The study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, found that global carbon storage capacity was 10 times less than previous estimates after ruling out geological formations where the gas could leak, trigger earthquakes or contaminate groundwater, or had other limitations. That means carbon capture and storage would only have the potential to reduce human-caused warming by 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.26 Fahrenheit)—far less than previous estimates of around 5-6 degrees Celsius (9-10.8 degrees Fahrenheit), researchers said.
“Carbon storage is often portrayed as a way out of the climate crisis. Our findings make clear that it is a limited tool” and reaffirms “the extreme importance of reducing emissions as fast and as soon as possible,” said lead author Matthew Gidden, a research professor at the University Maryland’s Center for Global Sustainability. The study was led by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, where Gidden also is a senior researcher in the energy, climate and environment program.
No one who is serious about carbon capture technologies expects that it is feasible to store it underground in gaseous form and that has been known for two decades.
What if we liquify it into a black gooey form first?
That’s the thing you do after 2080 when you have too much energy. Because you have to add in all the energy from burning it, and it’s very unproductive.
It would actually be simpler to go straight to soot and rebuild the coal beds. Electrolysis to CO followed by reverse Boudouard reaction. EZ.
E-fuel is an important technology of it’s own, because planes basically don’t work without the energy density burning oil has, but stopping the reduction at hydrocarbons has proven a lot trickier.
EZ. Use more energy. EZ.
Like, a lot more energy. You’re literally burning fossil fuels in reverse. And the electrolysis part is way more involved, even if it does exist on small scales for, like, space travel applications.
EZ, but yes, totally economically unfeasible any time soon.
Now I’m imagining a world where we produce coal in a factory from the air using solar power at peak times in the desert, the send the coal where it’s needed and burn it again later. Literally renewable coal nonsense.
(not a serious proposal btw it just seemed really funny to imagine we’re so addicted to the stuff we start making more just to keep using it)
It will either be fusion or nothing.
Why?
If I’m reading correctly, producing CO at room temp in a sealed vessel would essentially immediately produce soot and more CO2 to pump back through the system?
You need a catalyst and/or slightly elevated temperature for soot formation to actually happen, but yes. Information on what catalysts are the best is actually hard to come by, because this is usually a bad, accidental thing that happens and gums up your blast furnace. It sounds like just iron works to some degree, though.
Looks like gold and silver are the best for producing CO from electrolysis, wonder how they go for making soot
Ah, good thing those are cheap materials, then!
As somebody pointed out, burning fossil fuels in reverse also takes just as much energy as you’d expect. I never said the general idea was actually practical. Certainly not right now, anyway.
Well hopefully we don’t try to do that while actively digging up more black gooey form to burn. If it was thought to be economical at any point in the future nobody would give a shit about hydrogen after all.
We have to get rid of the old gooey black stuff to make room for the new gooey black stuff. Obviously.
Goo in, goo out.
I read a popscience article about how US naval ships with nuclear reactors are now using carbon dissolved in seawater to create kerosene. So there’s that.
Yeah but that doesn’t have to be efficient. It just has to be more efficient than crossing back over the Pacific Ocean to stock up on jet fuel
Why would they need kerosene? Lol.
I’m picturing them hanging out with old lamps down there.
Jet fuel is essentially kerosene. The idea is to fuel the jet engines on a nuclear aircraft carrier after the bombs drop. Namely sustaining a Pacific fleet against China after supply lines are cut.
Ah, an aircraft carrier. That makes more sense.
For whatever reason I forgot about those momentarily. That was weird.
Jet-A is kerosene and a handful of additives, mostly to prevent gelling at low temperatures. The ability to produce jet fuel from sea water would be extremely useful, but I highly doubt they have developed a feasible system on board a carrier.
Those carriers are pretty big.
Kerosine will run a diesel engine, all I can think of.
They do mention serpentisation in the article as an alternative, but point out almost none of the current projects are bothering with that, and are just going for immobilised storage in sedimentary rock instead.