• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    It should be blatantly obvious just from basic thermodynamics that carbon capture cannot ever possibly be cheaper than not burning the fossil fuels in the first place.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      No, definitely not cheaper. Also not a viable alternative to not burning.

      That said, we’re probably going to need it eventually to try to undo even a small amount of the damage we’ve done

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        Problem is that it’s not being used to undo the damage - it’s being used to justify doing more.

        Solar - even with batteries is significantly cheaper under almost any circumstances… Location, scale, photovoltaics vs thermal - it only tends to affect how much cheaper. Wind is cheaper too, but less so on average.

        Funny how pulling power out of thin air is cheaper and better than digging it out of the ground, shipping it all over the place and burning it.

    • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I do wonder if it could be beneficial for the case of excess solar/wind/etc production. Obviously, renewable infrastructure, storage capacity, and efficient transfer should be prioritized, but I can see there being a place for carbon capture, as long as it’s not to the detriment of something better.

      Edit: but i do totally agree with you that using fossil fuels to power carbon capture is completely idiotic and makes no sense