• reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Is this like nuclear waste that has to be stored in caves? Or can you actually do something constructive with these bricks?

    • pezmaker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      According to the article, this isn’t even recapturing CO2. It’s grabbing plant/decomposable waste before it rots, turning it into these dense bricks, and burying it under ground. Like, collecting corn husks from farmers. This feels stupid to me and like a big gimmick.

      • Chocrates@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        I guess it is preventing methane generation from the hungry microbes but yeah this seems useless. Add on carbon used to make and bury them too

        • Fubber Nuckin'@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          That would be very dumb because methane leaves the atmosphere on its own much more quickly than CO2. Roughly 12 years compared to carbon dioxide being closer to 500 years.

          Of course it’s kind of a half life so putting a single number on it isn’t perfect but that’s the difference in scale at least.

      • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        this isn’t even recapturing CO2. It’s grabbing plant/decomposable waste before it rots

        Does this not amount to the same thing? The plants capture the CO2 and store it in sugar, which is then buried instead of burning it for energy or letting it rot.

        • plenipotentprotogod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I agree. The concept is simple, and it’s not perfect, but it isn’t dumb either. This is basically recreating how coal and oil got in the ground in the first place. Plants absorbed carbon from the air as they grew, then they got buried in a way that prevented them from decomposing and re-releasing it into the atmosphere. My main question here would be whether burying it only 10 feet under ground is really enough for long term storage. The other big elephant in the room with carbon capture is that it can be a convenient excuse for companies to avoid doing work towards actually decarbonizing their operations. If, as the article suggests, this is used primarily by industries like cement making that don’t currently have a way to become carbon neutral then it’s a good thing. If it’s just used as cynical green washing by companies who could be doing better, then it’s at best a wash, and arguably a net negative.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        i imagined that would be the case when i read that its a bill gates thing