• Lembot_0005@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 days 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
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days 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
        3
        ·
        2 days 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
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days 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
            2
            ·
            1 day 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
              1
              ·
              1 day 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
                1
                ·
                18 hours 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
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 hours 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.

                  • theneverfox@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 hours ago

                    The biofuel thing is just further nonsense.

                    If you’re pulling CO2 out of the air, why in the world would you turn around and burn it???

                    That makes zero sense. For one, biofuels require processing, which means they might even be carbon positive before you burn it, and again, the scale needed to produce it in meaningful quantities is totally impractical.

                    And again, you can’t just pump CO2 in the well and put an acme sized plug on it. The structure of the rock is destroyed by the process, it’ll just leak out. We’d need an entirely new method to store it, which was never the plan here

                    This whole scheme is a fever dream designed to continue burning fossil fuels while siphoning away money from actual green movements

                  • theneverfox@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    13 hours ago

                    Ok… Come on now, I know you’ve been propagandized, and propaganda works, but let’s think this through

                    If you capture CO2 out of smokestacks, what have you done? You’ve slightly reduced emissions by going after the lowest hanging fruit possible

                    Are we going to do that to every power plant? Is every containment effort going to work? Does that actually fix the problem?

          • myrmidex@belgae.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            If you take them by their word, it sounds perfect.

            I’m worried about Ineos’ ulterior motives. It would not take a lot of change or investment to start up EOR there if any drilling equipment is still in place.

        • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Because it is:

          There are four main EOR techniques: carbon dioxide (CO2) injection, gas injection, thermal EOR, and chemical EOR. More advanced, speculative EOR techniques are sometimes called quaternary recovery.[4][5][6][7] Carbon dioxide injection, known as CO2-EOR, is the most common method. In this method, CO2 is injected into a depleted oil field and is mostly left underground.

          CO2-EOR is usually performed using CO2 from naturally occurring underground deposits. It is also sometimes performed using CO2 captured from the flue gas of industrial facilities. When EOR is done using CO2 captured from flue gas, the process can prevent some emissions from escaping. However, there is controversy over whether the overall process is beneficial for the climate. EOR operations are energy-intensive, which leads to more emissions, and further emissions are produced when the recovered oil is burned.

          From Wikipedia.

    • Canonical_Warlock@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      To remain in a liquid state CO2 needs to be kept under several hundred PSI of pressure and kept fairly cool. Even at only 40F CO2 boils at about 550 PSIG. In above ground tanks you need to worry about elevated ambient temperatures and if that CO2 tank gets to be over about 88F then that CO2 just straight up can’t be liquified. Above 88F you suddenly have a tank of supercritical CO2 which gets a bit more interesting to store for various reasons.

      The deep ocean it actually a fairly ideal place to store liquid CO2 because it is cold and already under an immense amount of pressure.