this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
146 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

79233 readers
3203 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, put these in Iceland, Scotland or the Sahara where there's virtually unlimited zero-carbon power available and they make a world of sense.

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Carbon dioxide needs to be captured were there is a lot of carbon dioxide in the air. So especially around cities with lots of car traffic, or around fossil fuel power plants...

So... It would be better to stop car traffic and fossil fuel power plants first, before doing carbon capture. And the purpose of that should be, making the air cleaner. And putting that carbon back into a less environmental damaging state.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

CO2 doesn't vary much in concentration by how close you are to an emission source unless you are literally sucking air out of a tailpipe. You might get a 10-20% increase in the centre of a city instead of the countryside, hardly enough to make up for being somewhere with so much energy coming in that they frequently have to curtail it (which could then be used for this instead).

This isnt CCS which cheaply turns CO2 into an inert form of carbon, its an expensive process for turning CO2 into a very useful form.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 3 hours ago

Sort of. Wind is very good at stirring things up, but you can still see differences in places where there are a lot of plants (1-2%). This things needs CO2 to function and that means it needs concentration so the more CO2 to start with the better.

Fortunately this is small and electric is something we already move to cities in large quantities. Putting it in a city makes sense - assuming it works and is safe of course.