this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
23 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

150 readers
14 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“CCS is a technologically unsound and economically unviable scheme, perpetuated by the fossil fuel industry…”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

That’s like saying “failed alfalfa harvest proves organic farming won’t work”.

How does one leak prove the entire scheme is flawed?

[–] knightly@pawb.social 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This isn't just one leak, this is a leak that got so bad the EPA got involved.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Again, how does one failed trial invalidate the entire scheme?

[–] knightly@pawb.social 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because this "one trial" was the literal best-case scenario, and it still sprung a leak that would cost more to fix than they could gain by banking carbon sequestration credits.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

All I’m hearing is the first experiment failed, and y’all would rather give up than fix it.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, obviously I'd much rather that R&D budgets got spent on things that might actually make a difference rather than new ways of kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.

You're weirdly defensive about this idea. What's up with that? Daddy got some investments in the fossil fuel industry?

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The whole article is weirdly dismissive of new technology.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's not new technology, for one. We've been using injection wells like landfills since the 1930's because it's cheaper than treating and disposing of wastewater safely.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's more like saying "the Heisenberg exploded, hydrogen blimps won't work"

The Heisenberg exploded because of ruptured bladders and structural cables snapping, among other things. Hydrogen blimps could work - technologically they're still very feasible

But they're too risky to half ass, and their biggest proponents have shown themselves to be incompetent in the face of the engineering challenges involved

It's not just shit technology - it's about execution. If no one can demonstrate good execution, we have nothing. Better ideas have been killed for less... This whole concept is riddled with unsolved problems - it's not feasible with the players on the board

This is too important to fuck around.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think you meant the Hindenburg there.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago

It’s uncertain

[–] wulrus@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Heisenberg exploded? The scientist or the one from Breaking Bad?

[–] HorseRabbit@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah remember when he met Tuco that one time and used exploding meth?

[–] Thevenin 3 points 2 months ago

It's more about the how and why.

How: CCS pumps liquefied or pressurized gas into an exhausted oil or saline reservoir. These reservoirs didn't hold pressurized gas before, so it's difficult (if not impossible) to prove they won't leak. In the Decatur case, about 8 kilotons of CO2 and saltwater either found or created a crack in the reservoir, exactly as critics predicted. Locals are worried about groundwater contamination.

Why: CCS is largely unregulated in the US, and the companies interested in it are ones with awful environmental track records -- ADM is no exception there. To claim the 45Q tax credit, they only need to store the CO2 for 3 years. Why would they care about preventing leaks if they already got their payout? Doing shoddy work is in their best interest.

Does this event prove that underground CCS is literally impossible? Of course not. But feasibility isn't a pass/fail test, it's judged by factors like cost and risk. This event proves the approach isn't foolproof and the companies aren't trustworthy. So it's high time we stop acting like they are.