"Hey, can we store a biological timebomb under the North Sea? Pretty please? We promise it won't be an ecological disaster for at least the next several earnings calls."
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
33 points (97.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5244 readers
229 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
It's still somewhat unclear how effective CCS will be but it's definitely showing promise. We already have a couple active in my State and the world's largest one, Project Bison ,is currently being built here.
If you are curious CarbonCapture's DAC will initially be powered by a mix of Natural Gas and Wind Power but will transition to full Solar & Wind power as it becomes available. We're also building the nation's largest Wind Farm, and one of the largest in the world, which will speed the transition and allow for future expansion.
I know that BigOil get's a lot of well deserved hate but try to keep an open mind with CCS, in the end it's the only practical way we can currently sequester all of the CO2 we dumped into the atmosphere over the last 200 years of coal burning.
...in the end it’s the only practical way we can currently sequester all of the CO2 we dumped into the atmosphere over the last 200 years of coal burning.
And that's why it's unrealistic. That's a lot. And it's not only in the air, it's in the oceans, too. The scale at which CCS needs to work is...honestly almost impossible for me to wrap my head around.
Not to mention, oil companies use CCS to justify their business model. Because, if you can remove CO2 in the atmosphere, why not dump more?
The scale at which CCS needs to work is…honestly almost impossible for me to wrap my head around.
Me too. The amount of CO2 that needs to be captured and sequestered is so enormous that it boggles the mind. Still, everything helps and the best time to start is now.
Because, if you can remove CO2 in the atmosphere, why not dump more?
I'm not supportive of this line of thinking unless we can reliably capture at least 500% of yearly global CO2 emissions. There's some future merit to their argument but not right now.
The goal is to build a new facility capable of drawing down 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030.
5 million tonnes is 0.0125% of what we need to cut annually by 2025 to achieve 1.5c under the vast majority of modelling. Then you need to factor in the energy/carbon needed to build and operate it, and the probability that they'll actually even achieve 5 million tonnes (probably low).
This would have been great 20 years ago. Today, lol.
5 million tonnes is 0.0125% of what we need to cut
It's modular, they can make it larger in the future. They can also build more than one plant. For example I could see them building another one in Kemmerer, Wyoming and powering it with TerraPower's Natrium SMR.
This would have been great 20 years ago. Today, lol.
Just like planting a tree. If it wasn't done in the past then you can either do it now or never. Which would you prefer?
The point isn't whether or not to invest in carbon capture tech. The point is that carbon capture tech is inconsequential to the climate crisis on any relevant timescale, and the #1 reason used to justify continued emissions by every major contributing industry, even though THEY KNOW that it is at least 30+ years away from being economically viable on any scale that could justify it as a solution (when we're already at 2–3c).
The ONLY way we have a reasonable chance to avoid a 2+ c world is to dramatically reduce emissions this decade, by an order of 50+% at least using existing, proven solutions — distant, non-existent, unproven, future-tech can not save us from the present, so don't even bother getting your hopes up.
This Al Gore TED talk should help you understand why.