Thanks but I’m not going to take a company trying to get rich off of this technology at their word. The claim that it will stay down there when there’s no solid barrier seems dubious, unless there’s some unique chemical process at play here.
unless there’s some unique chemical process at play here.
CO2(aq) + H2O(l) ⇌ H+(aq) + HCO3–(aq)
That reaction is taught to High Schoolers and is hardly unique. It’s also quite literally the #2 thing explained in the link that @silence7@slrpnk.net gave you.
I’m familiar with this chemistry, but I wonder if you are? Carbon dioxide’s various reactions with water are normally in equilibrium with the atmosphere, meaning if you increase the carbon in the water, it will off-gas any extra carbon until it returns to equilibrium. Hence the need for some unique chemistry (or other process) to keep the carbon in place for an extended period.
Am I a science denier? Would I be a science denier if I questioned Exxon’s public statements about climate change in the 90s? What a silly question.
PS: there’s no chemistry in this link that I can find so I have no idea where you are getting that idea.
This article has something of an overview
Thanks but I’m not going to take a company trying to get rich off of this technology at their word. The claim that it will stay down there when there’s no solid barrier seems dubious, unless there’s some unique chemical process at play here.
CO2(aq) + H2O(l) ⇌ H+(aq) + HCO3–(aq)
That reaction is taught to High Schoolers and is hardly unique. It’s also quite literally the #2 thing explained in the link that @silence7@slrpnk.net gave you.
Are you a science denier?
I’m familiar with this chemistry, but I wonder if you are? Carbon dioxide’s various reactions with water are normally in equilibrium with the atmosphere, meaning if you increase the carbon in the water, it will off-gas any extra carbon until it returns to equilibrium. Hence the need for some unique chemistry (or other process) to keep the carbon in place for an extended period.
Am I a science denier? Would I be a science denier if I questioned Exxon’s public statements about climate change in the 90s? What a silly question.
PS: there’s no chemistry in this link that I can find so I have no idea where you are getting that idea.