Planting trees doesn’t produce revenue for billionaires and shareholders. This does. Ergo we must produce expensive, over engineered machines to replace trees. Bees are next.

Neither trees nor these can help much if fossil fuels continue to be burned at increasing rates.

Also this plant are (with the latest technology) really less efficient than trees, like 60-70% less efficient IIRC.

Planting trees is only a temporary carbon hold. Also, it takes like 200 trees to offset the carbon for a years worth of driving from a single car.

I do have strong doubts about the usefulness of these fans, though.

Looks like your get the post text!

Fun fact, most of the O2 we breathe is processed from CO2 by algae, not trees.

I mean, trees help, but the planet is mostly covered in water, so algae has a bit of an advantage.

The problem is that the ocean has historically been one part that environmental activism has struggled with, because how do you hold someone accountable for ecological damage done on international waters?

Any damage there tends to then affect bays, natural marinas, shore lines, and other areas where algae like living.

Trees are good, but they can probably do more good by replacing these carbon capture systems with algae ponds. They're powered by the sun too.

Well we still need to capture the excess CO2 that we’ve pumped into the air for the last 200 years.

There's actually a new kind of gas turbine thermodynamic cycle that does in fact emit super-critical CO2 in a highly concentrated form that is extremely easy to collect and sequester. https://netpower.com/technology/

They're building a 300MW facility in Texas right now. I'd say this is a really solid contender for a transitionary power generation while we stand around with our heads in the sand.

Yep, it is, in part, a scam diversion by the fossil fuel industry

Honestly, my staunch conservationists viewpoints aside, tech just isn't as cheap or as efficient (holistically) as biological systems, or simply not destroying these systems.

All solutions like this do are to highlight my point, and the inherent value ecosystems have. However since plants don't make the line go up no one gives a shit or wants to look at the writing on the wall

This is how I have felt. I have never come across one of these where they can say it removes for carbon than are put in by a polluting source of electricity. The numbers you point out is also I hate when geoengineering comes up. The number of planes that you have to regularly fly to cloud seed or such and thats if it actually somehow worked and did not have some other bad effect. Its like we can visit these if we are pretty much at 100% not polluting. At that point maybe tech to reduce might make sense. might.

Developing this technology isn't a bad idea, since we'll need it to reduce damage in the future, but it isn't the solution we need to be focusing on.

Too late.

The thing about oceans is they have massive amounts of inertia.

We're still surviving on the inertia from before we fucked them up, but we've already fucked them up, and some of the consequences of that won't be apparent until 50 or 100 years from now.

Same with fixing them. We won't see the effects (or the unintended side effects) of anything we do to fix them for decades, and even then they'll probably be unnoticeable under the effects of how much we fucked them up before trying to fix them.

Stopping is probably indeed the best option, hopefully we haven't damaged them enough that they won't fix themselves eventually... but that'll take hundreds or more probably thousands of years.

My first thought was "bitcoin farm".

Unless it uses hydro, nuclear, wind, solar

If you put it right on the exhaust of a power plant it should be good no? Or not good as in good good, but better than nothing.

This will only ever make sense when we have carbon neutral energy that is “too cheap to meter.” So, like, nuclear fusion, or solar panels become cheaper than tar roofs. In other words, these systems will make sense after climate change is solved. lol.

That article's only real point is that we shouldn't pin our hopes entirely on sequestration. Nothing about it being invalid or "a scam."

Basically summed up in these two paragraphs:

On the one hand, putting more money into carbon removal will help scale up—and drive down the cost of—technologies that will be needed in the future.

On the other hand, the growing excitement around these technologies could feed unrealistic expectations about how much we can rely on carbon removal, and thus how much nations and corporations can carry on emitting over the crucial coming decades. Market demands are also likely to steer attention toward cheaper solutions that are not as reliable or long-lasting.

Carbon sequestration is likely to play a part in becoming carbon negative, and deserves to be explored.

That energy can come from somewhere that doesn't produce more carbon than these kinds of machine sequester. Solar, wind, nuclear. Obviously we need to stop burning fossil fuels, but also we need to turn the carbon we've already produced back into a form that won't find its way back into the air.

We need a study to determine how much energy is released from burning billionaires. That's the only way these things might be carbon-neutral!

So what if it required 1 watt?

You have to do actual math to determine if it’s worth it, not just write it off because it requires energy.

I thought it was just a picture of a new graphics card that was coming out. I almost didn't read it because I said to myself I couldn't afford a new graphics card in the next few years.

I believe that's what OPs caption in the post body is getting at

No no no! It doesn't work! It's bad actually!

And sea algae are even better.

Correct, but tech bros get rich so that's all that matters, right?

But if we can pretend that we might have an idea to solve it in the future we don't have to even pretend to do anything now!

Trees are socialist scum, I’ve heard they can even share resources via root and mycelium systems. Clearly false, because science can’t help but lie, but DISGUSTING nonetheless

Forests are a reservoir, they do not remove carbon from the carbon cycle. The only actual solution is to stop bringing carbon from outside the carbon cycle into the carbon cycle, while also removing the carbon we've already added. Natural phenomena cannot permanently sequester carbon, this is something humans will have to construct

I like that the headline calls them DAC plants

Plants

Plants

Plants

Just fucking plant plants holy shit