4 ms·

Simply put no. The cost to implement is too high and is essentially the same as what we do for Municipal Solid Waste (just bury it). I put it in a slightly le

Simply put no. The cost to implement is too high and is essentially the same as what we do for Municipal Solid Waste (just bury it). I put it in a slightly less insane category than geo-engineering. The only places that I see carbon capture as potentially viable as a transition is using it to offset industrial process gases necessary. I.e. capture CO2 from coal plant for cement production - however that is niche case as siting is key and transportation is too expensive. How do we solve climate change? Deploy, deploy, deploy. We have renewable energy that is cheap and available. Change the policy incentives at the federal away from subsidizing oil and gas and incentives green energy. De-carbonize the transportation sector with EV and HZEV. Reduce Natural Gas for home heating with the injection of Hydrogen into the fuel lines (up to 20%). Invest in research and development into further productionizing effective technologies. Let's skip the wasted capital, debate and energy and move on. Also, let us not forget that Oil and Gas Majors have been deploying considerable money into this sector for decades to prolong their existence. I for one do not want to subsidize their behavior any more as they have been trying to scuttle the climate date since the 80s.

jartelt 6y ago
The problem is that even if we do everything you propose - rapidly deploy renewable energy tech, replace natural furnaces with heat pumps after the furnaces break, quickly transition to EVs, etc. - the best we can hope for is only 1.5 degrees C warming. Perfect behavior from here on out is not enough to prevent significant warming. There is simply too much carbon in the atmosphere and too many carbon emitting machines in use today that will emit until they reach end of life. They acknowledge this in the IPCC reports and have already baked in aggressive use of carbon capture technology in order to meet the 1.5 C target. Simply put, we need to continue to invest in carbon capture technology. This includes direct air capture, remediating soil to retain more carbon, preventing deforestation, etc. If we do not do this, we are going to blow past the 1.5 degree C mark.
- boringg 6y ago
  Remediation of soil, preventing deforestation, reforestation are all very important options that need to be pursued. Direct capture to storage is a waste of capital (political, talent and financial) and rewards both the oil and gas historic investments and incentivizes them to continue to pursue fossil fuel production. That with it requiring specific geologic formations and on top there is a risk that there are leaks in the formations (e.g. Aliso Canyon gas leak in California).
  - jartelt 6y ago
    Oil and gas companies (and many companies) are going to continue to use fossil fuels regardless of whether or not we invest in direct capture. By your logic, I could say that investing in soil remediation also incentivizes people to keep driving their ICE vehicles... The point is that we are almost certainly going to blow past the 1.5 degree C (and likely 2 degree C) mark if we continue to decarbonize at a slow pace. To avoid this fate, we need to do rapidly electrify everything AND we need to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Direct air capture will never be free, but compared to the cost of future negative climate change impacts the cost of direct air capture could be totally justified. At the very least, it is worth investing in the technology to see if it can become a game changer.
    - boringg 6y ago
      I do think we need to electrify as much as possible but not everything the last 20% is ineffective and quite costly. I get that electrify everything is a great slogan but the reality is that maybe 60-80% makes sense and then after that it because a total cluster. I disagree - and i will continue to say that CCS is a red herring and waste of resources. It has been under development for a considerable amount of time and still has not proven itself. Go look at Alberta's multibillion dollar investments into CCS and how much has not materialized. Deploy technology we already have and invest in viable R&D technology. Renewables, better agriculture, hydrogen based fuels, reforestation, changing cement processes, landfill management, capture biogas from waste water treatment plants and ag facilities, reduce high GWP refrigerant uses in countries that still allow them.... We will blow by 1.5 C if you've been watching this space since the early 2000s we've blown by every single warning that we've put up. Theres a moment in time that is happening right now - we waste our political clout and money on CCS or anything on GeoEngineering and it will be a disappointing future. And no, investing in soil remediation would not incentivize further use of the ICE/fossil fuel burning tech because the oil majors aren't the companies standing to gain from soil remediation (i.e. they haven't spent considerable money funding R&D institutes to evangelize and deploy this tech).
- CyanBird 6y ago
  > the best we can hope for is only 1.5 degrees C warming. OK, and? If you are driving a car and realize you are about to crash which you can't avoid , you still put the breaks on We need to break, we know the crash is going to happen no matter what, but we can reduce it and not get killed/ourselves ejected out of the car
whiddershins 6y ago
How is sequestering it in the ground fundamentally different from where it is now ... sequestered in the ground?

