I agree. The concept is simple, and it’s not perfect, but it isn’t dumb either. This is basically recreating how coal and oil got in the ground in the first place. Plants absorbed carbon from the air as they grew, then they got buried in a way that prevented them from decomposing and re-releasing it into the atmosphere. My main question here would be whether burying it only 10 feet under ground is really enough for long term storage. The other big elephant in the room with carbon capture is that it can be a convenient excuse for companies to avoid doing work towards actually decarbonizing their operations. If, as the article suggests, this is used primarily by industries like cement making that don’t currently have a way to become carbon neutral then it’s a good thing. If it’s just used as cynical green washing by companies who could be doing better, then it’s at best a wash, and arguably a net negative.

After explaining the destructive force of a single raindrop over a kilometer in diameter:

Fear reigns supreme as the world fears rain supreme

Poetry. True poetry.

I seem to recall that this has to be accounted for when designing the support towers on particularly long bridges. According to a quick Google search, the most extreme example is the Akashi-Kaikyō bridge in Japan. The support towers are almost 3.5 inches farther apart at the top than they are at the bottom.

Also FYI, the word “level” generally refers to things laying perfectly flat. The word “plumb” refers to thing standing perfectly upright, which is why some jokers in the comments are giving you a hard time, despite what you meant being fairly obvious.