Live data from Hacker News

US is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story

text.npr.org

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: US is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story

#61
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's cheaper to capture it where it is concentrated, at the source (eg. power plants).

Is the efficiency gained by capturing it from a stronger concentration enough to offset the costs of building pipelines? Why not burn wood in a room near the destination site and get extremely concentrated CO2 right there and capture that instead? Are pipelines somehow even more economical than that?

I think it's better to charcoal the wood and burry the charcoal. If charcoal is stored properly, it takes a lot of time to decompose and keep the carbon down there for a long time. And it has less storage problems than CO2 that is a gas and wants to escape.

Probably instead of wood, it would be better to use other agricultural waste. For example here, some sugar factories use the rests of the sugarcane ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagasse ) to burn it and produce heat and electricity. I'm not sure if it can be charcoaled and buried instead.

Re: US is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story

#62
post #59

Wouldn't just planting trees be way more economical and effective? Why isn't the government subsidizing planting trees as they are these pipelines? How many trees do they have to cut down to run these pipelines is probably a question someone should also be asking...

Trees release their carbon when they die, and they all die relatively quickly on the scales we’re talking about. If harvested and used in long lived construction, it can be longer term, but inevitably it still gets released. Think carbon capacitor, not carbon sink.

there are extensive chapters written on this topic in IPCC publications, and in the US Climate documents, and in California Climate documents. What you say is partly true, but conveniently omits large other factors at the same time.

Re: US is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing remotely economical about capturing CO2 in the first place. But if you're dead set on doing it, it costs the least to do it where the CO2 concentration is the highest (where it's produced.)

fortunately we are realizing that this is not an economic problem, it is a "poison survival" problem

Carbon capture is not a solution to anything except further enriching fossil fuel companies. It's a big fat scam, the only real solutions to climate change are renewable energy and nuclear power.

Re: US is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story

#64
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trees release their carbon when they die, and they all die relatively quickly on the scales we’re talking about. If harvested and used in long lived construction, it can be longer term, but inevitably it still gets released. Think carbon capacitor, not carbon sink.

there are extensive chapters written on this topic in IPCC publications, and in the US Climate documents, and in California Climate documents. What you say is partly true, but conveniently omits large other factors at the same time.

Such as?

Unless the tree gets subducted or interred (aka turned to Coal or similar), it’s still part of the cycle, and its carbon will still eventually return to the atmosphere.

And with the evolution of lignin eating fungi (white rot fungi being particularly efficient) many millions of years ago, good luck with that.

Capacitors are useful, but they aren’t sinks.

Re: US is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no way is Sally gonna trust Homer Simpson. The Simpsons and its consequences have been a disaster for nuclear power, and the human race.

The Simpsons is a reflection of sentiment, not a driver of opinion. The show aired years after the anti-nuclear movement started having real effects on the industry.

>The show aired years after the anti-nuclear movement started having real effects on the industry.

Sorry, let me amend.

The anti-nuclear movement and its consequences have been a disaster for The Simpsons

Re: US is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would have thought lakes could choke surrounding area. TIL

I think it's a very special case of a deep lake in volcanic caldera in a tropical zone with a lot of vegetation and heat to make it decompose. Usual lakes don't do that (IIUC).

Wiki states many theories, no conclusive way to know and then makes a series of assumptions about velocity, force, vector etc.

I posit it could have been a sandworm deposit site that then suffered a spice reaction and exploded, like Dune.

Still, lake exploded a gas and people within 16 miles were knocked out or killed. Nuts.

Re: US is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story

#67
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are extensive chapters written on this topic in IPCC publications, and in the US Climate documents, and in California Climate documents. What you say is partly true, but conveniently omits large other factors at the same time.

Such as? Unless the tree gets subducted or interred (aka turned to Coal or similar), it’s still part of the cycle, and its carbon will still eventually return to the atmosphere. And with the evolution of lignin eating fungi (white rot fungi being particularly efficient) many millions of years ago, good luck with that. Capacitors are useful, but they aren’t sinks.

ok, so far.. there appear to be at least two angles.. One is the factual measure of the role of carbon in various forests over time; the second is as a target for collective action.

Deforestation and forest fire are certainly significant sources of carbon emissions. Not all carbon goes into the atmosphere, however. Given current conditions and human practices, acting now to prevent deforestation and catastrophic forest fire are significant in themselves. Forests and managed forests are an important source of food and trade goods for humans worldwide. Mangrove forests are a topic in themselves.

