Okay nobody in this comment section read the paper. The authors looked at subterranean sequestration pilot studies and discussed the issues that were found. They did not suggest pursuing these types of sequestration methods were a waste of time, however engineering and policy challenges need to be overcome if these methods are going to deliver the needed sequestration rates.
Folks need to wrap their heads around the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Converting carbon to CO2 gives us lots of energy and it will take like... way more energy to reverse that process
Even with shortcuts like finding lots of Calcium. Gonna take a LOT of calcium which will take a LOT of energy.
Agreed, but we can't use carbon to sequester carbon and we aren't building clean energy fast enough to reduce our usage of carbon, much less producing enough to overtake the burning of carbon and sequester it.
I can sort of imagine the people writing this paper: "No der dude, it's so obvious", "yes but is there a study for it?", "of course let me just look it up real fast"
...
"err guys, I know what our paper is going to be about".
Folks need to wrap their heads around the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Converting carbon to CO2 gives us lots of energy and it will take like... way more energy to reverse that process
11 replies
Okay nobody in this comment section read the paper. The authors looked at subterranean sequestration pilot studies and discussed the issues that were found. They did not suggest pursuing these types of sequestration methods were a waste of time, however engineering and policy challenges need to be overcome if these methods are going to deliver the needed sequestration rates.
Sequestration is bullshit.
Cut emissions.
Folks need to wrap their heads around the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Converting carbon to CO2 gives us lots of energy and it will take like... way more energy to reverse that process
Even with shortcuts like finding lots of Calcium. Gonna take a LOT of calcium which will take a LOT of energy.
This is just an energy production problem and not a chemistry problem
Agreed, but we can't use carbon to sequester carbon and we aren't building clean energy fast enough to reduce our usage of carbon, much less producing enough to overtake the burning of carbon and sequester it.
Stop dumping more of it would be a good start
Folks need to wrap their heads around the fact the any attempt to sequester carbon is pointless if we don’t reduce emissions. QED
There may be a place after emissions are reduced but of limited impact.
I can sort of imagine the people writing this paper: "No der dude, it's so obvious", "yes but is there a study for it?", "of course let me just look it up real fast"
...
"err guys, I know what our paper is going to be about".
Folks need to wrap their heads around the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Converting carbon to CO2 gives us lots of energy and it will take like... way more energy to reverse that process
We need a cultural shift.
ftfy.