3 ms·
Sure but carbon capture is useless without the storage component. If you just sell the CO2 for food manufacturing or any industrial use it will just go back int
by lozenge 4y ago
Sure but carbon capture is useless without the storage component. If you just sell the CO2 for food manufacturing or any industrial use it will just go back into the atmosphere.
Unfortunately fossil fuel companies and politicians are throwing around the term "carbon capture and storage" as if it will solve everything and allow fossil fuel power plants and fossil fuel extraction to keep running. All the evidence is that it can't.
- andrewmutz 4y agoI absolutely agree that we can't just keep burning fossil fuels and use CCS to fix the problem. But it doesn't matter if no one buys the carbon we capture. Sequestering it underground is a good outcome. And yes, it's not currently profitable for anyone to capture carbon and send it underground, but it is a positive externality and that's where government needs to step in. The government pays companies to do all sorts of things, and CCS should be one of them
- boplicity 4y ago> Sequestering it underground is a good outcome. This is the great irony of the CCS discussion. Plenty of carbon has already been sequestered underground. The general idea is to extract carbon from underground, then pump it into the atmosphere, and then extract it from the atmosphere and pump it back into the ground. Yikes. We live in a pretty screwed up world to make that even seem like a necessary option.
- sdenton4 4y agoCarbon capture as discussed here is usually more a matter of catching carbon byproducts of industrial processes. In which case it's typically more concentrated and easier to catch than random carbon molecules drifting around in the atmosphere.