17 ms·

I can't see how CCS (carbon capture and storage) can ever be viable economically. It's pure expense. Why would anyone agree to pay for it. And if we mandate it

• prawn 6y ago
  I'm not pretending it's a massive industry, but carbon offset partner for airlines and other companies is something that people pay for?
  • perfunctory 6y ago
    This is a good point. However, everything I read about air travel offset schemes suggests that the current price is way too low and does not reflect the true cost of offsetting. If people were pay the true price to offset their flights, the question is whether they would still choose to fly as much.
    • skummetmaelk 6y ago
      If you cannot pay the price for sustainable flights you should not fly. The era of unsustainable consumption at the expense of future generations is coming to an end.
      • thesumofall 6y ago
        That seems a dangerous argument to make. Where do we stop? What other luxuries will we only allow to those who can afford the sustainable version of it? Warm water? Having a fulfilling job that unfortunately requires commuting? Edit: to be clear: I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything, I’m just saying the solution cannot be to make disparity between rich and poor even larger
        • hurxnid 6y ago
          Simple. We all walk in the middle of winter four hours to and from our unheated homes and offices and work by candle light. Also candles cost 45$ for the carbon offset. Billionaires continue to have their G-wagons flown around the world for them.
        • skummetmaelk 6y ago
          How is it a dangerous argument to make? Are you arguing that you should be entitled to exploit the world's natural resources by making your children and children's children's generation pay for it? You can argue that, but it makes you selfish and entitled.
          • thesumofall 6y ago
            No, I’m arguing that by enforcing the use of sustainable options (i.e., “you are not allowed to fly if you can’t afford carbon offsets”) and by letting people pay for it, we will make the poor poorer and the rich richer. We would basically send the majority of the world population back into the Stone Age. To avoid a social catastrophe we either need successful technical solutions or significant redistribution
    • tonyedgecombe 6y ago
      It can only get more expensive as well. As we de-carbonise other parts of the economy the opportunities for offsetting will fade away.
  • fsloth 6y ago
    Current carbon offset schemes for private individuals are there more to help people's conscience than help much with CO2 levels as such. Alms.
    • prawn 6y ago
      It wasn't being discussed as the solution but as an example of people willingly paying for carbon capture, and acknowledged as a small contribution. The GP comment included: "It's pure expense. Why would anyone agree to pay for it."
• TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Because the alternative is unrest, instability, and eventually mass death. It's hard to have a "competitive" economy when you've trashed your civilisation. It takes a while, but that's the predictable final outcome of failing to remove the carbon that is causing climate change.
  • jacobush 6y ago
    So, it’s pretty strong bet on unrest and instability then, I guess.
  • perfunctory 6y ago
    I am not questioning the fact that we should transition to the zero-carbon economy and remove excess carbon from the atmosphere. I am just saying that in my view CCS is not the most efficient way to achieve it.
    • DennisP 6y ago
      You might be right, and if we enact a carbon price that gives credit for CCS, the market will do a good job at figuring out what's most efficient for any given situation.
    • hedora 6y ago
      The most efficient way to do it is to forcibly remove every politician that opposes reducing CO2. CCS is more likely to succeed and will lead to significantly less bloodshed than overthrowing all the governments at once.
      • cryoshon 6y ago
        agreed entirely. there's no way forward regarding global warming with the current US insitution of leadership, comprised of both major parties. they've got to be removed for the most optimal response to climate change, but doing so will be ghastly. that's why i've started hunting for CCS solutions/companies to invest in/ways to start a company to leverage CCS for profit. we're going to need a massive mop to clean up the mess the baby boomers are still insisting on making worse.
• skummetmaelk 6y ago
  Military hardware is big business because governments want to ensure survival of their nation. The same will happen with carbon removal. The longer we fail to reduce emissions the bigger the boom will be.
  • wrren 6y ago
    A key difference there is that paying for your own military directly benefits your interests, whereas countries can engage in a race to the bottom with carbon removal wherein they rely on others to shoulder the burden while still enjoying the benefits.
