9
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by eleitl@lemm.ee to c/collapse@lemm.ee

Abstract

Many modeling studies depend on direct air capture (DAC) in their 1.5°C stabilization scenarios. These studies rely on assumptions that are overly optimistic regarding the cost and scaling-up of DAC systems. This can lead to highly misleading results that can ultimately impact the ability to reach climate stabilization goals.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Thorry84@feddit.nl 3 points 1 month ago

Remember kids, it takes as least as much energy to put the carbon back as we got out of it when we released it. And because this is the real world and not some math on paper it takes somewhere between 8 and 12 times as much energy to put it back as we got out of it.

People think gas is expensive now, it should have been at least 10 times more expensive if we wanted it to be carbon neutral. Think about all the power we used by releasing carbon in just one year, we would need 10 years just to put it all back. Gasoline has powered the modern world, but it turned out to be a curse instead.

this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024
9 points (100.0% liked)

Collapse

388 readers
11 users here now

This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.


Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.


RULES

1 - Remember the human

2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source

3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.

4 - No low effort, high volume and low relevance posts.


Related lemmys:

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS