408

Entropy? Never heard of it. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

157 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 30 points 3 weeks ago

The argument is that there exist some use cases where we do not have a viable low carbon energy source yet (things like heavy farming equipment or aircraft), and one can effectively counteract the emissions of these things until we do develop one. Or alternatively, by the time that we eliminate all the high carbon energy, the heating effect already present may be well beyond what we desire the climate to be like, and returning it to a prior state would require not just not emitting carbon, but removing some of what is already there.

[-] artificialfish@programming.dev 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I just literally can’t imagine a machine that is both cheaper and easier to deploy than the green goo we call life. Plant a tree. It’ll even spread itself. They look pretty.

[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago

Unfortunately, this is one area human imagination and intuition fail. Trees are great, but the math shows they simply aren't remotely viable as a means of bulk carbon sequestration.

[-] artificialfish@programming.dev 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I think you have to cut them down and bury them (or at least don’t burn them) for the carbon to “go away”.

That’s how it got underground to begin with.

Still until we actually 100% switch everything we could power off solar and wind to solar and wind, active carbon capture doesn’t make sense, sense we could use that clean energy for direct purposes instead of cleanup. I’m not sure we will ever have “excess energy” like that, we will always rather use it for something other than cleaning up our mess, like AI.