Talk:Carbon capture and storage

More images and a different image for the lead?
Does anyone have time to add more images to this article? For the lead, I think an image of a technical installation for CCS would be better than an image with a bar chart with a very long caption that takes a while to read and understand. I've done a quick search on Wikimedia Commons but nothing jumped at me, except for two protest images which I have now added. EMsmile (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Bias
This article is not balanced as it stands now. First of all, it is extremely technical and complicated where it doesnt need to be. Secondly, it almost completely lacks a thorough discussion and evaluation in the environmental and societal realm. To me it looks as if it was written by industry. I will flag it for WP:NPOV. Wuerzele (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think what this article fundamentally lacks is an acknowledgement that carbon capture, in all its forms, is a nascent technology; one that hasn't been proven at-scale anywhere in the world (even after Chevron have sunk billions of dollars into its Western Australian CCS project,) and that the technology has a very healthy community of critics — I would argue rightly, and I'm not even anti-gas or anti-trying-to-make-things-better. But on the whole, I agree that this article has a certain admiration in its underlying tone that probably the technology doesn't yet deserve — given nobody can actually make it work. For reference, CO2 emissions at all time highs. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think I agree with you. Are you able to add a section on "drawbacks" or alike? I happened to see a new section on "disadvantages" that was added recently to carbon sequestration. I am not sure if it's written well or if it fits there. But I was reminded of it when I saw your note here. EMsmile (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no and there has been no section "disadvantages" on carbon sequestration, EMsmile, the diff you provided is descriptive of the process, nil more. Even the section env. NGOs is totally atrophic and outdated.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "given nobody can actually make it work", Jondvdsn1. Well.... sadly, the Iowa Utilities Board decided yesterday to permit an Iowa mogul named Bruce Rastetter and his company to start construction of a $5.5 billion pipeline for carbon dioxide from ethanol plants in five states to North Dakota fracking sites for underground sequestration in 2024. They are doing it.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wuerzele I accept bias but just because a company wins a work permit doesn't mean a nascent technology will work, despite a sensational price tag. It's yet to be proven at scale. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and Jondvdsn1 regarding both the bias and the excessive level of technical complexity. Clearly, efforts have been made to incorporate negative viewpoints into the article, but more needs to be done to have the reasons behind those viewpoints be more clear. Part of the problem is that most of the criticism is bunched towards the end of the article instead of being woven throughout, which goes against the recommendation in the wp:NPOV policy: “Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.” I'm planning to put some elbow grease into the article in the next few weeks to address the issues you've identified. Thanks for bringing this up. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To address the issue identified above about excessive technical detail, I plan to move some content to a new article titled Carbon capture technology. Will start that fairly soon. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 23:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that in addition to the planned article on carbon capture, utilization and storage? Like an overarching one? Or instead of. EMsmile (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry I wasn't clear. I'm planning to have Carbon capture technology be narrowly focused on the separation of carbon dioxide from other components of flue gases. I'm drafting it in on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clayoquot/Carbon_capture_technology. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 15:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've since noticed that there is already an article on Carbon dioxide scrubber so I don't have to create a new article. I'll merge what I can into the existing article. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 23:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Additional proposed edits
As part of the “Improving communication of climate change knowledge through Wikipedia” project, I have been asked to spend a few hours editing this article. My initial thoughts are to focus on the following:
 * Make sure the text of lead reflects the full contents of the article.
 * Add a new subsection under “Society and Culture” that would include:
 * Regulatory efforts that support CCS, such as EPA’s 2023 proposed rule making on power plants, which has determined that CCS is an appropriate control technology for CO2 emissions.
 * Tax incentives that support CCS, such as the Biden administration’s CCS incentives as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Happy to look at any other areas folks would like to suggest improvements for. Dtetta (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

___

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

In the next couple weeks, I will be revising and editing this article for an energy and sustainability course project. I would appreciate any feedback on my proposed edits, which I will be working on in my user sandbox. So far, my planned changes to the article include:


 * Expanding on the "carbon emissions status quo" section to include more of CCS's social implications related to North American indigenous and minority communities.


 * Describing how induced seismicity in the "Monitoring: seismicity" subsection related to the lack of detailed information on local/regional seismicity's impact to the storage integrity of CCS sites over time.

It'd be great if you all could help to review whether the tone of the additions is in line with the Wikipedia's professional, neutral tone requirements. Any feedback on the actual content is of course welcomed too!

Thanks! Quasimodo1420 (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Quasimodo1420
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Please make edits in very small chunks (preferably one sentence at a time), and accompany with very specific edit comments. Be sure to cite a reliable source that specifically supports each edit, and that you don't stray from the source with your own editorializations or inferences. — RCraig09 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Geographies of Energy and Sustainability
— Assignment last updated by Juniper37 (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Quasimodo1420 and BuLingReactor, you apparently overread, that this article is biased!- see section above.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge and rename proposal
I would like to merge Carbon capture and utilization into this article and rename the merged article Carbon capture, utilization and storage. It makes sense to cover both CCS and CCU in a single article, for the following reasons:


 * "Carbon capture and utilization", "carbon capture and storage", and "carbon capture, utilization and storage" are all the same thing most of the time: carbon capture followed by enhanced oil recovery. EOR is around 73% of CO2 "storage" and 99% of CO2 "utilization".
 * The CCU article needs both expansion and a complete rewrite. It says almost nothing about EOR, and lots about early-stage R&D that might never be commercialized. CCU is controversial but it says almost nothing about controversy. The CCS article also has problems, and I'd like to focus on fixing problems in one article instead of in two.

As for the length of a combined CCUS article, I believe it would be manageable. As part of the merge process, I plan to write a new section with ~3 paragraphs on non-EOR utilization methods, based on recent secondary sources. I will make separate proposals to spin off some of the technical detail in the current CCS article into Carbon capture technology and Geological sequestration of carbon dioxide articles, which would shorten things considerably. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 00:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Great if you can make the time to work on this. I just wonder if we could brainstorm about the ideal title of the merged article. An article title with a comma seems sub-optimal to me. Is there an overarching term? Or perhaps just carbon capture (this is currently a disambiguation page) or carbon capture systems? But I would also not stand in the way if Carbon capture, utilization and storage is the preferred solution by all. EMsmile (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand that a comma in an article title is a bit funny-looking, however omitting the comma is grammatically wrong so it seems to be more common to leave the comma in.. "Carbon capture" and "carbon capture systems" are not wp:common names for the topic and also may give the impression that the article will focus exclusively on capture technology, omitting the story of what is done with the captured carbon.
 * As for an overarching term, "carbon capture, utilization and storage" would be that. It's a thing, so to speak, so it's my first choice. My second choice would be "carbon capture and storage", which is a more commonly-used term, but would be a little out of sync with article content that includes the 1% of CCUS that doesn't store carbon. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)