Comment on At this rate, why not.
fckreddit@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Carbon sequestration is not going to solve global warming. CO2 is less than 2% of atmosphere. Even if you pass a shitton of air through the strata the difference will be negligible.
Comment on At this rate, why not.
fckreddit@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Carbon sequestration is not going to solve global warming. CO2 is less than 2% of atmosphere. Even if you pass a shitton of air through the strata the difference will be negligible.
rbos@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Water absorbs a lot of co2 and removing it from the water via weathering is a valid idea.
fckreddit@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
I don’t know. What do you think is the concentration of CO2 in the sea water? I am just not convinced.
piccolo@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
The biggest threat of co2 emmisions is ocean acidifcation. A collapse of the ocean ecosystem would be devastating to the rest of the planet. A warmer planet sucks, but dead phytoplankton would result in a global plumment in O2 production.
rbos@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
The concentration isn’t as important as the difficulty to remove it. It’s still a hard problem, but rock weathering is one way to accomplish it, but it would need a lot of exposed rock surface.
fckreddit@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Not just a lot of exposed rock surface. But also, there are energy costs for pumping water to the exposed surface. Factoring in the efficiency of the carbon removal from the water, I find it hard to believe it is a good solution.
Wouldn’t it be better if we focus on better sources of energy? I am no expert, but I know about it more than a common man due to my academic background in civil engineering.