• CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are better and more efficient ideas than Industrial Plants needing energy, for example a system using some sort of Alge, wich grows fast, and is easy to store forever when dry.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      for example a system using some sort of Alge

      Wait, you’re making a big fuss over the type of natural photosynthesis we should use? Seriously?

      People commenting against the carbon capture as featured in the article argue about using natural ways instead and “tree” is just a shorthand for some, just as I used the broad term “plants”.

      Now don’t come and start splitting hairs like “But actually, algae are different from plants because the cells that comprise algae are not able to differentiate into different plant parts like stems, roots, and leaves, so I’m arguing for something completely different.”

      • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most plants aren’t suitable for permanent reduction of Carbon we would need way to much area, alge is however very efficient, some also want to use bacteria, but that may be risky.

        And yes, trees are important, but not the best (or if we are honest, Meaningful) way to solve the carbon problem.

        Another option would be to make lots of alcohol from plants and store it somewhere permanently. (ethanol is just a very compact carbohydrate)

        And further there might be industrial ways to take out carbon on mass permanently, we are just not yet shure.

        Anyway, the first priority should be to reduce released of more carbon into the atmosphere.