this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
199 points (98.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5246 readers
361 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So they knew it wouldn't work, but they got the government to subsidise it at least.
I'm on the fence about this one.
Carbon capture is new technology. Developing a system that sequesters carbon from the air is going to require energy, and developing that technology is going to require prototypes that may or may not produce more carbon than they capture at first. Making the proof of concept more efficient is part of the development process. It's the same with things like desalination, nuclear fusion, and hydrogen fuel production. This was always the plan, and Shell was always upfront about the goal for the project.
On the other hand, carbon capture is not a solution to our climate crisis, and Shell is attempting to greenwash its own image with the concept. Promoting carbon capture technology tells people they don't have to worry about their conspicuous consumption and reckless pollution, because we can always clean it up later. Even if the technology works, that won't ever be true. We must reduce the amount of carbon pumped into the atmosphere or we're all going to die horrible deaths.
So while I want the technology, and I understand why the current prototype doesn't work yet, I also don't want to give the impression that Shell is the good guy, and we don't have to restrict or regulate the petroleum industries. Shell has never been more profitable, and their investments in carbon capture technology should be compulsory. It shouldn't be taxpayers footing the bill.
Carbon capture is different than direct air capture. Carbon capture just means catching the CO2 emissions at the source of those emissions, not pulling directly from the air.
The big thing is that there's no reason to be building new fossil fuel facilities right now, regardless of their emissions, just because of the costs.
Solar is already vastly cheaper and wind is already highly competitive - and if any technology needs help getting down the learning curve it's wind. If wind gets as cheap as solar the duck curve is just not a problem anymore - and wind turbines are a highly modular commodity install that we have every reason to think are capable of getting that cheap. Between the two of them you can basically meet future energy needs along with grid upgrades/enhancements. And you'll have a less centralized and more resilient network while you're at it.
Meanwhile affordable industrial heat storage companies - hot rocks guys - and other medium-term energy storing technologies are springing up by then minute. It's a potentially lucrative field because if you can store extremely cheap renewable energy and then sell it to the grid in lieu of very expensive fossil energy you can make a killing. With every moment the need for these callable energy sources like natural gas is diminishing.
To put it simply, existing technology already on the roadmap that we can be fairly sure is going to be delivered it's already capable of getting us beyond the need for fossil fuels, and making energy less expensive for the consumer in the process.
Carbon capture is predicated on the idea that we're going to keep building fossil energy production facilities, but the new ones will be outfitted such that they aren't going to produce CO2 emissions. It just doesn't make sense even economically. We're building extremely expensive versions of already-too-expensive facilities in order to make use of a resource that we know we should simply not be making significant use of.
The only way carbon capture makes sense is if you have fossil fuel resources that you want to extract and sell - that is, if you're a petrostate or oil company. But it doesn't make any economic sense for the consumer of that energy because carbon-captured fossil fuels may never be possible and even if they are will be incredibly expensive per joule.
As you were hinting, it's well time we're pulling the subsidies out from under these fossil fuel companies. The market is already prepared to crush them if we stop propping them up.
I think there are a few industrial processes that produce CO2 not from energy generation like aluminum smelting. So we should continue research & development, but it really shouldn't be solely in the hands of shell.
Or maybe it ought to be taxpayers footing the bill but ran by academia instead?
It worked perfectly but the purpose is not what you think it is. This facility in Alberta captures Carbon produced by the Scotford Complex, a Petrol Oil Refinery. It was never, ever, going to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, it was just going to make the adjacent facility produce slightly less. The problem is, of course, that the Hydrogen being used in operations is from a source that puts off more greenhouse gasses than the facility can sequester. We do have the technology to produce Hydrogen more cleanly, but clearly that isn't in the budget.
Why would we trust the people who are putting us in this mess to put us out of it? It's stupid. Confiscate their profit and fund clean energy research with that money
I'm not trusting them to do anything, I'm explaining how the facility works. We can understand things without advocating for them and vice versa.