3 ms·

When I think about carbon extraction and storage, I get the same feeling as when I read about the ancients discovering oil seeps and surface deposits of hydroca

by ckrapu 3y ago

When I think about carbon extraction and storage, I get the same feeling as when I read about the ancients discovering oil seeps and surface deposits of hydrocarbons. They knew that they could be harnessed for keeping fires lit and even sometimes associated them with the supernatural. They just lacked the tech and industrial background to use them. We know that carbon is essential for life and if we ever engineer useful organisms to build structures or produce macroscale goods (as opposed to pharmaceuticals or food), then clearly carbon will be one of the main limiting factors, along with energy and water. It just feels like we will one day look back at this and think “why didn’t we just try to use it instead of burying it?”

IX-103 3y ago
I don't see how "carbon will be one of the main limiting factors". Carbon is abundant in our environment -- it's around 0.03% of it and is spread evenly enough that you can always find it. It's even relatively common in the universe. What is hard to find - and has always been hard to find is cheap energy. And carbon dioxide is essentially the lowest energy state for carbon. It's a dead end as far as energy goes. That's why it's a waste product. If you want to build useful structures then you're still subject to thermodynamics, whether you're using "organisms" to do it or not. So using graphite or any other form of carbon would be a better source of carbon than CO2. The only reason to use CO2 is that it is commonly available (which is why plants use it). And again, no one is proposing removing all the CO2, just enough to keep us in this little ice age we have been enjoying. So there's no reason to worry about running out.
throwawaymobule 3y ago
At least it could be unburied if it's needed in the future. Same with many landfills, when the value of non-recycled junk in there is higher than reprocessing it.

by ckrapu 3y ago

IX-103 3y ago

I don't see how "carbon will be one of the main limiting factors". Carbon is abundant in our environment -- it's around 0.03% of it and is spread evenly enough that you can always find it. It's even relatively common in the universe. What is hard to find - and has always been hard to find is cheap energy. And carbon dioxide is essentially the lowest energy state for carbon. It's a dead end as far as energy goes. That's why it's a waste product. If you want to build useful structures then you're still subject to thermodynamics, whether you're using "organisms" to do it or not. So using graphite or any other form of carbon would be a better source of carbon than CO2. The only reason to use CO2 is that it is commonly available (which is why plants use it). And again, no one is proposing removing all the CO2, just enough to keep us in this little ice age we have been enjoying. So there's no reason to worry about running out.

throwawaymobule 3y ago

At least it could be unburied if it's needed in the future. Same with many landfills, when the value of non-recycled junk in there is higher than reprocessing it.