lol, I studied exactly that for my geologic thermodynamics class. I can tell you about injecting liquid CO2 into basalt and the chemical alterations that occur.

You're making quite a leap with the assumption that I claim there's zero scientific research on this topic. It's the scientific research I'm aware of that makes me skeptical of the direct air capture claims.

This happened to me when I was kid. Random stranger saved me from the crazy undertow as I was getting swept out to sea and intense waves almost making me drown.

Meanwhile my dad was laying in the sand soaking up the sun and has no idea if ever happened.

Thank you random stranger for pulling me ashore.

Uhh, just Google carbon mineralization. It's a process that occurs naturally, but can be done artificially as well. You're acting like there's zero scientific research on this topic when there's actually quite a bit.

I, for one, welcome our inevitable doom. May the planet go thorough its usual end mass extinction phase and move on to a new era filled with bizarre (to us) creatures that live in dynamic equilibrium. /s

For real though, I too am worried about what the next few decades will bring.

Boo… boo this joke.

Maybe the reporter just added in the past if direct air capture because:

1. they didn't understand what the interviewee was talking about.
2. they thought it sounds cool.

Fusion is probably a (very) long term solution, and tbh, unless we're also prepared to supply that to the rest of the world, it's not really a fix. Much of places like India, China, Africa, and South America require socioeconomic change too, but the catch is, most of those problems are either enabled or straight up caused by Western capitalism, and capitalism is quite happy with those results thank you much.

So, really, the best we can do is minimize what we're creating, keep planting trees as you say, and try to capture what remains.

Well, that same news organization ran stories on UFOs.

I'm going to wait for actual scientific research before I buy into this process.

They're heros.

This sounds like an ad for a new season of H2O

There's real scientific research going on with carbon sequestration. It's been a few years since I've studied the practice, but there's major thermodynamic hurdles to overcome. These methods can't be applied just anywhere, the underlying geologic is the primary factor. Carbon gasses can only be shipped so far before the net capture goes to zero.

I don't think direct capture from the air will ever be feasible. The energy requirements alone means that more carbon would be produced than collected. Thermodynamics is harsh.

I wish we had the luxury of worrying about 50 years from now.

I think it's a waste of time and money and if we're going for pie in the sky like this we and we might as well throw the money at fusion or something instead since that might give us the energy for us to do something like this in the first place.

Granted, in the five years since I've learned about carbon sequestration methods this might have changed. Yes, it is possible to put CO2 into a superstate and inject it into sandstone or put it in a liquid state and inject it into basalt. There's problems with both and the best possible scenarios have a 60% net carbon capture.

There's a problem with trees that most people don't consider. A tree is a carbon reservoir for less than a century. When the tree dies and decays, that trapped carbon goes right back into the atmosphere. The last time trees captured carbon on a geologic scale was the carboniferous. Fungus have been eating dead trees since then.

Another issue is that climate change is killing entire regions of trees. Even if we could plant trees fast enough and ensure each one lives, we'd never make a dent in atmospheric carbon.

The plant that stores carbon on a geologic scale is algae. The algae has to die, sink to the ocean floor, and be buried before it can be eaten/decay. The problem with this is that it's such a slow process that it only becomes noticeable on a geologic timescale.

TBH we probably already need the sulfur dioxide. But also, if we're giving away free solar, we should probably work on finishing ours here, too. But of course, we'll never do that either if our pols are still monetarily beholden to the fossil industry.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is the solution, or even a good final one. Just that it's something we probably need, and on the heavy assumption that it is being done properly and with enough efficiency, it's a step in the right direction. And of course, seeing that this is in AZ, it's quite reasonable to say it should be solar powered to boot.

Yeah, further up I said we're better off fertilizing the oceans or dumping sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere than doing this active sequestration shit when we don't have cheap abundant energy.

You might as well just give china and india free solar panels instead.

It's been a while since I've done serious study on this subject, but the process needs a lot of power. The panels in this picture won't be enough.

I remember hearing that a gas powerplant would have to consume a quarter of the power produced just to capture the carbon gasses. Then the gas would have to be transported to the injection site. I think the best possible scenario, that the injection site is right by the powerplant, the net capture would be about 60%.

I wouldn't go that far. I'm sure the people trying this genuinely want to be the ones that contribute to solving the climate crisis. I just don't see how this method will actually work.

I've been watching a scientist work on a possible solution for over a decade now. It involves using sodium in a combustion engine. It sounds like it might help, but I'm not sure how we'd source the sodium without a lot of excess chlorine gas.

Trees are a temporary reservoir that'll hold the carbon for about 50 years +/- a few decades. There's entire regions where trees are dying because the climate has changed too quickly for them to adapt.

The true natural carbon sequester is algae in a high sediment deposition area. If the algae is buried before their bodies decay or are eaten, the carbon can be captured indefinitely. This is the first step in how oil is formed.

This kind of shit right here is why I need to get into better shape. If I had rushed in to help, we just all would have died.

It's been a few years since I've studied carbon sequestration as well. It was for my geologic thermodynamics class. And you're close, it's calcite (calcium carbonate, CaCO3), either that or you're correct, lol.

In the article, they discussed capturing exhaust, but they also talked about pulling the carbon gasses directly from the atmosphere. That's the part I'm most skeptical about.

Your money would be better spent giving india and china free solar cells than this pie in the sky active sequestration shit. That can wait until we actually have cheap and carbon neutral energy to throw at it.

We'd be better off just biting the bullet and going for ocean fertilization or dumping sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere if we're that desperate.

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I never said we stop using concrete, just that you will reduce carbon in the atmosphere more effectively if you use normal concrete and cheaply plant trees instead of using more expensive low carbon concrete. As an added bonus you get more building material too.