this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58458 readers
4532 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (16 children)

Algae does it for free all the time. Physically trying to capture carbon dioxide is dumbassery. We need more investment in algae production.

[–] astrsk@kbin.run 0 points 3 months ago (7 children)

It could be beneficial for densely populated areas, though. Because you have predictable airflow and low-hanging regions to implement physical capture and sequestering. We can do more than one thing at a time and targeted approaches combined with generalized approaches will yield faster results.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)