this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
404 points (93.3% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

13653 readers
398 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I can't wait until they makes these no cost, low-maintenance, and self-replacing. Oh man, just think of how easy it would be to fix our climate issues!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] porksnort@slrpnk.net 94 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Direct air capture is a scam. It requires energy that comes from somewhere else. Capturing CO2 requires energy, it’s basic physics/chemistry.

Nothing about it makes sense excpet as an expensive boondoggle and a distraction for correcting the root causes of climate change.

MIT tech review article

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 38 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This will only ever make sense when we have carbon neutral energy that is “too cheap to meter.” So, like, nuclear fusion, or solar panels become cheaper than tar roofs. In other words, these systems will make sense after climate change is solved. lol.

[–] porksnort@slrpnk.net 3 points 5 days ago
[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

That energy can come from somewhere that doesn't produce more carbon than these kinds of machine sequester. Solar, wind, nuclear. Obviously we need to stop burning fossil fuels, but also we need to turn the carbon we've already produced back into a form that won't find its way back into the air.

[–] porksnort@slrpnk.net 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It can, but it isn’t and it won’t. DAC is a scam and a distraction until fossil fuels are out of the equation. It is a false hope, a glamour, to keep us from addressing the root causes.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Once fossil fuels are out of the equation, we will still need to sequester carbon. And at point, it will actually be powered by renewables.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

When fossil fuels are out of the equation, civilization will have to learn to live on a roughly 3 to 1 EROEI as opposed to the 100:1 of the prewar period and the roughly 20:1 today.

Your surplus energy decides your civilizational metabolic rate and is a key pillar of what is possible. Are we building shit like this at 3:1? What are we giving up for it?

https://www.collapse2050.com/eroei-civilizations-decline/

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Are we building shit like this at 3:1?

No, and we never will if the technology doesn't improve. The carbon has to go, there's no two ways about it

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

The carbon, or us has to go. If we couldn't afford to not emit it in the first place during the years of plenty, there is zero chance of getting rid of it in the lean years.

Any carbon emitted is carbon we will have to try and live with.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Cmon bro

They’re building nuclear plants for AI, you think they’re gonna build what, wind farms to run a DAC plant? They just basically made it unaffordable to put solar on your own home, do you think they won’t be like “lol build a natural gas power plant to run it”

Nothing gets done if the Saudis don’t win.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Kind of stupid to say its all about the Saudis when the US produces more oil and gas products than most every other country. In fact, Saudi Arabia produces literally half as much oil as we do here

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

None of this addresses the comment I left. I never said the saudis are gonna be the pioneers of renewable powered DAC lmfao

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

Saudis are a stand-in for “big oil” as a whole. In other words, the oil barons of the world aren’t going to let renewables power anything; DAC will be fossil fuels; “clean” coal/nautural gas and they will release more CO2 than they can capture of course because that’s just thermodynamics.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That article's only real point is that we shouldn't pin our hopes entirely on sequestration. Nothing about it being invalid or "a scam."

Basically summed up in these two paragraphs:

On the one hand, putting more money into carbon removal will help scale up—and drive down the cost of—technologies that will be needed in the future.

On the other hand, the growing excitement around these technologies could feed unrealistic expectations about how much we can rely on carbon removal, and thus how much nations and corporations can carry on emitting over the crucial coming decades. Market demands are also likely to steer attention toward cheaper solutions that are not as reliable or long-lasting.

Carbon sequestration is likely to play a part in becoming carbon negative, and deserves to be explored.

[–] porksnort@slrpnk.net 3 points 5 days ago

Until fossil fuels are not a part of the energy equation, DAC is a band-aid where a tourniquet is required. Sure do research, but DAC will never work while we are burning fossil fuels for energy. It doesn’t even make economic sense.

[–] regedit@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We need a study to determine how much energy is released from burning billionaires. That's the only way these things might be carbon-neutral!

[–] porksnort@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 days ago

Finally, someone who gets it!

[–] ronigami@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So what if it required 1 watt?

You have to do actual math to determine if it’s worth it, not just write it off because it requires energy.

[–] porksnort@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The more you spend, the more you save!

The math has been done to death. CO2 capture requires energy input and doesn’t yield any. This is basic stuff.

[–] ronigami@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Yes, but just because you are spending energy doesn’t mean you are emitting a lot of carbon. Especially if your power comes from nuclear.