In 2006 I coauthored a report for the German government which also covered CCS and concluded: "Therefore, sequestration can only be regarded as an acceptable climate mitigation technology if long-term CO2 storage for at least 10,000 years can be guaranteed." I.e., it is not a realistic option.

Show Post

"Three large-scale experiments were underway, but only one — a Norwegian operation that captured carbon from a natural gas field and pumped it under the bed of the North Sea — had rigorously tested permanent storage." That's enhanced oil recovery, that is.

Show Post

Summary where I see our discussion: We agree regarding the need for NbS CDR, which is rare imo. We agree that photosynthesis is the CO2 pump on Earth and has removed 99.9% of CO2 from the atmosphere. I was adding this: Difference between photosynthesis/veg only or including soil/microbiome/BVOCs

Show Post

This article has it all! Fire! Smoke! And mirrors too! But no smoking gun. Questionable judgment? Check. Overconfidence? Yup. Optimism bias? Oh yeah. But scientists on the take? Highly unlikely. The most important line? “[J]ust because the world now needs CCS to work doesn’t mean it can.” 🧪

Show Post

"Experts interviewed for this story insisted — often in an anguished timbre — that CCS simply must work because decades of delay have foreclosed other paths to a stable climatic future. But just because the world now needs CCS to work doesn’t mean it can." www.propublica.org/article/carb...

Show Post