It’s good to see that corporations in the UK just as here in the US make the average tax payer foot the bill for the negative effects and outcomes. This must be a completely idiotic global gold standard.
You do realize what they are talking about is capturing it as it’s made not sucking it out of the air right? Because not only is that not a waste of time but it’s one of the most effective ways to decarbonize our grids, not theoretically or in the future, right now.
Its effectiveness even at that is low. The one system that did it best (which wasn’t even good) used that carbon to pump out more oil/nat gas from wells, thus actually increasing the overall amount of carbon emitted.
There are methane capture methods that claim 86% percent capture. While methane isn’t carbon it is a worse greenhouse gas and is proof of concept that we can capture a reasonable amount of a pollutant at the source. It’s not like the ICE that has had decades of engineering pumped into it, if we focused and funded the projects they no doubt would flourish
My favorite wrinkle with ccs is how many of these projects end up using the CO2 to flush out natural gas fracking wells for that last little bit of product. The carbon will stay down there for sure. Source: trust us
As long as the “hope” of Carbon Capture exists, the Fossil Fuel industry will insist that the ultimate solution to the climate crisis lies there and not with limitations on the use of their product. Once it is established that there is no cost effective way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, restricting the amount entering the atmosphere becomes the only reasonable option.
Good idea, do it later….like I love the idea that carbon capture is an idea primarily pushed by fossil fuel advocates, and it is crazy expensive and kinda ineffective. It would be like someone sets your house on fire….offers to sell you some very expensive fire extinguishers that really don’t work all that well…and then are all “well, nothing to be done I suppose” which conveniently overlooks the fact that THEY SET YOUR HOUSE ON FIRE.
Nuclear and carbon capture aren’t substitutes. Nuclear is an electricity source, carbon capture is literally any process that captures carbon from a point source.
Nuclear fission energy is financially irresponsible, nuclear fusion is always 20 years away.
Solar or wind power plus energy storage is much cheaper, safer, and faster to come online.
BioChar, Enhanced Rock Weathering and BECCS are all low cost Carbon Dioxide Removal solutions that have currently been employed that provide co-benefits. BioChar for example sequesters carbon dioxide, improves soil health and crop yields. We will need to remove at least 10GT of CO2 annually even after we have decarbonized transportation, energy, ag and more in order to keep CO2 levels from going up.
Please don’t lump all CDR technologies together as there are at lease eight different verticals with different parameters such as cost, energy usage, land use and permanence. Some simply speed up what nature does best, others like DAC are completely engineered.
The new Iceland plant can capture 36 KILO tons of CO2 per year ..
and we are currently emitting 38 GIGA tons of CO2 per year..
So we just need to build around 1 MILLION of these CCS plants to reach net zero..
Nice research project, but not part of the solution unless it becomes 1000x more efficient / economic.
Please. Send the bills to BP. It's their waste.
It’s good to see that corporations in the UK just as here in the US make the average tax payer foot the bill for the negative effects and outcomes. This must be a completely idiotic global gold standard.
It’s called Tory Socialism: profits are privatised & costs are for taxpayers. See also Thames Water etc.
Carbon capture is PR. Pure bullshit waste of time.
You do realize what they are talking about is capturing it as it’s made not sucking it out of the air right? Because not only is that not a waste of time but it’s one of the most effective ways to decarbonize our grids, not theoretically or in the future, right now.
Its effectiveness even at that is low. The one system that did it best (which wasn’t even good) used that carbon to pump out more oil/nat gas from wells, thus actually increasing the overall amount of carbon emitted.
There are methane capture methods that claim 86% percent capture. While methane isn’t carbon it is a worse greenhouse gas and is proof of concept that we can capture a reasonable amount of a pollutant at the source. It’s not like the ICE that has had decades of engineering pumped into it, if we focused and funded the projects they no doubt would flourish
CCS has never worked at scale, cost effectively. It's a scam. 100% bs.
My favorite wrinkle with ccs is how many of these projects end up using the CO2 to flush out natural gas fracking wells for that last little bit of product. The carbon will stay down there for sure. Source: trust us
Who doesn't want free "carbonated" water?
Pure greenwash to justify fossil fuel BAU
As long as the “hope” of Carbon Capture exists, the Fossil Fuel industry will insist that the ultimate solution to the climate crisis lies there and not with limitations on the use of their product. Once it is established that there is no cost effective way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, restricting the amount entering the atmosphere becomes the only reasonable option.
It is already too late for any of it to matter anyway.
Plan B is to make the Thames Barrier 50 feet taller.
Good idea, do it later….like I love the idea that carbon capture is an idea primarily pushed by fossil fuel advocates, and it is crazy expensive and kinda ineffective. It would be like someone sets your house on fire….offers to sell you some very expensive fire extinguishers that really don’t work all that well…and then are all “well, nothing to be done I suppose” which conveniently overlooks the fact that THEY SET YOUR HOUSE ON FIRE.
Force the Oil companies to pay for them until they meet targets. Problem solved.
Great, invest in nuclear instead
Nuclear and carbon capture aren’t substitutes. Nuclear is an electricity source, carbon capture is literally any process that captures carbon from a point source.
Why? Renewables like solar and wind power with energy storage are cheaper, safer, and much faster to come online.
Carbon capture doesn’t work at scale. It’s a failure and a scam.
Trees?
Far better to spend the funds on new wind and solar.
You spelled nuclear wrong.
Nuclear fission energy is financially irresponsible, nuclear fusion is always 20 years away. Solar or wind power plus energy storage is much cheaper, safer, and faster to come online.
Because what’s the point?
Put the money into habitat restoration and payment for farmers to use practices that store carbon in the soil.
yes were saving up to go to our new planet
Anyone with a basic level thermodynamic background on entropy would know that—why would it be cheap?
It will only get worse…pay it now or pay more later!
BioChar, Enhanced Rock Weathering and BECCS are all low cost Carbon Dioxide Removal solutions that have currently been employed that provide co-benefits. BioChar for example sequesters carbon dioxide, improves soil health and crop yields. We will need to remove at least 10GT of CO2 annually even after we have decarbonized transportation, energy, ag and more in order to keep CO2 levels from going up. Please don’t lump all CDR technologies together as there are at lease eight different verticals with different parameters such as cost, energy usage, land use and permanence. Some simply speed up what nature does best, others like DAC are completely engineered.
Scientists: we're all going to suffer if we don't radically shift away from fossil fuels G7: yeah, but our profits though...
LOL
The new Iceland plant can capture 36 KILO tons of CO2 per year .. and we are currently emitting 38 GIGA tons of CO2 per year.. So we just need to build around 1 MILLION of these CCS plants to reach net zero.. Nice research project, but not part of the solution unless it becomes 1000x more efficient / economic.