The energy requirements for storing one ton of co2 are many many times higher than the energy gained from generating one ton of co2 (by oil, gas, coal or biofuel).
So each MWh spent “storing co2” would be ten times more efficient if used to offset oil extraction to get one MWh less out in the first place.
This is wasteful greenwashing. If it wasn’t, we’d have broken physics on the level of making perpetual motion machines.
That’s true but even if we switch entirely over green energy overnight, we’ll still have Steel, still have Bauxite refining for Aluminum, etc, still have to melt and reform glass and aluminum recycled containers, etc, etc.
There are many processes that we really can’t just get rid of, so they will need carbon capture to ensure they’re not hurting the environment.
Sure, but that’s only relevant once we have 100% clean energy
Developing the technology now is still useful. Waiting until we’re carbon neutral before even thinking about capture would also be mistake.
Lol I love that you think we’ll actually get beyond carbon neutral at some point. You’re far more optimistic than me.
deleted by creator
Wasn’t there a story about CO2 under a lake in Africa being released naturally and killing a lot of people in the first several minutes because they couldn’t breathe?
Yes, there’s been several events in valleys or depressions that people have been killed.
they are planting trees on the ocean?
Don’t we have similar objects on the ground? Wouldn’t it be more convenient and cheap to not hassle with the ocean?
To remain in a liquid state CO2 needs to be kept under several hundred PSI of pressure and kept fairly cool. Even at only 40F CO2 boils at about 550 PSIG. In above ground tanks you need to worry about elevated ambient temperatures and if that CO2 tank gets to be over about 88F then that CO2 just straight up can’t be liquified. Above 88F you suddenly have a tank of supercritical CO2 which gets a bit more interesting to store for various reasons.
The deep ocean it actually a fairly ideal place to store liquid CO2 because it is cold and already under an immense amount of pressure.
The north sea oil fields are huge, and mostly empty now. They also have the infrastructure already built for gas extraction/injection.
Makes sense as a location for a trial in that area.
wow so they’re ‘storing’ it in the ‘empty’ oil fields? Sounds a lot like Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) to me.
Used to extract fossil fuels, the field is now getting a second lease on life as a means of permanently storing planet-warming carbon dioxide beneath the seabed.
If you take them by their word, it sounds perfect.
I’m worried about Ineos’ ulterior motives. It would not take a lot of change or investment to start up EOR there if any drilling equipment is still in place.
Because it is:
There are four main EOR techniques: carbon dioxide (CO2) injection, gas injection, thermal EOR, and chemical EOR. More advanced, speculative EOR techniques are sometimes called quaternary recovery.[4][5][6][7] Carbon dioxide injection, known as CO2-EOR, is the most common method. In this method, CO2 is injected into a depleted oil field and is mostly left underground.
CO2-EOR is usually performed using CO2 from naturally occurring underground deposits. It is also sometimes performed using CO2 captured from the flue gas of industrial facilities. When EOR is done using CO2 captured from flue gas, the process can prevent some emissions from escaping. However, there is controversy over whether the overall process is beneficial for the climate. EOR operations are energy-intensive, which leads to more emissions, and further emissions are produced when the recovered oil is burned.
From Wikipedia.
