INEOS plans to transform the Nini oil field in the North Sea into a carbon storage site. The company aims to inject liquefied CO2 into depleted oil reservoirs beneath the seabed.
Hydrocsrbon chains are the most efficient way to store carbo
Volumetric efficiency is not the relevant metric. Energy efficiency is much more important. The process you describe requires far greater energy input to complete the sequestration.
Furthermore, the physical properties are a problem. Biomass appropriate to this process is conveyed as a flammable, pelletized solid; CO2 is an inert fluid. One of these can be pumped via pipeline into empty subterranean reservoirs; the other cannot.
Of course volumetric density is what matters. That and long term stability
You know what is really good at storing carbon underground forever? Fossil fuels. And if they can pull it out of the ground, they should have no problem putting it back in… It’s a lot simpler
Sequestering a fluid is far simpler, safer, and more stable than attempting the same with a solid.
Your arguments seem to assume that what you’re putting back into the ground is a fluid of some sort, either oil or gas.
Biomass is not typically handled as a fluid. Biomass is generally a solid. Picture “wood mulch”, or “corn stalks”. While the specific materials will vary, the most common format for these biofuels is as a pelletized commodity: The source material is physically pressed into small lumps and handled like coal, not oil or gas.
Conveying liquified CO2 through a pipe and into a reservoir is a trivial exercise. Conveying pelletized biomass into a suitable storage facility in quantities necessary to have a practical effect is not feasible.
What methods are you using to convert pelletized biomass into liquid hydrocarbons, suitable for pumping back into the ground? How is that method superior to pumping compressed CO2 instead?
You keep jumping back and forth between biofuel and biomass. You can bury solid biofuel, you can pump liquid biofuel, both are stable if you put them somewhere without much oxygen
Biomass is something different… Do it right and you can just use it as fertilizer. Just grow a bunch of algae and spray it over dry land… It’s that easy. It’ll feed the soil, which locks up a lot of carbon back into the food chain. Stack wood in a desert, who cares. There’s so many better ways to do this
And CO2 is a fucking gas. Yes, it’s liquid under pressure or at low enough temp… But it does not stay that way! We live in Earth, and most cavities aren’t able to stay pressurized without leaking
Biomass is something different… Do it right and you can just use it as fertilizer. Just grow a bunch of algae and spray it over dry land… It’s that easy. It’ll feed the soil, which locks up a lot of carbon back into the food chain. Stack wood in a desert, who cares. There’s so many better ways to do this
You fail to comprehend the concept or need for “sequestering”. What you are talking about perpetuates the atmospheric carbon cycle. It does not decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide. The mass biodegrades, re-releasing the carbon. “Sequestration” locks that carbon out of the biosphere. You are not talking about sequestration.
You keep jumping back and forth between biofuel and biomass.
Biomass is the raw substance. Biofuel is processed biomass. Processing it into a solid fuel is relatively trivial by little more than compressing it under relatively low pressure. Processing into liquid fuels is far more complicated and energy intensive than CO2 capture after combustion. For sequestration purposes, biomass would not be processed into liquid fuel. Liquid biofuels would only be used for transportation purposes.
And CO2 is a fucking gas
Not at the depths and pressures we’re talking about.
But it does not stay that way! We live in Earth, and most cavities aren’t able to stay pressurized without leaking
I think you need to revisit that misconception. The cavities we’re talking about certainly are.
You can bury solid biofuel,
Not in the volumes necessary for atmospheric carbon capture, no, we cannot. Furthermore, solid biofuels are not stable, certainly not as stable as CO2.
At this point, you just seem obscenely delusional to me.
This does not surprise me. I mean, you suggested spraying carbon-rich “fertilizer” within the biosphere as a valid approach toward reducing atmospheric carbon.
Your basic understanding of the concept of “sequestration” is irreparably flawed.
Volumetric efficiency is not the relevant metric. Energy efficiency is much more important. The process you describe requires far greater energy input to complete the sequestration.
Furthermore, the physical properties are a problem. Biomass appropriate to this process is conveyed as a flammable, pelletized solid; CO2 is an inert fluid. One of these can be pumped via pipeline into empty subterranean reservoirs; the other cannot.
Do you work for them or something? Holy shit
Of course volumetric density is what matters. That and long term stability
You know what is really good at storing carbon underground forever? Fossil fuels. And if they can pull it out of the ground, they should have no problem putting it back in… It’s a lot simpler
Sequestering a fluid is far simpler, safer, and more stable than attempting the same with a solid.
Your arguments seem to assume that what you’re putting back into the ground is a fluid of some sort, either oil or gas.
Biomass is not typically handled as a fluid. Biomass is generally a solid. Picture “wood mulch”, or “corn stalks”. While the specific materials will vary, the most common format for these biofuels is as a pelletized commodity: The source material is physically pressed into small lumps and handled like coal, not oil or gas.
Conveying liquified CO2 through a pipe and into a reservoir is a trivial exercise. Conveying pelletized biomass into a suitable storage facility in quantities necessary to have a practical effect is not feasible.
What methods are you using to convert pelletized biomass into liquid hydrocarbons, suitable for pumping back into the ground? How is that method superior to pumping compressed CO2 instead?
You keep jumping back and forth between biofuel and biomass. You can bury solid biofuel, you can pump liquid biofuel, both are stable if you put them somewhere without much oxygen
Biomass is something different… Do it right and you can just use it as fertilizer. Just grow a bunch of algae and spray it over dry land… It’s that easy. It’ll feed the soil, which locks up a lot of carbon back into the food chain. Stack wood in a desert, who cares. There’s so many better ways to do this
And CO2 is a fucking gas. Yes, it’s liquid under pressure or at low enough temp… But it does not stay that way! We live in Earth, and most cavities aren’t able to stay pressurized without leaking
You fail to comprehend the concept or need for “sequestering”. What you are talking about perpetuates the atmospheric carbon cycle. It does not decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide. The mass biodegrades, re-releasing the carbon. “Sequestration” locks that carbon out of the biosphere. You are not talking about sequestration.
Biomass is the raw substance. Biofuel is processed biomass. Processing it into a solid fuel is relatively trivial by little more than compressing it under relatively low pressure. Processing into liquid fuels is far more complicated and energy intensive than CO2 capture after combustion. For sequestration purposes, biomass would not be processed into liquid fuel. Liquid biofuels would only be used for transportation purposes.
Not at the depths and pressures we’re talking about.
I think you need to revisit that misconception. The cavities we’re talking about certainly are.
Not in the volumes necessary for atmospheric carbon capture, no, we cannot. Furthermore, solid biofuels are not stable, certainly not as stable as CO2.
At this point, you just seem obscenely delusional to me. What you’re saying is so far beyond reason I don’t even know where to start.
You are not informed enough to have an opinion on the topic. I’m sorry, you’re just spewing nonsense, you need to keep your opinions to yourself
This does not surprise me. I mean, you suggested spraying carbon-rich “fertilizer” within the biosphere as a valid approach toward reducing atmospheric carbon.
Your basic understanding of the concept of “sequestration” is irreparably flawed.