4 ms·

I'll feel more confident when we have large scale sequestration methods that are beyond the drawing board. I loosely agree with your conclusion, but until we K

I'll feel more confident when we have large scale sequestration methods that are beyond the drawing board. I loosely agree with your conclusion, but until we KNOW the numbers, it seems worth it to shoot for as close to zero emissions as we can get while figuring out the sequestration options. The closest I've heard of is some seabed oilfield sequestering from Nordic countries, IIRC, but that has some built in limitations. Are you aware of sequestering efforts I've missed?

chalst 8y ago
There's new research that suggests that there are soil-based sequestration methods that work far faster than the well-studied approach of growing forests: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08636-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08636-w
philwelch 8y ago
We should invest the R&D effort into as many places as we can. I just have a hunch that "electrifying everything" isn't going to win out over, say, "use electricity to synthesize energy-dense liquid fuels", which can even be generalized to the sequestration strategy of "use electricity to synthesize liquid fuels and then store them in underground salt caverns like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve". Though I have no idea if we can make enough salt caverns, at least it would be a fixed amount of salt caverns, since you could establish a closed-loop supply of liquid fuel this way that was long-run carbon-neutral.
- ergothus 8y ago
  No argument here - I'm just saying we shouldn't lay off the emission reductions BEFORE we have any technological answers. Likewise, we should research such options rather than assuming someone will.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    I think we're in full agreement. It appears that we've figured out how to electrify automobiles already, for instance. That's a good thing. It's just that some emission reductions are also open technological questions, and sometimes they're more or less open than the questions around sequestration, so hard-and-fast rules are hard to come by. Is it easier to sequester the emissions from space rockets than it is to build a Lofstrom loop? Is it easier to synthesize jet fuel from the atmosphere than to electrify jets? Where should R&D resources be optimally allocated, especially if we're taking a risk that certain approaches won't work out?

chalst 8y ago

There's new research that suggests that there are soil-based sequestration methods that work far faster than the well-studied approach of growing forests: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08636-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08636-w

philwelch 8y ago

We should invest the R&D effort into as many places as we can. I just have a hunch that "electrifying everything" isn't going to win out over, say, "use electricity to synthesize energy-dense liquid fuels", which can even be generalized to the sequestration strategy of "use electricity to synthesize liquid fuels and then store them in underground salt caverns like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve". Though I have no idea if we can make enough salt caverns, at least it would be a fixed amount of salt caverns, since you could establish a closed-loop supply of liquid fuel this way that was long-run carbon-neutral.

ergothus 8y ago
No argument here - I'm just saying we shouldn't lay off the emission reductions BEFORE we have any technological answers. Likewise, we should research such options rather than assuming someone will.
- philwelch 8y ago
  I think we're in full agreement. It appears that we've figured out how to electrify automobiles already, for instance. That's a good thing. It's just that some emission reductions are also open technological questions, and sometimes they're more or less open than the questions around sequestration, so hard-and-fast rules are hard to come by. Is it easier to sequester the emissions from space rockets than it is to build a Lofstrom loop? Is it easier to synthesize jet fuel from the atmosphere than to electrify jets? Where should R&D resources be optimally allocated, especially if we're taking a risk that certain approaches won't work out?