    • pintxo 6y ago
      For the USSR, the cold war arms race ended at the bottom. Not sure it benefited them in any way.
    • dwaltrip 6y ago
      It’s the ultimate tragedy of the commons.
  • hedora 6y ago
    If that theory were panning out, NYC would be building carbon capture plants instead of sea walls.
• waihtis 6y ago
  Heres an example where economic benefits and carbon capture are aligned https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrogenic_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrogenic_carbon_capture_and...
  • waihtis 6y ago
    Also (expert beginner warning) apparently soil fertility is a huge issue by itself due to heavy-duty agriculture being very depletive on soil quality. On paper it looks like a huge win-win.
    • Melting_Harps 6y ago
      > Also (expert beginner warning) apparently soil fertility is a huge issue by itself due to heavy-duty agriculture being very depletive on soil quality. Very. And Food Security will be a huge issue moving forward in the 21st Century, as seen with COVID Pandemic shortages it can occur very quickly and have dire consequences due to its centralized and broken networks; also it occurred not because farmers cannot produce the product but because they cannot deliver the product to Market, which leads to Global supply chain disruptions. The consequences of soil depletion is such that the recovery/remediation costs are so high that its far more affordable to deplete/contaminate the area and recover your costs for the inputs via subsidies and cash crops then it is to undertake sustainable Ag. This is model is soon (if it hasn't already) to run out time as unpredictable weather patterns and climate change are distorting what was the 'status quo.' I've seen it in Switzerland where arable farm land is limited and has a huge premium, one of the farmers I knew bought a 5 hecatre plot of land (I forget the crop) from a conventional farmer adjacent to his livestock grazing plot and home that due to pesticide and artificial fertilizer use had become sterile and unable to yield anything of value. The Farmer sold it to him for a pittance, and the continued to put over 15 million CHF to recover the soil over 25 years, incrementally he decided to plant an apple orchid as he went along, until eventually it was completely done via a Biodynamic approach. I saw it and worked in it on its 28th season, and it was quite the experience but was taken away by the cost only to realize that is perhaps the more accurate costs of remediation costs and that what we've been doing has been the artificially suppressed costs of horrible ecological damage that will soon have to be paid. Just look at China, they're being pounded with floods compounded with COVID, a recent Swine Flu epidemic, and possible Bubonic Plague outbreak in Mongolia all which can impact and require the culling of large scale livestock, which in turn can impact the effects (capacity to carry costs of a farm) of horticulture as well. Honestly, this reset needed to happen, and I just hope the West (unlike China who has actually had to spend 100s of billions in its contaminated farm land) has the Good Sense to be proactive about this and lead the way, because a significant amount of the Extinction Rebellion Gen Z kids era don't care or want the Carbon-based economy and are already opting out of School model entirely--labor and passionate talent is what is needed the most in that equation, the rest is pretty much already there its just a matter of collective Will. Which means that unfunded-liabilities like SS and retirement funds, and pensions that rely on consumer based economies and taxes are not just unsustainable they're ready for imminent collapse due to the mass-unemployment and significant contraction in the consumer-based economy. I've come to realize that the Stock Market is essentially all smoke and mirrors, and doesn't reflect much of anything but a real-time gauge of 'how rich people happen to feel that day' and is mainly done with HFT based algorithms. (To base Food on this metric is absolute folly and should revert to a local economic model on a city level.) Even being a big Tesla proponent, there is no way in hell why Tesla stock price reflects reality and could/should displace Toyota Motors in any way shape or form. Just the sheer scale of Toyota based cars they produce per year dwarfs Tesla's current and foreseeable supply combined, let alone those already on the roads now all over the World which is massive, and I imagine they could/will remain past the critical mass effect of EV because of their very high QC/QA, something Tesla has never actually been able to figure out and has overcome that shortcoming with Brand 'clout.' So to summarize, its not just on paper: it has to happen as a matter of survival.
