3 ms·
“capturing and burying 100% of the carbon” What about 50%? Does the cost go up as you try to capture a larger percentage?
by chmod600 3y ago
“capturing and burying 100% of the carbon”
What about 50%? Does the cost go up as you try to capture a larger percentage?
- tourmalinetaco 3y agoFrom my understanding the cost is in the technology and energy required. Essentially, you burn more fossil fuels trying to inject it at any level than the carbon you put in. And something like this couldn’t be run on renewables as is, you’d need a rather large amount of batteries which is so incredibly expensive at this point in time. So cost and carbon output make geological sequestration impractical. However, when used for “enhanced oil extraction”, it easily covers the costs and carbon output worries. They wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t profitable, and despite the article’s claims they are not in the business of carbon neutrality.