this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
23 points (82.9% liked)

Canada

10430 readers
735 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 46 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (10 children)

Carbon capture is absolutely not the future in Canada, much as our elected officials may wish it so. It is a waste of time and money, subsidized reputation laundering for a powerful industry.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (9 children)

I've never understood carbon capture and storage. I never went past high school and that was about 50 years ago. But I still remember the key principles behind why perpetual motion will never be a thing.

Unless there is an energy producing reaction that binds CO2 or separates the carbon from the oxygen without producing nasty byproducts, carbon capture and storage cannot work without pouring more energy into the project than what we gained from the release of the CO2.

Just imagine what anything else looks like. For every fossil fueled power plant that has ever existed, we need to build at least one larger non-carbon plant to power the capture and storage. There are several ways to reduce the fraction of our power that goes into capture and storage:

  • Take more time to remove than it took to add
  • Remove less than we added
  • Find a less energy intensive method of binding the CO2 (that is we don't need to turn the CO2 back into a fuel; is creating calcium carbonate an option?)

But no matter how you slice it, removing enough quickly enough will still require a large fraction of our power generation capacity.

The initiatives cannot be anything other than a shell game designed to hide the underlying perpetual motion machine.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Depends on how you do the capture. If you need to engineer the system and feed it energy in a form that we can instead use to power other stuff, then yeah, it doesn't make sense. But if you for example, plant a tree, then that tree would use energy from the sun that you wouldn't otherwise be able to use as easily.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

The carbon captured by the tree will be released when it eventually rots or burns. That's why it's called the "carbon cycle".

If you want to reduce carbon in our atmosphere, you need to capture and store that carbon in a way that won't be released again for thousands of years or more.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)