• fulafel 6y ago
  Just like garbage disposal, we just regulate a market into existence and make co2 emitters or fuel producers pay for it. If it reduces emissions by reducing fossil demand, that's fine too.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    You mean we make end-users pay for it. But your wider point stands: behavioural change via financial incentives.
    • hurxnid 6y ago
      Yep. Until it costs $4000 a month to heat your home people will not stop doing it.
      • fulafel 6y ago
        There are many good ways of keeping homes warm without fossil fuels. The projected cost of ccs is much less than $4000/mo even for a oil heated home though.
        • Gwypaas 6y ago
          Since these [0] work in Scandinavia heating will only ever be a problem you choose to have. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house
          • refurb 6y ago
            Your article says those houses still need heating, just less than typical.
            • Gwypaas 6y ago
              Rather little, and with district heating it's a non-issue. You can make it a "plus house", producing more energy than what it consumes using solar panels. My point rather was that living in a really old badly insulated house or a place with horrendous building standards is a choice, and that has to cost something and not be what we aim for when alternatives are easily possible and has been for decades.
• GeoAtreides 6y ago
  You are right and I don't understand why you're downvoted. CCS is literally unburning coal and oil. Gathering ashes (CO2) and putting them back in the ground. Instead of energy producing goods and services, it just funnels air into the ground. The energy needed for this is at least the same energy that was released in the last 200 years. It's also needed to stave off catastrophe and civilisation collapse, but let's not kid ourselves: it doesn't produce anything, except in indirect ways. Capitalism is not equipped to deal with this scenario.
  • fsloth 6y ago
    Modern market-economy states have huge businesses just supporting this and that government mandate without actually producing anything - tax lawyers for example.
  • rightbyte 6y ago
    Every plant is a "carbon remover". "Funnels air into the ground" can describe a potatoe plant. Surely there can be economy in that.
    • GeoAtreides 6y ago
      No, every plant is carbon storage. The only way it becomes a 'remover' if it's buried back in the ground.
• binbag 6y ago
  Why is this comment so unpopular? I also fail to see how these ex oil companies will profit from carbon reduction. A far more likely scenario is they apply what they have learned in oil and gas to offshore wind generation and continue to have a business model around provision of energy, e.g. the transformation of Statoil into Equinor.
  • fsloth 6y ago
    The edge oil companies have is that they are experts in pumping lots of stuff IN to underground. That's what fracking is. Now, just replace the fracking liquid with the transport of CO2.
    • mattbk1 6y ago
      Slightly different because frack fluid is a liquid slurry at surface conditions and CO2 is gas that needs to be compressed into a supercritical state. Your point stands that oil and gas (and surrounding industry) engineers know what they're doing when dealing with the subsurface.
• kayaeb 6y ago
  Is it though? Renewables that are popular now, like solar and wind, are weather dependent, which means the grid needs to handle variable input, which it's not designed to do and would need major fixing. Also means you need to store the energy for when it's not abundant, Germany does this by pumping water into mountain lakes to produce hydro on demand, but they've run out of lakes, so you need batteries. Batteries of a grid-size magnitude need carbon-expensive materials and have their own plethora of problems. These two problems are only feasibly conquerable in a reasonable timescale by a few countries, for others they are prohibitively expensive, far beyond the small subsidies proposed in things like the Paris Accord. Now, sure, USA, Europe could implement these, but it's not going to fix the problem if Asia, Africa don't, and additionally it's going to add significant economic and geopolitical pressure between these nation-blocs, those who are hamstringing themselves and those who aren't. Hydro has serious geopolitical issues as fresh water supplies grow more tactically necessary, consider Egypt / Ethiopia right now with the Nile, or China's tibetan plateau snow-seed cannons to capture water before it reaches India. Tidal has extremely short lifespans, any moving system in salt water is difficult to keep going for more than a few years. Geothermal is good, but also one of the most expensive and a bit of a "slow burner," not going to be powering anything serious with that without sinking billions into the plant. The only real solution I see is nuclear, but that's a naughty word for some reason.
