5 ms·

Stupid question incoming. Does it really help us to trap even more CO2 under the surface? If something exposes that CO2 again, it will be back up in the atmosph

by akuji1993 8y ago

Stupid question incoming. Does it really help us to trap even more CO2 under the surface? If something exposes that CO2 again, it will be back up in the atmosphere right? So it feels like this would be a "solution" like storing used uranium underground in lead containers - eventually it will become a problem. Or am I completely wrong here?

undreren 8y ago
Your question isn't stupid. Right now though, we are storing our CO2 in the atmosphere. This causes problems. To solve those problems, we need to store the CO2 somewhere else. It can be released again, but lets hope that the massive effort required to yank the CO2 out of our atmosphere causes the sunk cost fallacy to kick in until we've completely moved past fossile fuels.
- Scea91 8y ago
  I do not expect that we will be able to move past fossil fuels in the next 100 years. There is simply no other source of energy with as much density and as convenient as oil. The only think we know that can rival oil is nuclear energy but it has problems of its own.
  - akuji1993 8y ago
    Honestly, there's a lot of stuff I'm skeptical about what will happen in the next 100 years. I don't think that fossil fuels will be a thing in 100 years though. I think we'll have something smarter figured out. Think about how much time has passed since 1918 and what we achieved in that time frame.
    - Scea91 8y ago
      Exactly, we haven't achieved that much actually. Most of the technology we use for harvesting energy is not much further from what people could imagine in 19th century. Turbine was invented in the 19th century. I really suggest watching this talk by Smil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4 and if you are interested reading some books from him about energy and oil. Really insightful.
  - undreren 8y ago
    All chemical energy available through coal and oil stored in the earth is the product of a massive amount of highly ineffecient capture of energy from sunlight. [0] All wind is caused directly by unequal warming of our planet through sunlight. The average hurricane individually releases more energy than entire world population has exhausted, since the dawn of time. [1] Sunlight is plenty enough. The problem is cheap, clean storage. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis [1] - https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/energy-hurricane-volcano-earthquake1.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/energ...
    - Scea91 8y ago
      Another problem is energy density as I said. How much solar energy can you harvest from one square kilometer? I am so surprised that people just handwave this basic fundamental limits away and don't realize that we would have to build solar panels on an enormous percentage of planet for it to be able to replace fossil fuels. Also managing the lifecycle and production of these panels is another issue. And don't forget that you still need to grow crops somewhere. Currently only less than 2 % of the energy we use comes from solar energy and 87 % comes from fossil fuels. The cost of replacing the infrastructure is enormous and there is not much incentive to do it as long as we have plenty of cheap oil (which is going to stay with us for at least another century according to estimates). Why is it so unimaginable that we will still be using oil in 100 years? It might not be 87 % as it is today, it might be 30 % but I am very sceptical that we will be able to completely replace the infrastructure we have build in the last 200 years.
      - tbmh 8y ago
        > Another problem is energy density as I said. How much solar energy can you harvest from one square kilometer? I am so surprised that people just handwave this basic fundamental limits away and don't realize that we would have to build solar panels on an enormous percentage of planet for it to be able to replace fossil fuels. What are you talking about? From Elon Musk's TED talk, this is the area of solar panels required to power all of the US. http://sustainsubstance.org/images/storage/2015-musk-bluesquare.png http://sustainsubstance.org/images/storage/2015-musk-bluesqu...
  - mikec3010 8y ago
    There is no pretense that a non-fossil fuel vehicle must have an energy density >= oil for it to be a viable alternative. A bicycle doesn't carry any energy at all and yet many people use them in place of a car.
    - Scea91 8y ago
      I am still waiting for flying bicycles. Also, why do you mention only vehicles? 87 % of ALL the energy we use comes from fossil fuels (coal + gas + oil).
  - Scarblac 8y ago
    I don't believe there is enough fossil fuel that can be economically used for that long at rates close to the current.
seventhtiger 8y ago
The carbon being released now used to be stored underground in oil and coal, or in trees and soil. We're not creating any more carbon. We're just releasing what was stored, and the solution is to put it back in storage.
- ahartman00 8y ago
  "We're not creating any more carbon" Exactly. "The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
ianai 8y ago
I don’t think it can truly use seaweed to sequester carbon unless we harvest the seaweed and entomb it underground - but it has to be somewhere the decomposition won’t leak carbon into the atmosphere.
- plufz 8y ago
  The (early) findings of the study is that is sequestered from leaking into the atmosphere. From the article: "The study estimated that about 11 percent of total seaweed production may be sequestered, most of it after it sinks down into the deep sea."
- ambicapter 8y ago
  I don't think carbon is that volatile.
Dylan16807 8y ago
Storing used uranium is actually pretty effective in the long term. The other byproducts wear themselves out, and the uranium itself is semi-safe.

undreren 8y ago

Your question isn't stupid. Right now though, we are storing our CO2 in the atmosphere. This causes problems. To solve those problems, we need to store the CO2 somewhere else. It can be released again, but lets hope that the massive effort required to yank the CO2 out of our atmosphere causes the sunk cost fallacy to kick in until we've completely moved past fossile fuels.

