this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
27 points (84.6% liked)

CO2 capture technologies

273 readers
1 users here now

This community is evolving from being just about CDR to include all CO~2~ capture, removal, utilization, sequestration & storage technologies. So let's discuss everything related to:

While many climate scientists have reservations about CCS, the crisis has now grown so acute that almost all the net zero pathways modeled by the U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) envision huge deployments of the technology by mid-century. Governments have also embraced the prospect that CCS could be a cost-effective means for reducing emissions without disrupting fossil fuel-based economies.[1]

Perhaps, it could be considered alarming that these technologies are often intertwined with fossil fuel companies. These corporations use them as an excuse not to phase out their production, while portraying themselves as part of the solution. (see: Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, TotalEnergies)


Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), according to the definition by the IPCC, is a process that captures CO~2~ from a point-source.

The terms CCS and Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) are closely related and often used interchangeably. Both terms have been used predominantly to refer to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) a process in which captured CO~2~ is injected into partially depleted oil reservoirs in order to extract more oil.

Some sources use the term CCS, CCU, or CCUS more broadly, encompassing methods such as Direct Air Capture (DAC) or Direct Air Carbon Capture and Sequestration (DACCS), as well tree-planting which remove CO~2~ from the air.

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is defined by the IPCC as: "Anthropogenic activities removing CO~2~ from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products."

Synonyms for CDR include Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR), negative emissions technology, and carbon removal. The term geoengineering (or climate engineering) is sometimes used in the scientific literature for CDR. The terms geoengineering or climate engineering are no longer used in IPCC reports.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xia 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...and probably emits ten times that much carbon to produce. :-/

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

They can't be that stupid

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But also causes cancer or a zombie apocalypse

[–] ohellidk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

well, I didn't see that in there, unless I missed something? :)

[–] alyqz 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The molecular structure of the powder:

The notable thing seems to not be that it can absorb (and desorb) CO~2~, but that it can undergo hundreds of cycles with little degredation.

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not a chemist, but from what I can tell it's created using cesium salt as a precursor or catalyst. This doesn't sound like something punks can safely mix in a bathtub.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I might be a chemist, and I'm not too concerned about the toxicity of the cesium carbonate. I'd be more concerned about the toxicity of the azide and azidirine intermediates. But if some "punks" can pull off a Knovenegal condensation and a Staudinger reaction in a bathtub, I would be quite impressed with their resourcefulness.

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

It sounds like extremely toxic organic chemistry. I imagine the waste from the reactions has special disposal requirements. Do you think the powder is hazardous as well?

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

🎶 watched the scientists throw up their hands conceding, “progress will resolve it all” 🎶