undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTSiege2mo ago0 comments

This is called Carbon Capture and Storage and so far it has never been worth it energetically. And the only companies doing it are oil companies in a process known as enhanced recovery which pushes more co2 out than is pushed in. The OP was right. Better to leave it in the ground

0 comments

nine_k2mo ago

You can have 100% renewable energy. You can't realistically produce cement or steel without using and exhausting large amounts of CO2. This has to be addressed, even if it costs energy (which, as we agreed, can be 100% carbon-neutral).

adgjlsfhk12mo ago

there is no world in which it is cheaper to produce steel releasing CO2 and recapturing than fobbing off recapture until later. the thermodynamics just don't work.

Thorrez2mo ago

Sorry, I don't understand. You're comparing 2 things. For the 2nd thing, are you including the cost of later recapture or not?

If you're not including the cost of later recapture, then it's not a fair comparison.

If you are including the cost of later recapture, why is it cheaper to recapture later than to do so immediately?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse