4 ms·

Would stuffing it down in empty mine shafts or oil wells, and sealing up the opening, work?

by jogjayr 7y ago

ForHackernews 7y ago
Yes. You just solved global warming. Please go collect your noble prize.
- blix 7y ago
  I don't think you need to be so condescending. There's no need for any sort of "new process for long-term carbon sequestration". We just need to stop taking carbon that is in the process of being sequestered by natural cycles and putting it back into the atmosphere. This is an economic challenge not a technical one.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    There is no natural sequestration on any kind of timescale that can possibly help us. During the carboniferous era, bacteria had not yet evolved that could break down dead plants. Now, those bacteria exist.
    - blix 7y ago
      That's a pretty strong absolute, which probably means it is not true. It is possible to oversimplify things from multiple angles. Recent work[1] has argued that microbal and fungal diversity did not play a significant role in the development of coal deposits, but rather it was a combination of environmental effects that generated swamps where anaerobic conditions prevented plant decay. These conditions still exist today, we are just actively removing them. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/113/9/2442 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/9/2442
- jogjayr 7y ago
  It's spelled "Nobel". I'm also not the first person to suggest it. So if it works, the prize wouldn't go to me. Either way you haven't made a case, or provided sources, for why it wouldn't work. Some methods are apparently snake oil[1]. But others, such as pumping into saline aquifers[2] may be viable (the source on that is naturally suspicious). 1. https://grist.org/article/rule-four-of-offsets-no-enhanced-oil-recovery/ https://grist.org/article/rule-four-of-offsets-no-enhanced-o... 2. https://www.spe.org/industry/carbon-capture-sequestration.php https://www.spe.org/industry/carbon-capture-sequestration.ph...
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    No, no the "noble prize" is an award I personally give out to the HN comment that best exemplifies the common phenomenon on this board where a glib oversimplification of a massively complicated issue is used to dismiss the importance of far-reaching changes in favour of a one-line technical fix.
    - jogjayr 7y ago
      I'm aware that far-reaching changes need to occur in society and the economy to solve the climate crisis. Reduction of consumption, renewable energy, planting more forests, efficient transportation, heating and cooling, re-evaluating what we value in life - all of these will play their part. I don't think carbon sequestration alone will fix everything. But if it has the potential to help, why not look into it?

Would stuffing it down in empty mine shafts or oil wells, and sealing up the opening, work?

ForHackernews 7y ago

Yes. You just solved global warming. Please go collect your noble prize.

blix 7y ago
I don't think you need to be so condescending. There's no need for any sort of "new process for long-term carbon sequestration". We just need to stop taking carbon that is in the process of being sequestered by natural cycles and putting it back into the atmosphere. This is an economic challenge not a technical one.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  There is no natural sequestration on any kind of timescale that can possibly help us. During the carboniferous era, bacteria had not yet evolved that could break down dead plants. Now, those bacteria exist.
  - blix 7y ago
    That's a pretty strong absolute, which probably means it is not true. It is possible to oversimplify things from multiple angles. Recent work[1] has argued that microbal and fungal diversity did not play a significant role in the development of coal deposits, but rather it was a combination of environmental effects that generated swamps where anaerobic conditions prevented plant decay. These conditions still exist today, we are just actively removing them. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/113/9/2442 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/9/2442
jogjayr 7y ago
It's spelled "Nobel". I'm also not the first person to suggest it. So if it works, the prize wouldn't go to me. Either way you haven't made a case, or provided sources, for why it wouldn't work. Some methods are apparently snake oil[1]. But others, such as pumping into saline aquifers[2] may be viable (the source on that is naturally suspicious). 1. https://grist.org/article/rule-four-of-offsets-no-enhanced-oil-recovery/ https://grist.org/article/rule-four-of-offsets-no-enhanced-o... 2. https://www.spe.org/industry/carbon-capture-sequestration.php https://www.spe.org/industry/carbon-capture-sequestration.ph...
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  No, no the "noble prize" is an award I personally give out to the HN comment that best exemplifies the common phenomenon on this board where a glib oversimplification of a massively complicated issue is used to dismiss the importance of far-reaching changes in favour of a one-line technical fix.
  - jogjayr 7y ago
    I'm aware that far-reaching changes need to occur in society and the economy to solve the climate crisis. Reduction of consumption, renewable energy, planting more forests, efficient transportation, heating and cooling, re-evaluating what we value in life - all of these will play their part. I don't think carbon sequestration alone will fix everything. But if it has the potential to help, why not look into it?