Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5243 readers

215 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

124

The nation's first commercial carbon sequestration plant is in Illinois. It leaks. (grist.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago by solo@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Jobe@feddit.org 43 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

Indeed, generally one stops the spill before starting clean-up.

[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.