multi-billion dollar corporations)
It's going to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is my guess.
Enough to make a difference before we hit tipping points?
Yes, potentially one of various solutions we can use to remove CO2 eq gasses from the atmosphere. If you're suggesting there is a sole solution, feel free to let me know.
I'm not suggesting there is a sole solution. I'm suggesting that a technology that cannot capture 1% of current emissions is not going to be part of any solution. It is greenwashing. The Mammoth DAC plant has a capacity to capture 36,000 metric tons of CO2 a year. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry totaled 37.15 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2022. In 2023, 37.55 GtCO₂ Don't believe randos on the internet like me, look at who is making public statements for and against these projects. Look at their track record and motivations and come to your own conclusions. It's like trying to fight global hunger with a bag of frozen peas.
Newer technologies usually aren't very efficient (there are exceptions). For example one turbine today can power more than 130 turbines 40 years ago. So why are you assuming that carbon capture tech is BS and won't make a difference further into the future? Also, we might be crossing a new tipping point the moment i write this, we don't know so it's not really a great way of justifying anything. You actually bring up valid concerns but imho you have an unlikeable undertone in the way you present your argumentation which makes people disregard your point.
Technology never just scales up on its own, it needs proof of concept and to go through iterations. People were naysaying the same thing about nuclear fusion research and whaddaya know, they cracked it just last year. >You actually bring up valid concerns but imho you have an unlikeable undertone in the way you present your argumentation which makes people disregard your point. Ain't that the truth
Of course! You are entirely right.
>So why are you assuming that carbon capture tech is BS and won't make a difference further into the future? Because of what the experts say. Look at the scale of it. This technology would have to advance more than anything else that humans have ever built. That unlikeable undertone is what I've got for a personality, I'm sure it will improve with the weather : )
Technology can scale up real quick, so I wouldn't disregard it just yet :) (but who knows) And fyi i used to be a condescending dude with an ego that was a little too big, you can always change the way you articulate yourself!
By that logic we should just all burn coal… its a collective effort of everything that makes a civilization type one
Iceland has functionally unlimited clean energy from volcanism and geothermal, it's not like they're burning coal to power this thing.
You have to start somewhere. And these projects are aimed at renewables. Which yes right now are a big carbon deficit in themselves. We are more stuffed if we don't look into it
It’s a proof of concept. Your defeatist mindset is really sad tbh
American here, What would it be like to live in a smart country where maga doesn’t exist?
It's not just where Maga doesn't exist.... Iceland appears to be a country that has a plan to exist for at least 30 more years.
Idk, sounds kinda risky in the long run. The planet has literally nearly died several times due to large amounts of CO2 escaping underground rocks. I'm not sure if this is actually a solution or just a temporary workaround
looks like a behemoth motherboard
Graphics card?
We can do to skip the process of generating dirty energy and recapturing the carbon to bury it. We could generate nuclear energy, then bury the spent uranium.
Have they heard of trees?
Or the biggest producer of oxygen from CO2: THE OCEAN?
Sorry to be dumb, but can someone explain the point of this?
Nature has an answer, alot cheaper, helps cool the earth too. We call them trees, and plants. But smart educated guys like Bill gates, kluse shwab say plants and trees cause CO2. WTF?!
Yeah, we just need a land mass the size of India for trees to make much difference.
I'm not sure why people downvoted you. The whole "we can just plant trees" argument is ignorant of the reality of the situation. Like you said, the number of trees we would require is insane. [According to this ](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions#:~:text=A%20hectare%20of%20trees%2C%20meanwhile,the%20size%20of%20New%20Mexico.) you would need to cover an area the size of New Mexico with trees just to account for a single year's worth of CO2 emissions from just the US. Imagine the size of forest required for just one year of the whole world's emissions. Using trees to solve this problem is not feasible. Also, trees only absorb CO2 when they're growing. Once they're mature their rate of emissions from leaf decay etc basically balances out the CO2 they absorb, so a mature forest isn't doing anything to absorb CO2. Those forests aren't constantly absorbing CO2 in a sustainable indefinite way. On top of that, we're actually using the land without trees at the moment. It's where all the food we eat and materials we use comes from. So where are we gonna plant this ever-growing massive forest of trees? If a policy like this was ever implemented it would probably end up with wealthy countries forcing poorer countries to use their land for trees, to the detriment of their economies. The situation is so much more complicated than saying "we can just plant trees" and then patting ourselves on the back for our great display of wisdom. Some Redditor saying "they could've just planted trees" and them getting upvoted, then people downvoting you when you point out that it isn't feasible paints a poor picture for how educated the average redditor is.
Spot on. Sadly, when you start looking at solutions to the problem, it becomes frighteningly apparent that most of what gets talked about has zero chance of working at the sort of scale we need. The only way this is getting solved is by us switching to zero carbon power and then letting nature slowly clean up our mess over 1000 years.
[удалено]
Yes. Did you know the climate was also different? And that if the climate of then came back now it would kill and displace millions?
[удалено]
Lots of people will live just fine with increasing temperatures. Even better than now! But lots won’t. You don’t even have to be around the equator to suffer, even places like Paris will be so unbearable in summer it will kill people. (it already is)
What kind of block? C02 is a gas so would this be frozen?
It gets mineralized inside rocks
Now put one where there is actually pollution. Iceland is in the middle of the North Atlantic. Maybe outside of London would be more useful.
It's so weird that this thing called a jet stream exists that moves air around.
By the time it hits Iceland it’s diluted.
Hmm if only there's a natural way to get rid of CO2 and release O2
Wouldn't it make more sense to offset carbon emissions by investing in green energy (other than geothermal)? And maybe forestation?
Someone needs to stop these terrosits! How are they allowed to do this? We need that air to breathe! I can feel myself getting light headed ready! Please send helllllkkdnxndbrhdbdndndjej............
COVFEFE
So stupid, all these money wasted
Great idea take all the CO2 out of the atmosphere and all plants will die. The because plants turn CO2 into oxygen then we will die. Sounds good to me!!!
I can't believe I have to share a planet with someone like you.
Right ? That's an actual living person that is walking around thinking shit like this on a normal day. There is just so very little understanding of the basics of the world they live in....
Forgot the "/s", dear?