It’s capturing greenhouse gas at the plant and injecting it down hole deep into bedrock formations.
There is simply no scenario of 90% fossil fuel reduction by 2050. It doesn’t exist. There is literally zero percent chance of that occurring unless a virus wipes out most of humanity.
If we can’t scale some version of carbon capture at the plant and atmospheric capture we are not meeting targets.
1 Like
Ok, that seems impractical. About 10 years ago I had a conversation with a chemical engineering professor who consulted on a project proposal to do that sort of thing. I think that was in CA. I don’t recall details and maybe there’s been some progress but at the time he thought it was completely out of reach.
It’s happening all over and has been for 20 years. It’s just a matter of scale. Not a small matter but there is every reason to believe it will be solved.
He was evaluating an industrial scale process and he was completely dismissive. I don’t recall his specific objections so maybe he would be less so now, idk.
1 Like
Many companies are spending billions and every government is creating the regulatory and tax framework for CCUS so it’s not some pipe dream. It’s a cornerstone of every realistic decabonizarion plan.
1 Like
I found one of his papers from about that time-frame (2011). It’s obviously old, but this is from the abstract:
The results suggest that some industrial wastes show promise for CO2 mineralization, but their availability is limited. The other pathways currently have large energy penalties and face other significant barriers, such as the production of large quantities of potentially hazardous waste and large-scale mining.
I recall he was highly critical of the modeling the (coal power) plant owners had done (his specialty). I’m shocked I remember this much. Anyway I suspect the same problems are still an issue.
Is this really true? I thought that one of the existential threats is that India is NOT doing anything at all on carbon emissions, and they’re on their way to being the most populous country on earth.
Right now it’s mostly implemented in an oil and gas context so India wouldn’t be involved. You need the same kind of geology that hydrocarbons form in.
There are projects to capture emissions from things like cement production and even to capture them from the atmosphere but these are in very early stages.
1 Like
The above is a McKinsey chart, but there are plenty of others from the IPCCC or other similar that show the same view.
This is what we need to do to emissions through to 2050 to hit 1.5 degrees of warming. With similar but slightly less steep glides for 2 degrees.
Theres 3 parts to this chart.
-
We need a rapid decline in emissions. The later we start, the faster the decline needed.
-
The need for negative emissions closer to 2050. This is both to counteract the most difficult to decarbonise sectors and to claw back any overshoot.
-
Less obvious. But the need for massive energy use growth in the developing world. Which needs to be achieved without a proportional increase in emissions.
While some of the emissions reductions in the glide above might be the use of CCS. It’s not the majority. The bulk of this work need to be done by massive and rapid decarbonisation, including early closure of fossil fuels.
Now as to what is possible, impossible, etc, it’s all relative.
CCS is not going to do enough heavy lifting. Literally no scenario models show CCS as a substitute for mass replacement of fossil fuels. It’s always an AND.
Now. Mass removal of fossil fuels is extremely difficult. You might be right it’s not going to happen, but the difference between a small chance and zero chance for CCS is significant.
The alternative is of course worse. And the economic costs of inaction will far outweigh the cost of a transition
Some advocates for CCS see it as a get out of jail free card, to avoid the hard work.
We need to crystal clear in any debates. There are not three options. There are 2.
Either
A) we get rid of fossil fuels while also solving CCS, or
B) we face catastrophic climate change.
No matter how unlikely A might be, you make it less likely to happen by claiming that C is an option.
2 Likes
This is another question which requires some context.
Asking if it is out of reach today (or 10 years ago) is different to whether it out of reach if we spend a few trillion dollars on it over 20 years.
Personally I’m much more bullish on direct carbon capture. This pulls CO2 directly from the air rather than from the exhausts of a power station.
-
You dont have to retrofit to a bunch of different power stations. Engineering is expensive.
-
You can build it close to the places where it’s easy to store. Gas pipelines for CO2 are also expensive.
-
It’s more amenable to mass production type economies of scale. It’s easier to cut costs by 95% when you are building the same thing 10s of millions of times instead of trying to build a slightly different thing ten thousand times.
1 Like
We are in agreement. It’s all hands on deck. Every tech will be a part of it. This discussion began with my comment on that article which made the naive and childlike claim that because the bill supported things like CCUS and hydrogen is was bad for the climate. This is the line of thinking among bad climate change advocates that is extremely harmful as it is simply not rooted in reality. The oil and gas industry accounts for 27% of Canada’s greenhouse gas. They will obviously be a major player in decarbonization.
2 Likes
They can do that AND we can make their CEOs walk naked down Bay St in Toronto with a Climate Nun chanting SHAME after them.
1 Like
Sure but the shame isn’t theirs alone and it doesn’t belong to every company. The CEOs today are not universally the same ones who were denying climate change and lobbying against GHG reduction. Sure a few of those guys remain but most have been replaced with people actively working to hit ESG targets and GHG targets because they are not stupid. The are reacting to incentives. They have no choice.
We all share some of the shame too. It’s not like cigarette companies where a few of us had a vice. Basically every single person on earth has heavily relied on fossil fuels their entire lives. Still do! That is why this is such a difficult problem and simple blame games and fantasy plans that don’t recognize reality are harmful.
Sadly the ability to replace the non-energy carbon usage is not ready for prime time. The amount of sugar required is astronomical. This is my field.
So not only do we need to switch transportation fuel, we need to give up a majority of plastic use.
Can the planet support 9 Billy? Seems so. Can it do it sustainably? Unlikely.
Might as well change the course of an asteroid to hit earth. Reduce the population and block out the suns rays.
1 Like
They do have these very complicated machines that capture carbon and they build themselves with a little help.
https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/2-billion-trees/2-billion-trees-program.html
Unfortunately other places are removing these machines.
5 Likes
Think you’re better off growing big vats of algae and storing them deep underground.
Vats sound expensive.
1 Like
No one said unfucking the planet would be cheap.
1 Like
I think the problem with planting trees is that there’s not as much potential for private companies to make money. Canada and China are just doing it.
1 Like