But if CCS operations leak, they can pose significant risks to water resources. That’s because pressurized CO2 stored underground can escape or propel brine trapped in the saline reservoirs typically used for permanent storage. The leaks can lead to heavy metal contamination and potentially lower pH levels, all of which can make drinking water undrinkable. This is what bothers critics of carbon capture who worry that it’s solving one problem by creating another.
While potentially true issues, I notice detractors have never and continue to not be concerned that the natural gas and oil pipelines in the Midwest have the same issues with greater risks…
This is what bothers critics of carbon capture […].
Far from the only thing that bothers critics, the part where CC results in more CO2 output for all the energy it needs is usually the first thing mentioned. Even if you run CC 100% on renewables, you would still be better of replacing fossil fuels in use elsewhere with renewables then using renewables on CC.
the part where CC results in more CO2 output for all the energy it needs is usually the first thing mentioned.
If you’re doing CC from air then yes but if you are using something like Exxon’s CFZ technology then maybe not. CFZ is used on the production side to remove the “sour” stuff (like CO2) from natural gas before its burned.
BTW ExxonMobile built that CFZ plant in LaBarge, Wyoming and it’s been operating for over a decade and its now being expanded.
This.
Until the entire world runs on renewables and nuclear power it doesn’t make any sense at all to do carbon capture as the energy used to capture would have been more efficiently spent on avoiding carbon release in the first place.
Been saying this for years here but it usually ends with a lot of downvotes
You’re right of course, but the nuance is that research takes time. We need to start working on it now so we will be ready to scale the technology when we have surplus renewable energy. It’s a tricky balance.
Indeed, generally one stops the spill before starting clean-up.
So here’s a dumb question. Why don’t we just plant the fastest growing carbon eatingest trees…everywhere. Now? Seems simpler to use a plant instead of a Plant.
Trees don’t permently sequester carbon. A forest is a bunch of bound up stuff, but since fungi can now digest trees when they die they don’t become coal anymore.
So unless you want to make the surface of the earth rainforest somehow you would need to bury trees in a sealed sterile mine or something. Or you could just do that directly.
Carbon capture is kinda dumb though, coal and oil are what ideally captured carbon looks like. We should focus on not digging that up and burning it.
Because 1) There’s not enough land on the planet, and 2) A big fossil fuel company has a hard time pointing to a specific tree and saying “that one, that’s the plant that’s halfheartedly absorbing my carbon so I can keep polluting”
CCS is putting lipstick on the fossil fuel hogs - they’ll keep it in the news as part of their quest to dodge regulation.
Let me guess, the future political fights will be democrats passing regulations that you can’t be leaning. And republicans arguing that this will kill profits.
