443
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] excral@feddit.org 73 points 2 months ago

I've heard there's a practical green solution to carbon capture. The units are practically maintenance free and power themselves with solar energy. This allows to deploy them on many small patches of land. The captured carbon is stored in solid organic compounds that may be used as building materials. It may sound to sci-fi to be true, but it's actually just trees.

[-] borokov@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Agree, carbon capture process is quite efficient now. I'm working on (pretty big) company doing Carbon Capture and Sequestration. The idea is to use empty oil&gaz reservoir to inject back carbon where it comes from. So there are several advantage:

  • The land is already messed up by former drilling platerform. No need to shave another forest to create a facility
  • No waste to handle, as the captured carbon is injected in the underground. We also study the possibility to inject other kind of waste, like domestic ones.
  • Simplified process as we can keep Co2 in gaz state to inject back in former natural gaz reservoir. Not even needed to extract carbon to solodify it.
  • Yes, trees are much more efficient and eco-friendly, but sometime we cannot just plant billions of trees. Whereas a CCS facility is relatively small compared to a whole forest.
[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

That seems like a disaster waiting to (re) happen, what's your thoughts on that?

[-] borokov@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago
[-] sploosh@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Carbonating a void underground seems like a bad plan. God help us if Mentos get down there.

And OP was talking about trees.

[-] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I think as long as they throw a 10 lb bag of sugar down the hole before they start pumping then you don't have to worry about it accidentally becoming a diet Coke.

[-] borokov@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Geological reservoirs are thousands metter depth and several dozen of km wide. Pressure is a few MPa, and temperature hundreds of °C. Condition are so extrem that filling them with gaz barely change anything. Especially if they were already filled with gaz dozen years ago. Furthemore, they are not big vacum like most people imagine. It's more like giant spongy rock, like sand. It's not a baloon you inflate or deflate.

CCS facilities are not in competition with forest. It's a complementatry solution. If you manage to capture carbon next to poluting factories, you don't spread Co2 on the atmosphere, waiting it to be captured by a forest the other side of the globe. And they can be powered by solar panels.

[-] prole 3 points 2 months ago
[-] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago

Keyboard wear levelinq

[-] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 10 points 2 months ago

Babe wake up, new copypasta just dropped !

[-] Bosht@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Density of CO2 produced vs what trees capture is massively unequal. Yes trees can, but not on any tangible scale that would ever keep up with what we are doing to the planet.

[-] excral@feddit.org 7 points 2 months ago

Yeah, agreed. Carbon capture won't save us, not trees nor otherwise. We have to slow down what we are doing to the planet.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

Yes, the most that carbon capture can do is temporarily slow down climate change. It turns out the only way you can stop getting carbon from outside the carbon cycle into the carbon cycle is to stop taking carbon from outside the carbon cycle and putting it into the carbon cycle.

But the problem with oil is that it's really good, and it does a lot of stuff really well

[-] excral@feddit.org 4 points 2 months ago

But the problem with oil is that it’s really good

Oil is good because it's cheap and it's only cheap because we don't pay the full bill. If we'd bill polluters for the full cost it would take to offset the emissions, it would quickly stop being economically viable to use oil in many sectors.

[-] Twanquility@feddit.dk 2 points 2 months ago

Not to mention the area needed, for the amount of trees needed. Trees also decompose, so the storage function is different, but people are quick to assume.

Ok, but how about we do more than trees? Why are you on the internet when pre-linguistic grunting works just fine?

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

If you can find a more efficient, less expensive way to physically sequester carbon from the atmosphere than letting forests grow, I'm sure there's a lot of awards you could win

Why does it have to be cheaper? Why not both?

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Because if it isn't cheaper than simply growing trees, the money would be better spent simply growing trees

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Try thinking for a second.

Places where trees don't grow are probably not the best places for carbon sequestration if you can't sequester carbon there cheaper or easier than sequestering carbon in trees elsewhere

[-] excral@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago

The point of my comment is that if trees wouldn't exist, they would seem like some futuristic sci-fi solution too good to be true. Just because something is shiny new tech, it isn't automatically better. Sure, just planting trees won't save us if we release all the carbon that is already captured in the form of fossil fuels, but how about we stop releasing all the carbon that is already captured in the form of fossil fuels?

[-] MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Water is the biggest limiting factor, trees need more water.

this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2025
443 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

14397 readers
1473 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS