• Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    1 day ago

    Great. So we’ll waste energy capturing and compressing a useless gas, then we’ll just release that into the atmosphere when it’s capitalistically convenient? Brilliant. Great work, Google. You’ve really gone green. /s

    • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The co2 used is a fixed amount that resides in a closed loop and never gets released to make the battery work.

      Try not to make a fool of yourself next time or you’ll damage the ideals you are fighting for.

      • SpikesOtherDog@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        I hoped this was going to be direct air capture. Then I realized that all the excess gasses would be valuable, and the system would oxidize faster pulling in atmosphere.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      let’s assume 100% of this CO2 was generated from fossil fuels and eventually will be released into the atmosphere.

      is that any less green than grid storage batteries built from massive amounts of mined metals with an enormous CO2 footprint?

      • bcovertigo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        From the IEEE article

        If the worst happens and the dome is punctured, 2,000 tonnes of CO2 will enter the atmosphere. That’s equivalent to the emissions of about 15 round-trip flights between New York and London on a Boeing 777. “It’s negligible compared to the emissions of a coal plant,” Spadacini says. People will also need to stay back 70 meters or more until the air clears, he says.

    • themurphy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      If you want to fight for something, please learn what you stand behind.

      Battery facilities is the next step in green energy, and I like to see different approaches to this. That is what we need right now.

      Will this turn out to be a worse option than what will be invented in 10 years? Almost 100% sure. But did it help us getting to a better place? Yes.

      Fuck Google for alot of things though, but it doesnt make sense to do blind hate when they try these things.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        If you want to fight for something, please learn what you stand behind.

        And how do you know I haven’t? Do you have insight into my mind?

        Here’s my stance: Fuck Google. When have they ever done anything for the benefit of humanity? If this turns out to do exactly what it says on the tin, I’ll be happy to eat my words, but pardon me if I don’t believe that Google is suddenly interested in clean energy.

        • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          And lets take a step back to see the forest for the trees and realize the destination for this energy is more AI slop with little to no use for anyone.

          It’s like celebrating some company deciding to use EV bulldozers to demolish the Amazon rainforest.

          • Telorand@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Exactly. It would have been better for them to put their money towards not generating CO2 in the first place. Batteries are nothing special, and they’re signing off on this project so they can appear green, because it uses CO2.