• 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    22 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
      6
      ·
      22 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.

      • 3volver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 days ago

        Yea, and one of the best ways to sequester carbon dioxide is by using algae. Algae biofuels are a great way out of the climate crisis. Use excess energy to produce algae biofuel, net negative emissions.

        • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 days ago

          But if it’s used as fuel, wouldn’t that typically return the CO2? Just about all fuels are burned, which creates the CO2, and you have to make sure the energy you use to make and transport the fuel is clean, too.

            • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 days ago

              How does it stay net negative? Carbon goes into the fuel, which is good, but doesn’t like all of it come back out when burned for fuel? My understanding is that these fuels can only really achieve neutrality, and that assumes clean energy used to make the fuel.