• NielsBohron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to convey here. Carbon sequestration is unarguably a way to mitigate climate change, and sequestration of CO2 is probably the most reasonable way to do so. It doesn’t need to be as a gas, as taking CO2 and exposing it to various oxides creates carbonates, which are generally very stable compounds like limestone.

    The other commenter simply said carbon could be captured as CO2 and sequestered without being reduced, which is absolutely true and frankly makes much more sense from a physics/thermodynamics POV.

    • Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You guessed right - without reductions or conversion it simply becomes a ticking time bomb. Anything secure enough to capture and contain a gas reliably for millennia without maintenance will be too expensive to be practical.

      • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Methane is a greenhouse gas more potent than CO2 that was stored underground for millennia. You would need actual data to conclude that storing CO2 is too expensive.

        • Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are no manmade Methane stores from before the Christian era and there never have been. If you’re going to argue that methane that was produced underground millions of years ago is a valid human goal, you may as well propose the simpler method of just increasing the Earth’s orbit by a few tenths of a percent to offset the heating due to CO2. Done and done.