47 points DeepLogin 1 hour ago 15 comments
reactordev 31 minutes ago | parent
Full steam ahead towards greenhouse gases, climate change, and +5degree temperatures. Why not?
bayindirh 15 minutes ago | parent
Because it'll create value.
Value which won't bring anything to anyone. I mean, a couple of people can be more richerer, but we and them won't have a planet to spend or enjoy these theoretical riches at the end.
So, no biggie.
jeroenhd 5 minutes ago | parent
The USA is already holding the record for greenhouse gas pollution per capita and they elected the lunatic that raved about climate change being a hoax. I'm surprised this didn't happen earlier.
bethekidyouwant 21 minutes ago | parent
The 2024 standards required existing coal plants and new gas plants to capture 90 percent of carbon emissions or shut down by 2039.
- wow 2039. So this already had no teeth. We can just pass this law again in 2029.
SomeHacker44 8 minutes ago | parent
Not a law. A regulation. If it were a law, it would have required Congress to change. Not that that would likely have stopped this administration.
fakedang 7 minutes ago | parent
That's because the technology is already there, if plants were willing to run at a bit of a higher OpEx and add some CapEx. Amine scrubbing coupled with decades-old technology like Rotary Packed Beds Reactors can already capture 90% of CO2 at minimum. The UAE's Ruwais facility already does this onsite and uses the captured CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery (aka fracking for the last bits of oil in wells). This has the benefit of sequestering CO2 while also not using water for fracking as an option.
rassimmoc 6 minutes ago | parent
I think this is good idea. I am not against combating climate change, but it can't come at the expanse of our economy. If you disagree stop using whatever device you are reading this on.