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.
To be clear: carbon capture like this is a tiny and expensive part of what needs doing over the next few years
It's getting a lot of support and publicity in large part because it's backed by the oil industry, which is trying to create social permission for continued extraction and burning on a much larger scale than the removal.
Carbon capture is such a stupid concept.
We burn carbon to make electricity.
Then we take that electricity to power big fucking fans to pull the carbon we just burned out of the air. And use more electricity to cool down and pump that carbon into storage. If you wanted to capture just the CO2 we produce every year, you’d essentially double the cost of energy, because half the energy we make would have to go to storing the waste from harnessing that energy in the first place.
Carbon capture doesn’t do anything until we stop using fossil fuels at current levels. It’s like trying to drain a lake with a bucket while it’s raining.
It may not do much right now, but it is important to start the work on it now, for a few reasons.
One, every little bit helps. We have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and removing any of it is a good thing. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today, we can't leave things the way they are, we would still need to remove that carbon from the air.
Two, these types of technologies need time and real-life demonstration to improve upon. If we wait to start working on carbon capture until we become carbon neutral, then we will not have carbon capture technology that will make a meaningful difference when we need it most.
I agree we need to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and that there are a lot of people who want to use carbon capture as a complete alternative to switching to renewable energy. But we can't afford to wait, so we should support any company that is working towards improving our current situation.
Spending the time and effort to directly reduce CO2 emissions would be a more efficient use of all resources. At the very least, capture it directly at the source instead of diluted to hell.
We have more than enough resources to do both, and small companies like this are the way we prove the concept to industries for future installations 'at the source'. Until you prove that it is a net positive, it can't be sold, and you can't improve on something if you've never actually seen the system function. We will need these systems to properly fix the climate crisis, and the sooner we start putting them to use, the faster we can improve them to the point of being able to make a difference.
Again, I am not saying we should be doing this instead of renewable energy, just that we need to be doing both at the same time. Plenty of other companies and groups are working on wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and other forms of renewable energy. We do need more companies presenting more ideas of how to clean the existing mess, otherwise we risk people thinking that we shouldn't care about fixing the issue because 'the damage is done'. That sentiment is becoming a very popular talking point among people trying to discourage climate solutions, and having examples like this showing that recovery is possible helps drive people to support faster and better solutions.
What do you mean... we have enough resources? We do not have spare energy to throw at this. We are far from a point in time where there is a regular excess in energy and where the low hanging fruits are taken care of.
We also do not have unlimited research capacities. Here too low hanging fruits are clearly more sensible to quickly reduce CO2 emissions.
The goal has to be the fastest possible reduction in CO2 emissions. This will not happen if we choose paths that are less efficient. Like hydrogen cars for example. Those or CCS are good for the fossil industry since they are ideal for greenwashing. This could even result in a net negative effect.
You’re right, next time I see a house on fire I’ll be sure to head over with a glass of water to “help”
Eventually I might research the bucket and be able to help more
Carbon capture is more like chest compressions done by someone who isn't a medical professional while you wait for an ambulance. It isn't a replacement, by a long shot, but you can both provide limited assistance now and ask for better assistance.
Also, not sure why you say 'eventually' when we are already implementing several solutions to eliminate fossil fuels across the globe. I agree we aren't doing enough, but to act like putting effort into carbon capture is useless is acting in bad faith, because the only argument you have is that you are letting perfect be the enemy of good.
What if excess solar was used for it instead?
What if we used that energy in a more efficient way to directly prevent CO2 emissions? That will result in x times more CO2 saved with the same resources.
Not sure how efficient CCS tech currently is, but it will be far from efficient.
Oh we're playing the what if game? What if this technology becomes super efficient and is better than your imaginary technology? Check mate.
It is like optimizing recuperation in a car. You are still driving around in a car, the basic issue is still there. There a far better solutions. That is not a "what if" question.
That's just not polluting with extra steps.
Or taking your first step in India and confidently telling everyone you're on your way to climbing Mount Everest.
I respect this first step but at this point in the game .... There should be world wide panic and a combined global push to save ourselves ... we don't need to save the planet, the planet has been through worse than us, this isn't about the environment, this is about the long term survival of our species.
How much carbon does the electricity used to run this plant produce?
In this case, they're making a claim about using renewable energy to power the plant, but it's not clear if that means new dedicated wind and solar + storage, or if they're buying transferable renewable energy credits, or what.
“To earn revenue, the company is selling carbon removal credits to companies paying a premium to offset their own emissions.” So, this isn’t any help yet. But it will be an important technology to develop because otherwise it takes 300 years for carbon to leave the atmosphere.