• Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      They are not doing some “reverse energy consumption” (which would break at least 1 law of TD if successful) so as long as they don’t emit more co2 than they capture there are net benefits.

      Common, it’s not that hard.

      • eleitl@lemm.eeOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        So where is the energy for capture and injection coming from?

        Why are they unable to even negate their own footprint?

              • eleitl@lemm.eeOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 days ago

                My bad. I thought I was just providing leading questions. Oh, well.

                • Valmond@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  20 days ago

                  Explain why it would break a TD law if you’re serious (it doesn’t but I don’t understand why you think it would).

                  • eleitl@lemm.eeOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    19 days ago

                    I said fighting against the laws of thermodynamics.

                    Look at entropy in Direct Air Capture in https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00043 What is missing in above is renewable energy infrastructure capable of rebuilding itself, rebuilding the DAC infrastructure and also powering it, and also provide enough surplus for infrastructure growth, using only non-fossil input.

                    You might find replicating fully autopoietic biological photosynthesis a remarkably hard task.