Carbon Capture...

Search results are dependant on who is searching. But still:

When you use DuckDuckGo the first result is wikipedia.

When you use Google the first results are corporations.

When you use Bing the first result is a corporation, then Wikipedia.

Brave search gives an AI summary of carbon capture, an investment page, one of the corp pages, and then a breakdown on why 'carbon capture' is a misleading tactic.

Edit: All this to say, maybe stop using Google.

It should be blatantly obvious just from basic thermodynamics that carbon capture cannot ever possibly be cheaper than not burning the fossil fuels in the first place.

I think Carbon Capture is a legitimate and respectable area of research, but it's fuckall for any practical use today or tomorrow and it should never be treated as a replacement for emission goals or the maintenance of critical ecosystems.

If you Google anything the first results are sponsored links.

Carbon capture, Carbon footprint, Carbon offsetting....

All things invented by oil and gas corporations to greenwash themselves in the public eye while they destroy the planet.

Just looking for ways they can charge us to clean up the mess they created.

Carbon Capture and Storage has proven highly effective at injecting taxpayer dollars straight into politicians’ pockets

I'm not sure that we should write it off completely...

There's a thing in Iceland that binds CO2 underground.

It's pretty cool: https://www.carbfix.com/

Here's the science behind it https://www.carbfix.com/scientific-papers

Geologist here. I work in Oil and Gas, but not for producers. Service side. We've helped with the geology of a handful of carbon capture injection wells this year. They get funded by the majors, but operated by someone else, and they drill them on site of a factory or plant that produces a lot of carbon. That way there is a local site to inject the carbon they capture as a by product od the industrial activity. Pretty cool stuff I'd you look past a quick internet search and make assumptions.

As much as I agree with the implication that O&G companies latch on to every potential carbon sink as a way to greenwash themselves, carbon capture does have merits.

However, the only ones who can currently utilize carbon capture on a significant scale are the ones who produce a lot of carbon to begin with. Technology will have to advance drastically for it to be a carbon sink effective enough to offset emission to the point where emission cuts can be scaled down.

Source: Last year I was involved in surveyon an area that was planned for huge-scale carbon storage after capture.

Hey, look at us, we are planting 2 bn trees that are ALL THE SAME.

None of the methods they present as solutions are even close to being viable. The ones that do look promising, however, are where they bind the CO2 to tailings.

it's much more nuanced than that though.

Yup. And they've been working on it for 20 years, and have yet to illustrate any scale that would effect the problem.

Okay? And how are we supposed to deal with the emissions currently in the atmosphere? Even if we abandon all technologies that generate greenhouse gases overnight, we still have shit in the atmosphere warming the planet.

The most compelling strategy I've heard is biochar. You immolate organic matter in a medium like nitrogen so you don't get carbon dioxide, and then you bury the char or use it as fertilizer. The char is relatively stable so shouldn't create much in the way of carbon dioxide once it's formed, and because you make it in an oxygen-less atmosphere you don't get more greenhouse gases from making it.

Who here is googling with sponsored search results?

It's like running all their car engines in reverse. Push a shitload of electricity in, and recombine car exhaust into petrol. Then burn it all over again.

Except they will not pay for the electricity.