But if CCS operations leak, they can pose significant risks to water resources. That’s because pressurized CO2 stored underground can escape or propel brine trapped in the saline reservoirs typically used for permanent storage. The leaks can lead to heavy metal contamination and potentially lower pH levels, all of which can make drinking water undrinkable. This is what bothers critics of carbon capture who worry that it’s solving one problem by creating another.
This is what bothers critics of carbon capture […].
Far from the only thing that bothers critics, the part where CC results in more CO2 output for all the energy it needs is usually the first thing mentioned. Even if you run CC 100% on renewables, you would still be better of replacing fossil fuels in use elsewhere with renewables then using renewables on CC.
This.
Until the entire world runs on renewables and nuclear power it doesn’t make any sense at all to do carbon capture as the energy used to capture would have been more efficiently spent on avoiding carbon release in the first place.
Been saying this for years here but it usually ends with a lot of downvotes
Indeed, generally one stops the spill before starting clean-up.
You’re right of course, but the nuance is that research takes time. We need to start working on it now so we will be ready to scale the technology when we have surplus renewable energy. It’s a tricky balance.
Oh for sure, research on the topic is great, I’m just dumping on these stupid tech startups that claim they’ll fix climate change by sucking up all carbon.
No you won’t.
the part where CC results in more CO2 output for all the energy it needs is usually the first thing mentioned.
If you’re doing CC from air then yes but if you are using something like Exxon’s CFZ technology then maybe not. CFZ is used on the production side to remove the “sour” stuff (like CO2) from natural gas before its burned.
BTW ExxonMobile built that CFZ plant in LaBarge, Wyoming and it’s been operating for over a decade and its now being expanded.
So here’s a dumb question. Why don’t we just plant the fastest growing carbon eatingest trees…everywhere. Now? Seems simpler to use a plant instead of a Plant.
Because 1) There’s not enough land on the planet, and 2) A big fossil fuel company has a hard time pointing to a specific tree and saying “that one, that’s the plant that’s halfheartedly absorbing my carbon so I can keep polluting”
CCS is putting lipstick on the fossil fuel hogs - they’ll keep it in the news as part of their quest to dodge regulation.
Trees don’t permently sequester carbon. A forest is a bunch of bound up stuff, but since fungi can now digest trees when they die they don’t become coal anymore.
So unless you want to make the surface of the earth rainforest somehow you would need to bury trees in a sealed sterile mine or something. Or you could just do that directly.
Carbon capture is kinda dumb though, coal and oil are what ideally captured carbon looks like. We should focus on not digging that up and burning it.
Sure…but let’s expand. Those trees then become paper towels and such. Processing would need to be done with electric stuff and not petrol based machines. There would be a cost to create said industrial equipment in pollution I’m sure.
Let’s invent new ways to use the wood. It would likely be weak fibers if fast growing so they’d need to be processed and pressed. What is disposable products like paper towels get composted and used for (other vague processes) - any methane generation can be collected for the methane to then be burned (I know, but at least it’s not fossil fuel extraction) for processes that still need burnable fuel.
Any compost that can be used for fertilizing new tree growth goes back into the cycle.
The Plants may still be beneficial to exist, but augment with the plants. Let’s start reforestation? Especially on land with abundant fresh water.
As a side-note, an episode of an old TV show SeaQuest in the 1990s always stuck with me, I think it was the (mediocre) 2035 reboot where there were giant carbon scrubbing towers on the shoreline. It stuck with me way back then and I had hoped we’d never see it. But. Yay, here we are. /s
Lots of holes I’m sure, but, seems worth trying? Not an expert obv.
Look I understand you’re trying to be positive but this doesn’t work. It’s not really viable for me to put more effort into explaining why each specific thing doesn’t work but take e.g. paper towels, well they rot. Unless you pack them up in an environment which they can’t rot in. Like a sealed mineshaft, which you could just pump co2 into. In either case you’re filling an empty coal mine with low density coal while using energy that could go to something with exponential payoffs like sustainable power infrastructure.
Protecting greenspace is good, reforestation is good and has all sorts of positive effects from stabilisation of local temperature to cleaning the air of pollutants. It is not however a solution to climate change. There is only one, and it is not burning fossil fuels. It is completely impractical to reverse the damage we have already done. We have added 0.02% of the atmosphere’s mass in co2, that is 1.E17 kg or a hundred million billion kilograms.
Let me guess, the future political fights will be democrats passing regulations that you can’t be leaning. And republicans arguing that this will kill profits.
While potentially true issues, I notice detractors have never and continue to not be concerned that the natural gas and oil pipelines in the Midwest have the same issues with greater risks…
Hadn’t considered the justification aspect. Ugh. Of course. Just like airlines all plugging algae jet fuel.
