- cerement ( @cerement@slrpnk.net ) 24•9 months ago
Carbon Capture and Storage has proven highly effective at injecting taxpayer dollars straight into politicians’ pockets
- Overzeetop ( @Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz ) 9•9 months ago
That’s a half truth.
A lot of money was funneled directly into corporate profits and the pockets of carbon sequestration speculators.
- JackbyDev ( @JackbyDev@programming.dev ) English23•9 months ago
If you Google anything the first results are sponsored links.
- emberwit ( @emberwit@feddit.de ) English10•9 months ago
…and that should tell you all you need to know.
- neidu ( @neidu@feddit.nl ) 17•9 months ago
As much as I agree with the implication that O&G companies latch on to every potential carbon sink as a way to greenwash themselves, carbon capture does have merits.
However, the only ones who can currently utilize carbon capture on a significant scale are the ones who produce a lot of carbon to begin with. Technology will have to advance drastically for it to be a carbon sink effective enough to offset emission to the point where emission cuts can be scaled down.
Source: Last year I was involved in surveyon an area that was planned for huge-scale carbon storage after capture.
- FiskFisk33 ( @FiskFisk33@startrek.website ) 15•9 months ago
it’s much more nuanced than that though.
- Track_Shovel ( @Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net ) English14•9 months ago
Hey, look at us, we are planting 2 bn trees that are ALL THE SAME.
None of the methods they present as solutions are even close to being viable. The ones that do look promising, however, are where they bind the CO2 to tailings.
- Mossy Feathers (They/Them) ( @MossyFeathers@pawb.social ) 11•9 months ago
Okay? And how are we supposed to deal with the emissions currently in the atmosphere? Even if we abandon all technologies that generate greenhouse gases overnight, we still have shit in the atmosphere warming the planet.
The most compelling strategy I’ve heard is biochar. You immolate organic matter in a medium like nitrogen so you don’t get carbon dioxide, and then you bury the char or use it as fertilizer. The char is relatively stable so shouldn’t create much in the way of carbon dioxide once it’s formed, and because you make it in an oxygen-less atmosphere you don’t get more greenhouse gases from making it.
- bentropy ( @bentropy@feddit.de ) 4•9 months ago
Absolutely, I also think Biochar is very promising as one way to recapture atmospheric CO2 and to compensate further emissions.
While I understood the production process to be a little different, the benefits of Biochar can’t be ignored.
- low in energy consumption
- low in recourse cost
- very good scalable
- no hidden science or process
- the stored carbon can be used as a soil amendment
- Mossy Feathers (They/Them) ( @MossyFeathers@pawb.social ) 2•9 months ago
The process may be a bit more complex than I understood, but my understanding is that the gist of it is to “burn” plant stuff in a way that doesn’t create carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. One way of doing that is to use a chamber flooded with nitrogen or similar inert gas. No oxygen means carbon can’t bind to two oxygen atoms to create carbon dioxide.
- Surdon ( @Surdon@lemm.ee ) 1•9 months ago
I’m confused, how can you ‘burn’ anything without oxygen? Burn literally means to oxidize
- Mossy Feathers (They/Them) ( @MossyFeathers@pawb.social ) 3•9 months ago
That’s why it’s in quotes. You’re subjecting it to high heat, which would normally cause it to burn, but because there’s no oxygen it chars instead.
- Magrath ( @Magrath@lemmy.ca ) 2•9 months ago
I don’t understand. Biomass already isnt CO2. Why do we take an extra step?
- Mossy Feathers (They/Them) ( @MossyFeathers@pawb.social ) 6•9 months ago
Because when biomass rots, it creates CO2. By charring it you’re making the carbon more stable and less likely to become CO2 in the future. It also won’t rot when charred.
- Magrath ( @Magrath@lemmy.ca ) 2•9 months ago
So how do we produce biomass? Plant more trees? Which we already do. Then in how many year we cut it down and biochar it instead of using it reporposing it for something else? I’m kind of failing to see the benefit. Just seems like an alternative that isn’t really any better than some of the other good alternatives.
- Mossy Feathers (They/Them) ( @MossyFeathers@pawb.social ) 4•9 months ago
Make algae ponds, harvest the algae, dry it, char it, bury it. Algae sucks up carbon dioxide like crazy, the downside being that it releases the carbon when it starts to rot. By charring and burying it, you’re helping to make sure that carbon doesn’t re-enter the atmosphere.
- Magrath ( @Magrath@lemmy.ca ) 2•9 months ago
Ah. I didn’t think of algae. Might be a good reason to harvest all the algae blooms from the fertilizer run off.
- Uranium3006 ( @Uranium3006@kbin.social ) 2•9 months ago
biochar is awesome
- vivadanang ( @vivadanang@lemm.ee ) English9•9 months ago
Yup. And they’ve been working on it for 20 years, and have yet to illustrate any scale that would effect the problem.
- MxM111 ( @MxM111@kbin.social ) 7•9 months ago
This binary thinking from activists really annoys me.
- thisfro ( @thisfro@slrpnk.net ) 6•9 months ago
How is that binary?
- MxM111 ( @MxM111@kbin.social ) 1•9 months ago
You seriously need to ask? You do not want to actually understand how it may work, how much it may cost, how realistic it is? And instead you would use “energy companies = bad” and if they also want to participate in carbon capture, then it is ALL you need to know and reject the idea simply based on this. You do not see this as binary??
- thisfro ( @thisfro@slrpnk.net ) 2•9 months ago
Companies = bad
Or a bit more nuanced: Under a capitalist system, the first order of business is to make money. That does not have to be bad a priori, but with the given scenario of carbon capture, the meme points out the fact, that it is mostly greenwashing. Does that mean carbon capture is bad? No. Is it the best way to tackle climate change? Absolutely not. Does it make them money and delay actual action to combat the climate crisis? Yes.
But that wouldn’t be a meme, would it?
- MxM111 ( @MxM111@kbin.social ) 1•9 months ago
Making a meme does not mean that you have to do it as a one-bit stupidity. That’s not a valid excuse.
There is no single technology that will tackle climate change, it will/does require combined approach and carbon capture quite possible have a role there to play too. And as for companies making money, they do make monies on solar, wind, electrical cars, and they will make money on carbon capture, hopefully. If there is no money to be made, then it would be a very good indication that the idea is dead on arrival.
- thisfro ( @thisfro@slrpnk.net ) 1•9 months ago
System change, not climate change
- Uranium3006 ( @Uranium3006@kbin.social ) 1•9 months ago
yeah, no one’s getting distracted
- Kusimulkku ( @Kusimulkku@lemm.ee ) 5•9 months ago
Not quite
- Enitoni ( @enitoni@beehaw.org ) 2•9 months ago
They said Google.
- Kusimulkku ( @Kusimulkku@lemm.ee ) 2•9 months ago
Good thing I never Googled it
- essell ( @essellburns@beehaw.org ) 3•9 months ago
Rich companies have the best SEO?
- stoy ( @stoy@lemmy.zip ) 2•9 months ago
Carbon capture will only work if the capturing and storage of said carbon uses less energy than it took to release said carbon.
So far I have yet to see that.
- metaStatic ( @metaStatic@kbin.social ) 2•9 months ago
Did you mean Regulatory Capture?
- Cait ( @Caitlynn@feddit.de ) 1•9 months ago
Ever heard about trees Mr Techbro
- pizza ( @pizza@lemmy.today ) 1•9 months ago