Permanent materials that won't degrade quickly would be far more beneficial for the goal, as it truly captures and removes the carbon from the cycle that feeds warming. Fuels, not so much, as the only good part is it supposedly replaces fossil fuels from the ground (i.e. new carbon), so less of a true impact on carbon in the environment. But will it be at a competitive cost to even make a large difference?

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This thing produces ethylene, so there’s a huge temptation to use it for CCU, instead of CCS. I guess you could still turn that into more stable forms, such as plastic, but don’t we already have too much of that.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

CCU, CCS?

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Carbon Capture and Utilization = Capture the CO2, turn it into fuel, burn it and return to square one of the climate crisis.

Carbon Capture and Storage = Basically like digging up coal and burning it, but in reverse. The end result is less CO2 in the atmosphere and more carbon locked away underground.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

Thanks!