• kakes@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    The question to always ask with these articles is: Is this process prohibitively expensive, or does the process output more CO2 overall than you input? It’s always one of the two.

    • Rhaedas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      A third question is, can it scale up to what’s needed to begin to make a dent in the problem. The answer will unfortunately always be no, not even close. That’s how much we’ve put in the air and oceans, the numbers are huge.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        the articke does focus on that as a big hurdle, with this “valley of death” analogy

        • kakes@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t believe it’s a waste of resources to research these things, but it gets old seeing the same headline every month for decades on end. At this point, if it isn’t an actionable process, don’t bother wasting my time with an article.

        • Delta_V@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Storing carbon as sodium formate has the same problem as storing it as trees - bacteria will eat it and release CO2. Its also not useful as portable fuel - its energy density is an order of magnitude less than kerosene.

          Its potential use as a battery is interesting though. I can imagine a system where a long lasting catalyst is used to fill a tank of sodium formate using waste CO2 from industrial processes and excess electrical generation capacity from renewable sources like wind and solar, and the machines that use sodium formate to generate electricity at times of low wind and solar generation could potentially be less polluting overall compared to mining lithium for new batteries and recycling worn out lithium batteries.

        • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Don’t decomposing plants spawn new, live plants? Acorns or something, I dunno. I’m not a biologist.

    • MisterD@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Another greenwashing method.

      The slow boil will continue

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      These articles always avoid answering questions like that and are never detailed enough to inform you. I read this as, without the facts to support it, their process is similarly efficient to others, but yields a more stable end product. If the process scales, it will be more suitable for long term storage than previous attempts

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Actually they miss the bigger truth. Unless we direct the bulk of the world’s resources by dismantling the current world order, this shit ain’t ever happening, and the climate is going to cripple the world order inevitably.