jartelt 6y ago

The problem is that even if we do everything you propose - rapidly deploy renewable energy tech, replace natural furnaces with heat pumps after the furnaces break, quickly transition to EVs, etc. - the best we can hope for is only 1.5 degrees C warming. Perfect behavior from here on out is not enough to prevent significant warming. There is simply too much carbon in the atmosphere and too many carbon emitting machines in use today that will emit until they reach end of life. They acknowledge this in the IPCC reports and have already baked in aggressive use of carbon capture technology in order to meet the 1.5 C target. Simply put, we need to continue to invest in carbon capture technology. This includes direct air capture, remediating soil to retain more carbon, preventing deforestation, etc. If we do not do this, we are going to blow past the 1.5 degree C mark.

boringg 6y ago
Remediation of soil, preventing deforestation, reforestation are all very important options that need to be pursued. Direct capture to storage is a waste of capital (political, talent and financial) and rewards both the oil and gas historic investments and incentivizes them to continue to pursue fossil fuel production. That with it requiring specific geologic formations and on top there is a risk that there are leaks in the formations (e.g. Aliso Canyon gas leak in California).
- jartelt 6y ago
  Oil and gas companies (and many companies) are going to continue to use fossil fuels regardless of whether or not we invest in direct capture. By your logic, I could say that investing in soil remediation also incentivizes people to keep driving their ICE vehicles... The point is that we are almost certainly going to blow past the 1.5 degree C (and likely 2 degree C) mark if we continue to decarbonize at a slow pace. To avoid this fate, we need to do rapidly electrify everything AND we need to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Direct air capture will never be free, but compared to the cost of future negative climate change impacts the cost of direct air capture could be totally justified. At the very least, it is worth investing in the technology to see if it can become a game changer.
  - boringg 6y ago
    I do think we need to electrify as much as possible but not everything the last 20% is ineffective and quite costly. I get that electrify everything is a great slogan but the reality is that maybe 60-80% makes sense and then after that it because a total cluster. I disagree - and i will continue to say that CCS is a red herring and waste of resources. It has been under development for a considerable amount of time and still has not proven itself. Go look at Alberta's multibillion dollar investments into CCS and how much has not materialized. Deploy technology we already have and invest in viable R&D technology. Renewables, better agriculture, hydrogen based fuels, reforestation, changing cement processes, landfill management, capture biogas from waste water treatment plants and ag facilities, reduce high GWP refrigerant uses in countries that still allow them.... We will blow by 1.5 C if you've been watching this space since the early 2000s we've blown by every single warning that we've put up. Theres a moment in time that is happening right now - we waste our political clout and money on CCS or anything on GeoEngineering and it will be a disappointing future. And no, investing in soil remediation would not incentivize further use of the ICE/fossil fuel burning tech because the oil majors aren't the companies standing to gain from soil remediation (i.e. they haven't spent considerable money funding R&D institutes to evangelize and deploy this tech).
CyanBird 6y ago
> the best we can hope for is only 1.5 degrees C warming. OK, and? If you are driving a car and realize you are about to crash which you can't avoid , you still put the breaks on We need to break, we know the crash is going to happen no matter what, but we can reduce it and not get killed/ourselves ejected out of the car

whiddershins 6y ago

How is sequestering it in the ground fundamentally different from where it is now ... sequestered in the ground?