3 ms·
Sorry, I don't get the point about Equinor. It (a) extracts gas and (b) captures CO2. The reasoning goes like, since using the gas obtained by (a) releases much
by teo_zero 3y ago
Sorry, I don't get the point about Equinor. It (a) extracts gas and (b) captures CO2. The reasoning goes like, since using the gas obtained by (a) releases much more CO2 than how much is saved by (b), then it's not worth doing (b). Am I the only one to see the fallacy in this way of thinking?
- gmuslera 3y ago"Capturing" carbon into fuel to be released back is not exactly capturing, maybe it could be called buffering. A lot of the Net Zero proposal "compensates" to keep extracting oil/coal/gas with generating new fuels in this way, but it is not about reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at all. If it were to stop extracting fossil fuel at least it could had some meaning, but with this kind of environmental policies the fossil fuel will stop to be extracted by the time the wells run dry. Same goes with using planting trees as carbon capture, in a world where climate is going haywire (so drought, heat waves and other things that promotes massive forest fires becomes increasingly more common) that is carbon that could be released back any time. The most effective carbon capture energy is to keep buried fossil carbon that way. It has been in that form for hundreds of millions of years, at least until some not so smart apes decided to destabilize with it the ecosystem where they live in just a century.
- teo_zero 3y agoThanks for your comment. You seem to assume that they capture CO2 from atmosphere and somehow inject it into the fuel (gas) that they sell. It's not what TFA talks about, though. It's exactly the opposite: > Carbon dioxide is stripped from natural gas with amine solvents and is deposited in a saline formation.