Comment by hutzlibu
3 years ago
You really have not heard those people? Lucky you. Anecdotically there are plenty of them, and official sources (like politicians) are of course more careful in their wording, but the sentiment is exactly this.
"No real need to change the gasoline cars, as we will have CO2 removal."
I can probably dig up some ugly quotes, if you like. But those are not really my circles so I have nothing at hand.
(I should probably add, that I am from germany and loud cars and the making of them are important here. But I heard the same from US politicians)
"What I don't accept is mere folk behavioral psychology speculation driving what an entire civilization does to mitigate a massive risk. "
Well, how exactly could technical CO2 removal ever work?
We burn stuff for energy and then need even more energy to recapture the side products?
How would this be powered?
By the sun?
Solar panels still needs to be manufactured and deployed.
So if we would have all energy generation by regenerative sources AND we have overcapacity - then we could also extract some of the old released CO2, true, but have you done some calculations, how much area you would need, to power a significant amount of CO2 removal?
Lot's of it.
Forests on the other hand grow and expand by themself, once established and undisturbed, that's the beauty of them. They also help stabilizing local climate. And the real problem of climate change for lots of people will be desertification. So more Forests reduce CO2 AND provide actual better living conditions for the people affected. A lone symbolic CO2 removal on the other hand is really limited in its usefulness, while the coal plants are burning happily.
All I'm saying is that the technical debate between these different methodologies is what matters. If we agree on that, I have no dispute with you. I don't know what carbon capture method is best or how big of an impact carbon capture can have. I would like to see the research, which is what the article is about.
"I would like to see the research, which is what the article is about."
The article is about how big oil changed Standford's research focus. And their interest is simply to leave everything as it is and stall any further oil limitations, so they can profit, like they used to, without having to fundamentally change.
But yes, they are totally free to fund research that is in their interest and if they happen to find a magic solution acceptable to society, I am thrilled. I am just very sceptical that this is what will happen. I rather suspect it will be symbolism used by willing populistic politicians, to block uncomforthable legislation or stall it completely.
I just see no technical ground for this to really work, other than wishful thinking. And if the latter is the base, then it won't work, no matter how millions you spend on it.
Different areas have different power availability from different sources at different times of the year. We have limited capacity to move and store that energy.
If the price of re-extracting released carbon is baked into into burning fossil fuels, then carbon capture will only be viable in places where energy is cheap, such as places with good conditions for solar, wind or hydro.
The economic viability of carbon capture is thus entirely dependent on the quality of the regulatory framework around carbon emissions. If we don't have that, then any advances in carbon capture technology won't matter. If we do have that, then giving the carbon capture industry a bit of a headstart with research will make the necessary overall emissions targets we need easier to reach.
So while carbon capture is indeed touted as an excuse to avoid those regulations by opportunistic politicians, those politicians would find some other excuse to oppose those regulations. So don't let them lead you think that carbon capture isn't an important part of the solution that is being developed by people who care deeply and climate change.
We've waited far to long already and simply can't afford to ignore any part of the solution that can help reduce total emissions faster.
2 replies →