Comment by civilized
3 years ago
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.
"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. "
Totally agree. No dogmatic framework is helpful, that opposes solutions out of principle. I hope I am not doing that.
It is just, that ressources are limited.
Any solar, wind or water plant, that connects to the grid is helping. Likely also every nuclear reactor.
But the carbon capture solution I see not really helping, as long as coal plants are being build and are proposed by the exact kind of people, who said before that it is all not so bad and economy growth is always more important.
" 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."
With what I know, I sadly really don't see it as part of the solution, but part of the distraction, part of the problem.
In germany the car lobby recently achieved, that the ban on new ICE cars in 2035 was in effect negated, because cars with E-Fuels should obviously excempt. Except that cars that can run with E-Fuels can also run with normal fuels and E-Fuels make no sense economically, so they already demanded for massive state subventioning of the concept. Spend lots of energy to generate a bit of fuel to continue the big roar of their loud engines. So all just fake. And those are the exact same people who lobby for the concept of carbon capture. Lot's of politicial "activism" to effectivly change nothing, except on paper.
So to repeat myself, I am not against carbon sequestering by principle.
I just think focussing on it now is just distracting from the real solutions needed now.
Once we stopped the last coal plant - then we can talk about spending surplus energy to capture existing CO2. Not before. And it is still a long way to get there.
>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 same math could be used to determine those would be the only places it would be viable to burn fossil fuels to begin with.