Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Bhasher t1_j5xurfj wrote

Let's build 100000 of these structure. Lol.

22

aneeta96 t1_j5xxp02 wrote

You only need 1,000 and 10 years.

6

Bhasher t1_j5y32pl wrote

No, it's removing 0.0001% of our yearly emissions.

11

PropOnTop t1_j5xvmb3 wrote

Is it this kind of plan?

https://youtu.be/nJslrTT-Yhc

7

bishopcheck t1_j60fjh4 wrote

Not really. This company is one of the very few that is storing the Co2. Per the companies website

>Geological storage of CO₂ is the process of injecting the captured CO₂ into the pores of rock formations deep underground, where carbon dioxide is physically trapped and then permanently stored. It is a fully natural and safe solution as it is only accelerating a natural process, plus it is permanent, as it is stable for millennia.

Unlike most others companies, like the ones funded by Bill Gates, that are planning to resell the Co2, in w/e form they find most profitable.

1

Regula_Guy t1_j624ojs wrote

Did you watch the entire video? He talks about Orca, which is the previous plant by this same company, which is using the sequestration process you're talking about.

3

PropOnTop t1_j62g26f wrote

Why not address the points in the video?

It sure convinced me.

3

jchexl t1_j64s2bp wrote

Because he didn’t even watch the video lol, he just assumed what it would be about. And assumed wrong.

3

[deleted] t1_j5y2tvb wrote

[removed]

7

Akul_Tesla t1_j5zk4pd wrote

Did you know the Amazon is not the only rainforest we've destroyed Australia used to be one very big rain forest before fire stick farming

1

[deleted] t1_j605v4j wrote

[removed]

1

Akul_Tesla t1_j60bec5 wrote

The outback is not exactly naturally occurring It used to be a rainforest

One of the theories of how it went away is that it was deliberately burnt by the natives

But yeah that's an entire continent devastated by human activity it's actually not even the largest continent devastated by human activity North America used to have way more forest before we put earthworms into the picture

2

Commentment_Phobe t1_j5xv7bj wrote

“Mammoth”. I’m getting extinction vibes from this name. 🧎🏻‍♂️🦣

2

theprocanvas t1_j620st1 wrote

Some of us laugh at the climate change prevention efforts but all of us know from our lives that climate is seriously changing, we see less snow every other year which will cause serious drought in our world and will effect all of us or our kids eventually. I am not for printing trillions to prevent climate change, yes we should spend some money and this money shouldn’t be corrupted and shouldn’t cause inflation…

1

Bensemus t1_j5zmhmr wrote

A single power plant isn't responsible for 0.1% of CO2 and we've been dumping CO2 for over a century. So how could a single scrubber remove that much? We have millions and millions of sources of CO2 that when all added up have created the climate change problem. It's going to take a similar number of sinks to start rectifying the problem.

−1

jchexl t1_j5ztbqv wrote

These are useless at best, and a scam at worst. If it’s powered by fossil fuels then it will emit more then it takes out of the air. And if is powered by renewables then it would be much more efficient to use that power to reduce fossil fuel usage rather then take carbon out of the air.

−1

bishopcheck t1_j60g9ny wrote

So you prolly believe that Wind Turbines use electricity when the wind blows the opposite way huh?

1

jchexl t1_j60jz3b wrote

Tf are you talking about lol, I’m a supporter of renewable energy and other sustainability projects. But these carbon capture plants are the opposite of sustainability unless we are already at 100% renewables, which we aren’t.

To take one ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere it uses 2650kwh of electricity. If that was powered by coal the average power plant would emit 265 tons of CO2 to take out 1 ton out of the atmosphere.

So the alternative is renewables, which also makes no sense because you can use that renewable energy to cut coal usage and end up with 265x as much reduced emissions compared to if you use the electricity to take carbon out of the air.

Whatever way you look at it they make 0 sense. They are just a way for companies to buy carbon credits so they can pretend to be green.

1

bishopcheck t1_j60lax8 wrote

We need carbon capture no matter how you look it. Even if we went 100% sustainable tomorrow, the already released greenhouse gases will effect the climate for centuries.

1

jchexl t1_j60m7t1 wrote

Carbon capture is literally just delaying our transition to renewables, the more electricity we waste on carbon capture the longer it will take to eliminate fossil fuels. It’s a massive net loss, maybe there’s a place for carbon capture in the future when we have an excess of renewable energy, but it’s hurting our planet in its current state.

There are still countries building new coal plants, why should we be wasting renewable energy to take 1 ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere, when we could use it to prevent 265 tons from ever being emitted?

1