4 ms·

Off Topic: I think carbon capture is a valid approach for power plants and will be effective if done well. What's not effective are these carbon compensation

Off Topic: I think carbon capture is a valid approach for power plants and will be effective if done well. What's not effective are these carbon compensation schemes, where you can pay a few pennies to have somebody sign a paper that they'll let a tree grow for another year, as if that would somehow compensate the release of fossil CO2. It's no better than an indulgence letter you bought from from the Pope.

danuker 5y ago
It is very difficult to keep up with global CO2 production by planting trees. TL; DW: planting 20 million trees would equal roughly the CO2 emissions of the USA for half a day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqht2bIQXIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqht2bIQXIY
- jorge-d 5y ago
  And... would be released back in the Atmosphere as soon as the forest burns
  - Jolter 5y ago
    The assumption would be that the newly forested land would be re-planted and re-harvested indefinitely, which would mean that on average we have now bound half of the maximum carbon content of that forest.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      The question is, what happens with the harvested wood? If it eventually gets burned or rots, then you've captured nothing. That means it can't be used for paper or furniture, or even most construction - they all have too short lifespans these days. The optimum would be to bury the harvested forest in a deep, deep hole, where light and water can't get, and seal it there permanently.
      - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        Ah, the technique of The Ancients ...
      - blendergeek 5y ago
        I would recommend burying it in old coal mines after compressing it under intense heat.
      - ihattendorf 5y ago
        Right, the idea is if I currently have empty land nothing is captured. If I then plant a forest that captures X lbs of CO2 that is continuously harvested and re-planted, on average X/2 lbs (roughly) of CO2 is permanently taken out of the air (as long as the forest is being harvested and replanted).
      - Jolter 5y ago
        As ihattendorf pointed out already, the point is not the production or consumption of wood - that’s circular and thus will net 0 even if you burned the wood. The point is that the growing trees will always bind some amount of carbon. Of course, this kind of action only scales in case we have excess land which is suitable for planting, and I suspect that this is the biggest flaw of the scheme.
        TeMPOraL 5y ago
        I get that, but I think what you and 'ihattendorf are forgetting that we're not dealing with a fixed amount of carbon dioxide surplus - we're continuously emitting it (and the rate is ever growing). Imagine you have a bathtub with a closed drain and an open faucet. It starts to fill with water. This proposal is an equivalent of putting a bucket in that bathtub, filling it with water, and then putting that bucket on the floor. Yes, it took some water out. No, it doesn't matter, because the faucet is still open and more water keeps flowing. The solutions that matter are ones that involve reducing emissions - at the very least, making them grow linearly instead of exponentially - and those that continuously remove carbon from the air. With forests, that means continuously growing them, cutting them down, and burying the wood where it can't decompose.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
epistasis 5y ago
Carbon capture for power plants has been a far bigger scam than paying pennies for planting forests, which is already a scam. At least a fraction forests actually get planted and aren't destroyed within 10 years. Every single power plant carbon capture attempt has been a failure, at least as far as I know. If there has ever been a success, I'd love to hear about it to give me some hope
- tovej 5y ago
  I haven't heard of this before, could you link some examples?
  - hannob 5y ago
    Petra Nova is quite well known for being a massive failure: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-energy-carbon-capture-idUSKCN2523K8 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-energy-carbon-capture... But the biggest failures are all the plants that were announced with CCS and then built without. (Or announced that they'd be retrofitted with CCS which never happened.)
  - wildster 5y ago
    None of the Coal CCS have worked but Norway claim their Gas CCS has been working for 20 years. https://www.ice.org.uk/knowledge-and-resources/case-studies/sleipner-carbon-capture-storage-project https://www.ice.org.uk/knowledge-and-resources/case-studies/...
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    "The struggles to make CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) work" https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/7/30/the-struggles-to-make-ccs-work https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/7/30/the-struggle...
    - epistasis 5y ago
      This is an excellent link, thank you! Definitely going to share this is the future.
michaelsbradley 5y ago
What’s an indulgence letter?
- chipsa 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

danuker 5y ago

It is very difficult to keep up with global CO2 production by planting trees. TL; DW: planting 20 million trees would equal roughly the CO2 emissions of the USA for half a day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqht2bIQXIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqht2bIQXIY

jorge-d 5y ago
And... would be released back in the Atmosphere as soon as the forest burns
- Jolter 5y ago
  The assumption would be that the newly forested land would be re-planted and re-harvested indefinitely, which would mean that on average we have now bound half of the maximum carbon content of that forest.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    The question is, what happens with the harvested wood? If it eventually gets burned or rots, then you've captured nothing. That means it can't be used for paper or furniture, or even most construction - they all have too short lifespans these days. The optimum would be to bury the harvested forest in a deep, deep hole, where light and water can't get, and seal it there permanently.
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      Ah, the technique of The Ancients ...
    - blendergeek 5y ago
      I would recommend burying it in old coal mines after compressing it under intense heat.
    - ihattendorf 5y ago
      Right, the idea is if I currently have empty land nothing is captured. If I then plant a forest that captures X lbs of CO2 that is continuously harvested and re-planted, on average X/2 lbs (roughly) of CO2 is permanently taken out of the air (as long as the forest is being harvested and replanted).
    - Jolter 5y ago
      As ihattendorf pointed out already, the point is not the production or consumption of wood - that’s circular and thus will net 0 even if you burned the wood. The point is that the growing trees will always bind some amount of carbon. Of course, this kind of action only scales in case we have excess land which is suitable for planting, and I suspect that this is the biggest flaw of the scheme.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        I get that, but I think what you and 'ihattendorf are forgetting that we're not dealing with a fixed amount of carbon dioxide surplus - we're continuously emitting it (and the rate is ever growing). Imagine you have a bathtub with a closed drain and an open faucet. It starts to fill with water. This proposal is an equivalent of putting a bucket in that bathtub, filling it with water, and then putting that bucket on the floor. Yes, it took some water out. No, it doesn't matter, because the faucet is still open and more water keeps flowing. The solutions that matter are ones that involve reducing emissions - at the very least, making them grow linearly instead of exponentially - and those that continuously remove carbon from the air. With forests, that means continuously growing them, cutting them down, and burying the wood where it can't decompose.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

epistasis 5y ago

Carbon capture for power plants has been a far bigger scam than paying pennies for planting forests, which is already a scam. At least a fraction forests actually get planted and aren't destroyed within 10 years. Every single power plant carbon capture attempt has been a failure, at least as far as I know. If there has ever been a success, I'd love to hear about it to give me some hope

tovej 5y ago
I haven't heard of this before, could you link some examples?
- hannob 5y ago
  Petra Nova is quite well known for being a massive failure: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-energy-carbon-capture-idUSKCN2523K8 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-energy-carbon-capture... But the biggest failures are all the plants that were announced with CCS and then built without. (Or announced that they'd be retrofitted with CCS which never happened.)
- wildster 5y ago
  None of the Coal CCS have worked but Norway claim their Gas CCS has been working for 20 years. https://www.ice.org.uk/knowledge-and-resources/case-studies/sleipner-carbon-capture-storage-project https://www.ice.org.uk/knowledge-and-resources/case-studies/...
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  "The struggles to make CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) work" https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/7/30/the-struggles-to-make-ccs-work https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/7/30/the-struggle...
  - epistasis 5y ago
    This is an excellent link, thank you! Definitely going to share this is the future.

michaelsbradley 5y ago

What’s an indulgence letter?

chipsa 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence