this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
95 points (94.4% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3199 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 86 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Some scientists say CO2 removal is simply a distraction from the urgency of the climate crisis and an excuse to continue burning fossil fuels.

Bingo~

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago

I'm surprised you haven't been downvoted to oblivion.

CO2 removal/credit trading was a scam from the start - so obviously that it was discussed in print at the time.

[–] Icalasari@fedia.io 44 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, let's further acidify the oceans. No way that could go wrong

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The article says that "some companies are experimenting with alkaline rocks". So it's the opposite.

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think the alkaline rocks create a way to absorb the carbonic acid that comes from CO2 diluted in water.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 26 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's correct. And my point is that they aren't "further acidifying" the ocean, like Icalasari said; they're doing the exact opposite.

I'll use the opportunity for an info dump. You potentially know what I'm going to say, but it's for the sake of users in general.

Carbon dioxide dissolution in water can be simplified through the equation

CO₂(g) + 2H₂O(l) ⇌ H₃O⁺(aq) + HCO₃⁻(aq)
gaseous carbon dioxide + water generates (→) hydronium ("acidity") + bicarbonate, and vice versa (←).

It's a reversible reaction, as anyone opening a soda can knows (wait a bit and the gas GTFO and you're left with flat soda). However, you can "force" a reversible reaction to go more into one or another direction, by messing with the amounts of substances in each side of the equation:

  • if you add more of the junk to one side, the reaction will go more towards the other side - to consume the stuff that you added
  • if you remove junk from one side, the reaction will go more towards that side - to regenerate the junk that you removed

So it's like reactions go against whatever change you do. This is known as Le Chatelier's principle. In a simplified way, "if you change shit the reaction tries to revert your change".

Now. The main concern is CO₂ in the atmosphere. We don't want it. To consume it through this reaction, we could remove acidity from the ocean. That's actually doable by dumping some alkaline substances there, because of another equilibrium:

H₃O⁺(aq) + OH⁻(aq) ⇌ 2H₂O(l)
hydronium ("acidity") + hydroxide ("alkalinity") generates water, and vice versa.

So by adding alkaline substances to the sea you could remove hydronium, and by removing hydronium you're encouraging the sea to gorge on even more carbon dioxide.

It sounds like an extremely bad idea though. Just like the two reactions that I mentioned interact with each other, there's a bazillion other reactions doing the same. Specially when we're talking about acidity/alkalinity (pH), it's hard to find something where pH does not influence the outcome!

So the consequences of "let's dump alkaline substances in the sea! What could go wrong?" might be extremely messy, and not so obvious from a first moment. Instead we're simply better off by avoiding to add even more CO₂ to the atmosphere.

[–] Icalasari@fedia.io 5 points 6 months ago

Ah, so I had it the opposite way. Thanks for the explanation

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 41 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It’s not the ocean’s fault. How about we force oil company CEOs to absorb more CO2.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm not a ceo but I'm doing my part by drinking as much pellegrino as possible.

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

Pellegrino is owned by Nestlé :c

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Dumb as shit. "We have an issue, but instead of fixing it, let's just make nature TAKE IT. TAKE IT AND LIKE IT"

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 20 points 6 months ago

poking the sea with a stick

C'mon. Absorb more CO2.

[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 14 points 6 months ago

I just picture scientists leaning down on the bech going "pspspsps'

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 months ago

Maybe we could stop fucking dredging the ocean? I feel like most people missed this statistic... but ocean dredging is likely around the equivalent C02 output of the entire aviation industry.

[–] Nighed@sffa.community 6 points 6 months ago

There are some interesting ideas in there that I hadn't heard of. Interesting article

[–] Blackout@kbin.run 3 points 6 months ago

We just need a giant box of baking soda. It will absorb anything.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Yeah. We keep trying to dump stuff in the ocean, it always comes back and bites us in the ass.

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

But i thought the earth created humans because it wanted more CO2 and plastic /s

[–] HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 months ago

Isn't this a path to creating more methane clathrates?

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Iron seeding has significant downsides