Science Memes

12359 readers

1949 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

392

Entropy? Never heard of it. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

151 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 71 points 5 days ago (31 children)

I've heard there's a practical green solution to carbon capture. The units are practically maintenance free and power themselves with solar energy. This allows to deploy them on many small patches of land. The captured carbon is stored in solid organic compounds that may be used as building materials. It may sound to sci-fi to be true, but it's actually just trees.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (13 children)

Agree, carbon capture process is quite efficient now. I'm working on (pretty big) company doing Carbon Capture and Sequestration. The idea is to use empty oil&gaz reservoir to inject back carbon where it comes from. So there are several advantage:

The land is already messed up by former drilling platerform. No need to shave another forest to create a facility
No waste to handle, as the captured carbon is injected in the underground. We also study the possibility to inject other kind of waste, like domestic ones.
Simplified process as we can keep Co2 in gaz state to inject back in former natural gaz reservoir. Not even needed to extract carbon to solodify it.
Yes, trees are much more efficient and eco-friendly, but sometime we cannot just plant billions of trees. Whereas a CCS facility is relatively small compared to a whole forest.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (7 children)

That seems like a disaster waiting to (re) happen, what's your thoughts on that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What do you mean ?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Carbonating a void underground seems like a bad plan. God help us if Mentos get down there.

And OP was talking about trees.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

I think as long as they throw a 10 lb bag of sugar down the hole before they start pumping then you don't have to worry about it accidentally becoming a diet Coke.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Geological reservoirs are thousands metter depth and several dozen of km wide. Pressure is a few MPa, and temperature hundreds of °C. Condition are so extrem that filling them with gaz barely change anything. Especially if they were already filled with gaz dozen years ago. Furthemore, they are not big vacum like most people imagine. It's more like giant spongy rock, like sand. It's not a baloon you inflate or deflate.

CCS facilities are not in competition with forest. It's a complementatry solution. If you manage to capture carbon next to poluting factories, you don't spread Co2 on the atmosphere, waiting it to be captured by a forest the other side of the globe. And they can be powered by solar panels.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

gaz

Why?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Keyboard wear levelinq

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

How much carbon gets released building this technomarvel?

How long before it hits carbon neutral, if even carbon negative?

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments (27 replies)