Scea91 8y ago
I do not expect that we will be able to move past fossil fuels in the next 100 years. There is simply no other source of energy with as much density and as convenient as oil. The only think we know that can rival oil is nuclear energy but it has problems of its own.
- akuji1993 8y ago
  Honestly, there's a lot of stuff I'm skeptical about what will happen in the next 100 years. I don't think that fossil fuels will be a thing in 100 years though. I think we'll have something smarter figured out. Think about how much time has passed since 1918 and what we achieved in that time frame.
  - Scea91 8y ago
    Exactly, we haven't achieved that much actually. Most of the technology we use for harvesting energy is not much further from what people could imagine in 19th century. Turbine was invented in the 19th century. I really suggest watching this talk by Smil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4 and if you are interested reading some books from him about energy and oil. Really insightful.
- undreren 8y ago
  All chemical energy available through coal and oil stored in the earth is the product of a massive amount of highly ineffecient capture of energy from sunlight. [0] All wind is caused directly by unequal warming of our planet through sunlight. The average hurricane individually releases more energy than entire world population has exhausted, since the dawn of time. [1] Sunlight is plenty enough. The problem is cheap, clean storage. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis [1] - https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/energy-hurricane-volcano-earthquake1.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/energ...
  - Scea91 8y ago
    Another problem is energy density as I said. How much solar energy can you harvest from one square kilometer? I am so surprised that people just handwave this basic fundamental limits away and don't realize that we would have to build solar panels on an enormous percentage of planet for it to be able to replace fossil fuels. Also managing the lifecycle and production of these panels is another issue. And don't forget that you still need to grow crops somewhere. Currently only less than 2 % of the energy we use comes from solar energy and 87 % comes from fossil fuels. The cost of replacing the infrastructure is enormous and there is not much incentive to do it as long as we have plenty of cheap oil (which is going to stay with us for at least another century according to estimates). Why is it so unimaginable that we will still be using oil in 100 years? It might not be 87 % as it is today, it might be 30 % but I am very sceptical that we will be able to completely replace the infrastructure we have build in the last 200 years.
    - tbmh 8y ago
      > Another problem is energy density as I said. How much solar energy can you harvest from one square kilometer? I am so surprised that people just handwave this basic fundamental limits away and don't realize that we would have to build solar panels on an enormous percentage of planet for it to be able to replace fossil fuels. What are you talking about? From Elon Musk's TED talk, this is the area of solar panels required to power all of the US. http://sustainsubstance.org/images/storage/2015-musk-bluesquare.png http://sustainsubstance.org/images/storage/2015-musk-bluesqu...
- mikec3010 8y ago
  There is no pretense that a non-fossil fuel vehicle must have an energy density >= oil for it to be a viable alternative. A bicycle doesn't carry any energy at all and yet many people use them in place of a car.
  - Scea91 8y ago
    I am still waiting for flying bicycles. Also, why do you mention only vehicles? 87 % of ALL the energy we use comes from fossil fuels (coal + gas + oil).
- Scarblac 8y ago
  I don't believe there is enough fossil fuel that can be economically used for that long at rates close to the current.

seventhtiger 8y ago

The carbon being released now used to be stored underground in oil and coal, or in trees and soil. We're not creating any more carbon. We're just releasing what was stored, and the solution is to put it back in storage.

ahartman00 8y ago
"We're not creating any more carbon" Exactly. "The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

ianai 8y ago

I don’t think it can truly use seaweed to sequester carbon unless we harvest the seaweed and entomb it underground - but it has to be somewhere the decomposition won’t leak carbon into the atmosphere.

plufz 8y ago
The (early) findings of the study is that is sequestered from leaking into the atmosphere. From the article: "The study estimated that about 11 percent of total seaweed production may be sequestered, most of it after it sinks down into the deep sea."
ambicapter 8y ago
I don't think carbon is that volatile.

Dylan16807 8y ago

Storing used uranium is actually pretty effective in the long term. The other byproducts wear themselves out, and the uranium itself is semi-safe.