  • fsloth 6y ago
    As near future sci-fi options go from 100ft up I don't see anything too problematic with hydrogen economy. Except for transport infrastructure. Or, we remain with carbon based fuels, except they are synthesized from atmospheric carbon in regions with plenty of solar energy. These approaches surely have challenges, but I would like to know what are the biggest ones?
    • Zigurd 6y ago
      Ammonia is more practical than hydrogen. Just not as sexy. Should be rebranded as the "hydrogen-nitrogen economy."
      • 6y ago
• leereeves 6y ago
  > I can't see how CCS (carbon capture and storage) can ever be viable economically. It's pure expense. If fossil fuels weren't available, profitable activities that currently release carbon from fossil fuels would be done in other ways. For example, plastics could be made from plants, and a lot of carbon from the atmosphere would end up in landfills as a side effect of making disposable consumer goods.
• amelius 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window > The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.
  • marvy 6y ago
    But no one is proposing to break anything in this discussion, right?
• hurxnid 6y ago
  Current climate models indicate that if we want anything less than catastrophe we need to completely stop producing CO2 in 20(30?) years AND begin capturing it as well.
  • hedora 6y ago
    20-30 years from now, over 10% of the earth will be uninhabitable, so we need to start cutting emissions drastically last year to avoid catastrophe. The outlook is getting exponentially worse each year. But, yeah, we need to be strongly net negative in a few decades.
• jillesvangurp 6y ago
  Spending money just so we can continue to spend what is already too much money burning oil, gas, and coal is not a plan at all unless you have an entity dumb enough to sink money in what is clearly a loss leading venture from day 1. So, yes it could happen because the US government currently ticks that box already and lots of companies are benefiting from all sorts of subsidized programs to funnel tax money into the cause of destroying our planet as fast as we can. Basically, this would be a yet another tax funded effort benefiting big oil, much of the car industry, etc. It's so plausible because the same kind of things have been happening for decades already. The question why anyone would pay for that kind of thing is indeed one that needs answering because the US seems to consistently end up with leadership actively promoting exactly these kind of things and there's an election coming up with a clear choice one way or another.
• jellicle 6y ago
  I believe the general idea now is that oil companies will pay for it as a fig leaf. Dig up 1000 tons of oil, pay for one ton of carbon capture, runs lots of commercials about your environment-friendliness, profit.
• Dumblydorr 6y ago
  Once we ramp emissions way down, then we have to pull out the CO2 we've already emitted. It's not viable now, but EVs weren't viable 20 years ago. Once Europe and Stripe and California and all the early movers spend the first few billions, it will become much cheaper and more effective.
  • gonzo41 6y ago
    It's actually a hard problem. Think of CO2 like ping pong balls. If you have a cube of balls 100 * 100 * 100 you've got a million balls. Then mark 400 random balls. Then lets them all fall to the floor. Find the marked balls. That's what sifting though 400 parts per million looks like and c02 molecules are smaller than ping pong balls.
• gridlockd 6y ago
  > I can't see how CCS (carbon capture and storage) can ever be viable economically. Taxes. Carbon emissions are externalities, regulating them is entirely compatible, if not mandatory, with maintaining a free market. > Why would anyone agree to pay for it. Why do you agree to pay taxes? Oh wait, you don't. You are forced to pay them. > And if we mandate it wouldn't it make fossil products way too expensive and therefore uncompetitive? Isn't that what you'd want? > They are already losing to renewables in some regions. "Some regions" are just low-hanging fruit. > I just don't see the logic in shitting around and then paying somebody to clean up the shit. It's much easier to just stop shitting. Only if you stop eating, which you would probably be forced to do if you were to give up on hydrocarbon-based products such as fertilizer. Also, you'll die. Alternatively, if you were to just "shit somewhere else" instead, you will need a way to store and transform that shit. That's exactly what carbon sequestration is.
