• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The problem is that this is a theoretical minimum, not an actual, proposed process. We’d need a way to attract CO2 to separate it from the rest of the air, and afaik that doesn’t exist. Any actual process is likely to be far less than 100% efficient, probably an order of magnitude or more less.

    This is an example of a real proposal, but I have no idea how efficient it is. It would be a lot more helpful if this article provided a realistic example instead of some back-of-the-napkin math.

    • shrugs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      We’d need a way to attract CO2 to separate it from the rest of the air, and afaik that doesn’t exist.

      Call me crazy but what about plants and trees?! 🤷🏼‍♂️

      They might not be 100% efficient but it’s dirt cheap to plant them, let alone not destroy the rest we still have