Hacker News Reader

Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

I am becoming more convinced that we as a civilization will not cut CO2 emissions in time and we will need some type of carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration is going to horrendously energy intensive and we will need something like nuclear power to provide that kind of energy.

View on HN

I agree we'll probably need some sort of carbon sequestration. I disagree that nuclear is the only possible power source for that (or for that matter, that sequestration is going to be that energy-intensive).

How can sequestration not be energy intensive? Carbon is diffused throughout the atmosphere as relativly low energy statw molecules. Even assuming 100% efficiency, what end state of sequestration would not require significant energy just from conservation of energy.

Okay, maybe not energy intensive is the wrong way to put it, but... what about organically capturing carbon? Trees or algae farms? It's energy intensive, but it's solar energy, not generated electricity.

The reaction of CO2 with olivine is mildly exothermic.

I'll add that you could have figured out that there must be exothermic ways to sequester CO2, since CO2 naturally is scrubbed from the atmosphere by some process. If this process were not exothermic, CO2 would just accumulate in the atmosphere until the Earth resembled Venus.

https://skepticalscience.com/weathering.html

If we prove unwilling to spend on cutting CO2, what makes you think we will prove more willing to spend on carbon capture?

Because at that time, the worst predicted effects of climate will have become reality. It’s why people won’t eat better and exercise, but will get a heart stent after having a heart attack.

Carbon sequestration is built into the IPCC RCP scenarios, it is required to reach a tolerable future temperature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com