• Lembot_0005@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t we have similar objects on the ground? Wouldn’t it be more convenient and cheap to not hassle with the ocean?

    • Nighed@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The north sea oil fields are huge, and mostly empty now. They also have the infrastructure already built for gas extraction/injection.

      Makes sense as a location for a trial in that area.

      • myrmidex@belgae.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        wow so they’re ‘storing’ it in the ‘empty’ oil fields? Sounds a lot like Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) to me.

        • Nighed@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Used to extract fossil fuels, the field is now getting a second lease on life as a means of permanently storing planet-warming carbon dioxide beneath the seabed.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, I’m sure it’ll work this time. It definitely won’t hold just long enough for attention to go elsewhere…

            Oil companies are really great at keeping things in oil wells, especially at sea. Just a fantastic track record

            • Nighed@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              If it held natural gas, it should hold carbon dioxide. Especially as CO2 should react with a lot of the porus rocks and be absorbed.

              That’s why it’s worth doing this kind of stuff though. Find out if it works now, so we know if it works when shit really goes down.

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                You don’t understand… We already know it doesn’t work. They’ve been doing this for decades, they’ve recently started green washing this fracking technique

                And in case you didn’t know, there’s dozens of oil wells leaking right now. Some is oil in the ocean, some natural gas, some of it is burning underground… And there’s just no known way to stop it. You can’t just seal them back up when you’re done, the structure of the rock is damaged

                And all of the aside, this doesn’t math even if it worked. It takes too much energy to pull CO2 out of the air, and to even make a dent we’d have to put up CO2 condensers on a percentage of earths surface… It’s a dead end tech.

                A distraction from the truth… We just have to reduce emissions. It’s that simple, we have to do it before the systems that keep Earth stable flip and accelerate warming

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  And all of the aside, this doesn’t math even if it worked. It takes too much energy to pull CO2 out of the air

                  They aren’t taking it out of the air. They are taking it out of smoke stacks. It’s far easier to pull it out of highly concentrated sources like smoke stacks than to try to pull it directly out of the atmosphere.

                  we’d have to put up CO2 condensers on a percentage of earths surface…

                  You’re describing biofuels. Vegetation “condenses” the CO2 out of the atmosphere, incorporating it into carbohydrates.

                  Burning biofuels, we produce H2O and CO2 in the smoke stacks. Every pound of CO2 pulled from the smoke stack is a pound removed from the atmosphere.

                  Any introduction of fossil fuels into the process defeats the purpose, but the underlying technology is theoretically feasible with biofuel carbon sources.