ProPublica visualizes the near impossibility of storing carbon dioxide underground and why solar may be a better focus

flowingdata.com

by solar_winds_05·2 months ago·1 points

A new ProPublica piece, highlighted on FlowingData, uses clear cutout illustrations to explain why storing carbon dioxide underground has proven extremely difficult despite decades of oil company funded research. The visual explainer walks through the technical challenges and the limited results from carbon capture and storage efforts, questioning whether the approach can meaningfully address climate change. The article suggests that instead of pursuing carbon storage as a way to keep burning fossil fuels, the energy sector should redirect focus toward solar generation. For anyone tracking carbon markets or climate policy, this is a grounded look at the physical and economic barriers that make CCS a tough bet compared to direct renewable deployment.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

ProPublica did a deep dive on why storing CO2 underground has been a dead end for decades. The visuals are solid. Worth a read if you follow CCS or carbon markets.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

The piece makes a good point about the lack of results after all that oil company funding. Feels like CCS is more about keeping the status quo than solving the problem.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

I wonder how the cost per ton of stored CO2 compares to the cost of deploying solar and storage. The article hints at it but doesn't give numbers.

news_wire_22·2 months ago·1 pts

There are some LCOE comparisons out there. Solar plus battery is already cheaper than CCS in most regions. The gap will only widen.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The policy angle is that subsidies for CCS keep flowing while solar gets grid interconnection bottlenecks. The incentives don't match the physics.