this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2025
698 points (97.4% liked)

News

36000 readers
3000 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why comment if you don't understand physics. I'm not saying turn the carbon into hydrocarbons, which is wat you are implying.

Carbon sequestration takes way less energy than the energy released during burning.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why comment when you're just randomly going to claim that ther person you disagree with must not know the subject because they disagree with you?

Sure, don't convert back to hydro carbons. Where are you going to store all that CO2 in a way that you know it guaranteed won't escape?

Do you have any idea how much CO2 you're talking about? Are you going to store it in high pressure tanks? Are you going to freeze it maybe and put it in caves? Pump the gas underground and pray it won't sleep out?

The reason that I'm talking about converting it back to hydrocarbons is exactly that: you need to store it somewhere stable and reliable. For the incredible amounts that we have to store, there aren't that many options beyond making hydro carbons and storing those

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Perhaps read an introductory article on carbon storage, or ask ChatGPT:

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): This involves capturing CO₂ emissions from industrial sources, transporting it, and storing it underground in geological formations.

Direct Air Capture (DAC): This technology captures CO₂ directly from the air and stores it underground or uses it in industrial processes

It's a sad state of affairs that a fellow human being is more insufferable to talk to than an AI.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, you're right, you are insufferable and sad.

Having said that:

The amount of CO2 to store, depending on how far you want to go with removing all the CO2 humans have put in the atmosphere goes in the order of cubic kilometers. Humans have been, and continue to be busy beavers. Good luck with storing that in tanks.

Storing it in geological formations may be possible in a limited fashion but since it would be in gas form there is a litany of problems with that if you want to be absolutely sure it won't escape.

Instead of bitching and moaning it may be more productive to just, you know, stay on subject.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would really recommend you get some kind of mental assessment. It must suck being dumber than a chatbot.

Storing carbon dioxide as a gas in geologic formations can be done without leakage. Natural gas has literally been stored in geologic formations for millions of years without leakage

But most solutions actually turn it into carbonic acid, which is not a gas and which will be stable for billions of years in the form of carbonate minerals.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

See, I think you and I could be having interesting conversations and learn from each other but unfortunately you're an obnoxious asshole who thinks insulting others is a good point in a conversation. Too bad, too sad.