In IPCC_SRCCL_2019/IPCC_SRCCL_05_Chapter-2:

Global models and national GHG inventories use different methods to estimate anthropogenic CO2 emissions and removals for the land sector. Consideration of differences in methods can enhance understanding of land sector net emission such as under the Paris Agreement’s global stocktake (medium confidence). Both models and inventories produce estimates that are in close agreement for land-use change involving forest (e.g., deforestation, afforestation), and differ for managed forest. ... The gross emissions from AFOLU (one-third of total global emissions) are more indicative of mitigation potential of reduced deforestation than the global net emissions (13% of total global emissions), which include compensating deforestation and afforestation fluxes (high confidence). The net flux of CO2 from AFOLU is composed of two opposing gross fluxes: (i) gross emissions (20 GtCO2 yr–1) from deforestation, cultivation of soils and oxidation of wood products, and (ii) gross removals (–14 GtCO2 yr–1), largely from forest growth following wood harvest and agricultural abandonment (medium confidence). {2.3.1} Land is a net source of CH4 ... emissions for the 2006–2017 period (medium confidence). The pause in the rise of atmospheric CH4 concentrations between 2000 and 2006 and the subsequent renewed increase appear to be partially associated with land use and land use change. The recent depletion trend of the 13C isotope in the atmosphere indicates that higher biogenic sources explain part of the current CH4 increase and that biogenic sources make up a larger proportion of the source mix than they did before 2000 (high confidence).

--

"Terrestrial greenhouse gas fluxes on unmanaged and managed lands Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) is a significant net source of GHG emissions (high confidence), contributing to about 23% of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) combined as CO2 equivalents in 2007–2016 (medium confidence). AFOLU results in both emissions and removals of CO2, CH4 and N2O to and from the atmosphere (high confidence). These fluxes are affected simultaneously by natural and human drivers, making it difficult to separate natural from anthropogenic fluxes (very high confidence). {2.3} The total net land-atmosphere flux of CO2 on both managed and unmanaged lands very likely provided a global net removal from 2007 to 2016 according to models (-6.0 ± 3.7 GtCO2 yr–1)"

Re: US is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story

#68

Wouldn't just planting trees be way more economical and effective? Why isn't the government subsidizing planting trees as they are these pipelines? How many trees do they have to cut down to run these pipelines is probably a question someone should also be asking...

Planting trees is a terrible way to mitigate the release of CO2 into the atmosphere[1].

There are many problems (most of which are covered in that article), and they include:

- mature forests are generally carbon-neutral and can also sometimes become carbon emitters, depending on specific circumstances

- young forests sequester carbon more quickly, but the trees just aren't that big and the amount of carbon sequestered is trivial

- as trees die, they release much of the captured carbon back into the atmosphere as they decay

- planting new forests is much more expensive (in terms of time, energy, and money) than just sequestering carbon when it's produced or, better yet, not using fossil fuels as much as we have in the past

1. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-t...

Re: US is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story

#69
post #68

Wouldn't just planting trees be way more economical and effective? Why isn't the government subsidizing planting trees as they are these pipelines? How many trees do they have to cut down to run these pipelines is probably a question someone should also be asking...

Planting trees is a terrible way to mitigate the release of CO2 into the atmosphere[1]. There are many problems (most of which are covered in that article), and they include: - mature forests are generally carbon-neutral and can also sometimes become carbon emitters, depending on specific circumstances - young forests sequester carbon more quickly, but the trees just aren't that big and the amount of carbon sequester…

I think you are mistaken.

Mature forests are not carbon-neutral. In the US the forests absorb about 12% of the greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Can this number go to 20%, for example? I think so. A trivial legislative change would be to stop the subsidies for ethanol, and to offer them instead to plant forests on the acreage currently used for its feedstock corn. That would be about 30 million acres. At a reasonable 15 tons of CO2 absorbed per year, that would be 450 megatons CO2 per year, or about 7% of the US emissions, so that would bring us to 19%. But more is possible.

Can we reach a point where the trees absorb 100% of the emissions (without reducing the emissions)? I don't think so. And I think it's wrong to attempt that. But trees can have a very meaningful impact, we should not dismiss them so cavalierly.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Re: US is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story

#70
post #3

I wonder how practical it would be to add something smelly and distinctive to CO2 the way we do with natural gas? Otherwise a CO2 leak is really mysterious. It could be in quite low concentrations, to the point where you would only smell it if the air was getting to dangerous levels. This wouldn't help with a release from a natural source, but if we are ramping up carbon capture efforts maybe we'll see more industria…

Co2 is used as a marker of when the air is too stale inside. Why not just mass produce real sensors(most Maybe they could be integrated into phones.
Post reply on HN