this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
-12 points (16.7% liked)

Hardware

5143 readers
281 users here now

All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.


Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:


Rules (Click to Expand):

  1. Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about

  2. Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.

  3. No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.

  4. Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.

  5. Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).

  6. If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.


Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] itkovian@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago

No it won't.

[–] xyro@morbier.foo 9 points 3 days ago

Carbon capture technology is the new Greenwashing

[–] tal@lemmy.today 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I'm pretty sure that it's more energy efficient to not emit a given amount of carbon dioxide by not emitting it via combustion than it is to mechanically capture and sequester it from the atmosphere once emitted.

If you can exploit some process that isn't directly driven by human-provided energy, like iron seeding of algae, where you're leveraging plant photosynthesis, okay, then maybe.

Also, even if you have some way of sequestering carbon dioxide, if you're still emitting it, it's gonna be cheaper to just capture it at the point of generation than to process atmospheric air.

[–] itkovian@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Carbon capture is not meant to work. It is used to make everyone think that rich fucks actually care about the environment, when they really don't.