• GhostVII 6y ago
  If the government introduces a national emissions cap ("cap and trade"), then CCS can be used to offset emissions when it is too expensive to reduce them directly. If we had an economy for emissions, then companies could do CCS to get emissions credits for what they capture, and then sell them to companies who still have high emissions.
  • hedora 6y ago
    This needs to be done. Also, it would allow individuals to buy the credits and destroy them, which would further increase the cost of emitting CO2. The trick is to set the number of credits decades in advance.
• grej 6y ago
  I’ve wondered if we’d get less ire about taxes if govts allow people to directly choose how a portion of their taxes (5%?) gets allocated when they file. They could send it nonprofits for causes they care about. Given the choice of sending it into something they choose or the large centralized government black hole, more people would pick to allocate to something they care about. Carbon capture could be just one of these choices, and a lot of people care about it.
  • ta1234567890 6y ago
    With today's technology, there's really no excuse for keeping governmental/political decision power away from people. Most budget/spending and political decisions by the government should be subject to approval by the people. Everybody should have a government login and could vote through a website or app. I wouldn't mind voting once or twice per day or even more, as it would be more productive and fulfilling than social media.
    • foepys 6y ago
      What happens when people sell their website access and entities vote in the name of thousands of people? Do you think you could detect that?
      • ta1234567890 6y ago
        I have no idea. But the current state of affairs seems much worse. Politicians are already bought/influenced by corporations/entities in the open (and of course through back channels as well). There is immense corruption, some of which is even legal (lobbying).
      • zo1 6y ago
        I'd say that's a feature if you let individuals do that, but a bug/fraud otherwise. A while back I heard someone propose the idea of "delegating" your vote to an arbitrary person and they'd vote on individual vote items on your behalf, or consequently "delegate" it yet again to someone above. Essentially creating a giant hierarchy of representation.
• voisin 6y ago
  Making it “way too expensive and therefore uncompetitive” is exactly the thing that makes it “much easier to just stop shitting.”
• noman-land 6y ago
  Your last sentence is funny because it proves the opposite of your point. Why don't you just stop shitting then?
• rch 6y ago
  A couple of decades ago I wrote a finite difference simulator for CCS as enhanced recovery for coalbed methane. The process was financially viable in Canada due to carbon credit incentives linked to the Kyoto protocol and the relatively high price of natural gas at the time. Of course the U.S. never participated and, for a variety of reasons, the price of natural gas plummeted. There is a CCS capable coal seam within 50 km of every coal and natural gas power plant in N. America, so in the minority of cases where falling LCOE of renewables doesn't outcompete existing generation naturally it might make sense to incentivise CCS, provided that the produced natural gas would further enable renewables. The net carbon impact could be even more significant in China.
  • csours 6y ago
    > "A couple of decades ago I wrote a finite difference simulator for CCS as enhanced recovery for coalbed methane." I don't understand this, care to expand?
    • rch 6y ago
      CO2 binds with coal 3:1 vs methane, so you can pump carbon dioxide down an injection well and produce more natural gas from a nearby well than you otherwise would.
• kickout 6y ago
  People can and will pay for it IMO. Just too much friction for it right now. I explain a bit here about incentives https://thinkingagriculture.io/carbon-sequestering-incentives-who-wins/ https://thinkingagriculture.io/carbon-sequestering-incentive...
• hedora 6y ago
  CCS is more like paying someone to cleaning the streets in SF than having someone follow you around to clean up in case you decide to crap on the sidewalk. Anyway, CCS is probably already economically viable because it is legal, and there’s no way large institutions will stop burning fossil fuels. It would make more economic sense to transfer all of the oil subsidies to environmentally sustainable energy, but that’s politically impossible. It’s no more likely than SF making it illegal to lock a bathroom, and simultaneously spending enough money for social services to reduce the homeless population.
• jes5199 6y ago
  I agree BUT there are new technologies that capture carbon into high-value molecules. For example, there’s a group competing in the Carbon X-Prize that has direct-air-capture that builds carbon nanotubes
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• chadcmulligan 6y ago
  A carbon tax could make it viable - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax