You must log in or register to comment.

Joseluki t1_jbtnduf wrote

Baking soda, that degrades into CO2...


WiartonWilly t1_jbu2lif wrote

If acidified.

Question is, where are they getting the sodium (Na)? If they expect to take it from abundant salt (NaCl), then they are left with an excess of acid. That acid either needs to be stored perpetually, or it will eventually liberate the CO2 (as you say)

If there is some natural source of NaOH (a strong base) somewhere, then the CO2 can be sequestered. However, I have never heard of a caustic mine. If they plan to take it from something neutral like salt, then they have an acid storage problem.

The alternatives are potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg), but similarly, they are naturally found as salts, in combination with acids that we would rather not release.


mydoglikesbroccoli t1_jbv8m54 wrote

Unfortunately, without knowing any of the details of the process, we can know that this route will not fix the CO2 issue. There literally isn't enough base available on earth to turn the excess CO2 into bicarbonate. We'd turn the oceans as acidic as lemon juice first.

I wish there was a video out there putting into perspective just how much CO2 is under discussion, and what practical limitations that imposes on what routes may and may not work when trying to fix the issue.


WiartonWilly t1_jbvcc1v wrote

The sooner people accept that carbon sequestration will require enough energy to reduce CO2 back to hydrocarbons, the sooner we will accept that the elimination fossil fuels is inevitable.


mydoglikesbroccoli t1_jbvumpl wrote

Which according to thermo, is about as much as we got out of burning them, assuming 100% efficiency. I think there's a little bit of wiggle room if you can find a low energy compound to turn it into, but it's still going to be a lot. And it can't be a neutralized acid like formate or bicarbonate. Maybe add H2 and do some electrochem to make oxalic acid? It's a powder, which would be a bonus for disposal.


AJackOffAllTrade t1_jbvkvvl wrote

Well we mine limestone by the shit ton. Lime water gives you CaOH. What would it take to adjust? I'm not a chemist so I have no idea. It also just happens that my underground limestone mine also has a layer about 100' above the limestone layer filled with salt water. It rains from the ceiling.


WiartonWilly t1_jbvlins wrote

Lime (CaO+H2O—>Ca(OH)2) is derived from limestone (CaCO3). So, you need to release CO2 to make lime, which can then capture CO2 again. No net gain of CO2 fixation.


LynxKuroneko t1_jbthcln wrote

I always knew Baking Soda was the miracle powder.


TechnicalSymbiote t1_jbtjien wrote

Fantastic, now do it en masse and we'll never have heartburn again.


ElDoo74 t1_jbtdrfk wrote

Nature already does this.


thejml2000 t1_jbteyhh wrote

From the fourth paragraph:

> Nature does this – forests and oceans, for example, are valuable carbon sinks – but not quickly enough to keep pace with the amounts humans are producing. So we have turned to technology.


InSanic13 t1_jbtlzao wrote

Also, when the oceans do it, they become more acidic, which is a big problem.


Massive-Science5568 t1_jbtrjhb wrote

Not fast enough. We need to invest into solutions made by men, like blocking the sun and carbon capture, otherwise we're screwed.


Designer-Serve-5140 t1_jbxee9c wrote

I think that investing into these things is great but they're not permanent. They're time savers, the only way to reverse our impact is to change how we live. Buy less things, drive less, and work on policy that forces big businesses to do the same. Especially when it comes to our energy.


Massive-Science5568 t1_jbxwije wrote

I agree that we need change, but we need to be realistic. I care about the environment and I'm willing to make changes, but I just know that a lot of people are not, and while we educate people (I'm against increasing prices/banning/restrictions whatsoever) we need technologies to get us through to the other side alive.


Independent_Ad_3928 t1_jbvr7vc wrote

That’s nothing. My mother-in-law can find a way to suck the fun out of anything and turn it into a bummer.


mcfarmer72 t1_jbtpdqb wrote

I need to sell my baking soda stock.


[deleted] t1_jbvqrpg wrote

Wait until scientists find out about trees


AutoModerator t1_jbtbgh4 wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


the_JerrBear t1_jbuhn61 wrote

good, now they just need to stop burning things to run the machine


MapleBlood t1_jbuhvnu wrote

Can it done cheaply and on scale? Then it's the uplifting news.

Otherwise it's one of the many PoC that work but are unfeasible.


touchedbyadouchebag t1_jbtr5og wrote

Jfc. We are making the climate unliveable for ourselves and need an “all of the above” strategy, yet people are moaning about hypothetical changes to future ocean acidity. Let’s go!


casualsubversive t1_jbtz0ge wrote

Do you understand that ruining the ocean because we jumped whole hog into something without analyzing it will also kill us?


touchedbyadouchebag t1_jbu4s18 wrote

Please see my “all of the above” phrasing. No one is suggesting “whole hog” anything. One scientist was quoted in the article saying the chemistry is elegant and innovative. Anything even remotely “elegant and innovative” deserves evaluation, improvement and investment. If we only focus and invest in efforts at reduction and conservation we are doomed by short term thinking and incumbent interests.


casualsubversive t1_jbu7pkk wrote

You may have said "all of the above," but you started with "Jesus fucking christ," and said that there are people "moaning" about the danger to the ocean. And let's be clear, there are so far no comments about ocean acidification on this post—meaning you can only be referring to the reasonable measured caution that's expressed in the article. You followed that with "Let's go!"

Taken all together, you're projecting a very "whole hog" picture here.