• dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    That’s worrysome, and is indeed an enormous problem - probably the biggest problem humanity has ever faced.

    What bothers me about this situation is that it makes easy measures that “buy time” look like a good idea. Like dimming the sky with particulates, or increasing sulfur emissions. Both of which will cause environmental damage on their own, and screw with renewable solar and wind, but it’ll keep the global solar gain down. I’m not a fan of these kinds of approaches either and would love to see everyone do a hard pivot to dramatically less fossil fuel and more renewable, fission, and (eventually) fusion power.

    Meanwhile, short of converting CO2 into carbonates, graphite, and diamond, I don’t know of any sequestration methods that seem anywhere near as permanent. What’s kind of sad is that even gaseous sequestration would probably work okay-ish in old gas wells that aren’t fracked, but there’s probably not nearly enough such storage to make the difference.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think the “buying time” solutions do work, and will be needed, but indeed will be abused as cheap end-all solutions by idiots, as always.

      Storing CO2 directly in the ground, I think, is a really bad idea. if it escapes you lose all the energy invested in harvesting it. You’ll need to convert it into Graphite or plastics. The problem though is again that were talking truly ginormous amounts. Think a square kilometer cube of graphite, we’d need hundreds of those. If that were to catch fire, we’re all effed, so your still need to store it safely somewhere.