The other commenters are myopically, dangerously wrong in the worst possible way. We must stop pulling carbon out of the ground yesterday. Climate change isn't a hoax, isn't going away, and is an existential crisis that must be addressed by eliminating carbon extraction to the greatest degree possible sooner rather than never.

▲

z_rex 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The carbon extracted in this manner is a solid - carbon black, essentially graphite particles. It could be dumped in old coal mines and recovered - essentially burying the carbon we took out again.

▲

kragen 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Pulling carbon out of the ground doesn't cause climate change. Neither does consuming energy. Burning carbon into CO₂ or releasing other carbon-bearing gases like CH₄ or C₂H₄ causes climate change. Methane pyrolysis avoids that. Too bad it's uneconomic next to solar panels.

▲

cmrdporcupine 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

leaking methane definitely does though, and pretty much all natural gas pipelines and facilities are leaking it at levels way higher than producers care to admit

	▲	georgecmu 16 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You're not wrong, but you're not right either. In 2015, the Department of Energy estimated that the CO2 footprint for production, processing, and pipeline transportation of natural gas averaged between 8 and 14 kgCO2-e per MMBTU of natural gas [1]. The average natural gas CO2 emissions (kgCO2/MMBTU) has been going down over time [2], and will be reduced even further in the next few years thanks to increasing fines [3] on one hand and financial incentives to reduce flaring and venting [4] on the other hand. A large percentage of these emissions are not due to accidental leaks, but are essentially intentional -- due to flaring, venting, and high-bleed controllers and actuators [2]. For an idea of how much emissions can be reduced, consider that the so-called certified gas has 90% lower CO2 footprint than the average today [5]. For example, the methane emissions for a natural gas utility in Oregon are 90% lower than EPA nationwide assumptions [6]. [1] https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/EERE-LCA-NG [2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas... [3] https://community.citizensclimate.org/resources/item/19/530#... [4] https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/methane-emission... https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/documents/us... [5] https://www.cfindustries.com/newsroom/2023/bp-certified-natu... [6] https://www.nwnatural.com/about-us/environment/less-we-can
	▲	16 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

burnt-resistor 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Serious cognitive dissonance and strawmanning. Using the sky as an open-air sewer does. No amount of "clean coal" or "clean hydrogen" will change the problem of normalization of continued ff extraction by greenwashing it.

▲

kragen 16 hours ago | parent [-]

You don't seem to have addressed my argument, and parts of your response aren't even coherent, such as "Using the sky as an open-air sewer does." Possibly you are too upset to have a conversation successfully right now.

▲

burnt-resistor 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

	▲	kragen 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, if you begin to follow these guidelines, you may find that ypur attempts to converse here are more successful.