> ChatGPT & DALL-E generated panoramic cutaway illustration you requested, showing the system that extracts natural gas from beneath the North Sea, the CO2 removal process, and the CO2 injection into a subsea salt brine cavern.
It’s anti-information really. It distracts the brain and prevents us from better imagining the real facility, or let’s the author imagine they’ve done work instead of actually finding a suitable photo of the facility.
Reminds me of the images on this article from last year, which when they were first posted didn’t even have the clarifying captions they have now:
https://newatlas.com/lifestyle/powdered-beer/
AI is just the next step of the worthless newspaper illustration, before that they used stock images. They know people are more likely to stay on an article which has images so they invent some even if it doesn't make sense.
Not useful, but artistic in nature. A number of magazines used to have illustrators do something similar in cases where there was no appropriate imagery.
Carbon capture is about sequestration of public funding through subsidies and burying it deep, deep inside the bank accounts of big polluting companies, where tax collectors will never find them.
Carbon capture could theoretically work. With VERY heavy use of nuclear power, which the advocates for carbon capture, in my experience, almost always advocate against. And even then, the energy is much better used on other stuff.
you absolutely can recycle some plastics. hdpe, ldpe, eps to name a few. doesnt mean they are good, or we should keep using them. but you are wrong in general
How are we going to deal with already emitted carbon after we transition to a post carbon world? I haven't looked at the latest UN climate change reports but I recall previous ones indicating that carbon capture needs to be part of the mix of solutions to limit us to ~2 degrees warming (now probably 2.3 degrees :/)
Or we can just face reality and start actively controlling the climate (meaning reduce temperature directly without doing what's essentially outlawed by the second law of thermodynamics. Ie. unmixing gases)
Ironically, solar panels do exactly what. Especially on water. Water absorbs 93% of solar radiation. Solar panels aborb 30% to 70%. Global warming (all of it, all 150 years) is about a 0.7% change in albedo, so "bad" (30% absorption 70% reflection) solar planels on water (or concrete, or grass) undo ALL global warming on 90 times their surface area. And you can do better than that. You can just paint 3% of the land area of the planet of 1% of the ocean, and undo global warming.
This article desperately needs an editor. Non sequiturs, sentence fragments, and a lack of citations all make this difficult to read and believe.
I’m skeptical of many carbon capture solutions, but this presentation isn’t doing itself any favors. It shouldn’t cite generalized articles, or articles from the same website. It should be citing facts and studies.
Sorry, I don't get the point about Equinor. It (a) extracts gas and (b) captures CO2. The reasoning goes like, since using the gas obtained by (a) releases much more CO2 than how much is saved by (b), then it's not worth doing (b). Am I the only one to see the fallacy in this way of thinking?
"Capturing" carbon into fuel to be released back is not exactly capturing, maybe it could be called buffering. A lot of the Net Zero proposal "compensates" to keep extracting oil/coal/gas with generating new fuels in this way, but it is not about reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at all. If it were to stop extracting fossil fuel at least it could had some meaning, but with this kind of environmental policies the fossil fuel will stop to be extracted by the time the wells run dry.
Same goes with using planting trees as carbon capture, in a world where climate is going haywire (so drought, heat waves and other things that promotes massive forest fires becomes increasingly more common) that is carbon that could be released back any time.
The most effective carbon capture energy is to keep buried fossil carbon that way. It has been in that form for hundreds of millions of years, at least until some not so smart apes decided to destabilize with it the ecosystem where they live in just a century.
You seem to assume that they capture CO2 from atmosphere and somehow inject it into the fuel (gas) that they sell. It's not what TFA talks about, though. It's exactly the opposite:
> Carbon dioxide is stripped from natural gas with amine solvents and is deposited in a saline formation.
Is it? Would it be better that the demand for gas was satisfied by exploring and drilling new gas fields rather than using the ones we already have more efficiently?
Readit News
> ChatGPT & DALL-E generated panoramic cutaway illustration you requested, showing the system that extracts natural gas from beneath the North Sea, the CO2 removal process, and the CO2 injection into a subsea salt brine cavern.
How useful is this illustration?
Reminds me of the images on this article from last year, which when they were first posted didn’t even have the clarifying captions they have now: https://newatlas.com/lifestyle/powdered-beer/
Almost everything (>95%) is a fraud and the people running the show know it. They should be in jail.
Ironically, solar panels do exactly what. Especially on water. Water absorbs 93% of solar radiation. Solar panels aborb 30% to 70%. Global warming (all of it, all 150 years) is about a 0.7% change in albedo, so "bad" (30% absorption 70% reflection) solar planels on water (or concrete, or grass) undo ALL global warming on 90 times their surface area. And you can do better than that. You can just paint 3% of the land area of the planet of 1% of the ocean, and undo global warming.
I’m skeptical of many carbon capture solutions, but this presentation isn’t doing itself any favors. It shouldn’t cite generalized articles, or articles from the same website. It should be citing facts and studies.
Same goes with using planting trees as carbon capture, in a world where climate is going haywire (so drought, heat waves and other things that promotes massive forest fires becomes increasingly more common) that is carbon that could be released back any time.
The most effective carbon capture energy is to keep buried fossil carbon that way. It has been in that form for hundreds of millions of years, at least until some not so smart apes decided to destabilize with it the ecosystem where they live in just a century.
You seem to assume that they capture CO2 from atmosphere and somehow inject it into the fuel (gas) that they sell. It's not what TFA talks about, though. It's exactly the opposite:
> Carbon dioxide is stripped from natural gas with amine solvents and is deposited in a saline formation.
I think you would have to use email, strangely enough. Try hn@ycombinator.com
It's actually good that the arsonist put some of the matches back.