• CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I feel like you could do both? carbon capture facility underground with trees ontop and intakes poking through the ground? Wouldn’t even have to burry the facility just build it with a heavy duty roof garden in mind.

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Tree roots go down far. You definitely could not run carbon sequestering underneath.

      But then again, why would you? Why even bother with sucking it out of the air if trees are so much cheaper? And the added benefit is that you’ll be rewilding land, so it impacts biodiversity too.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As mentioned elswhere in the thread, running a carbon capture plant is something you could just do when renewables are producing excess output which would be more efficient than just winding them down.

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Very few renewables are wound down, though. Usually the excess is used to fill pumped storage or turn down hydro plants. For now that’s a viable strategy but soon are exceed renewable will be have to be used someplace else so it’s not a bad idea. I doubt it’ll be enough though.