4 ms·

I find it kind of funny that people are quick to hate on technologies that could enable reduced emissions while continuing to burn fossil fuels. It's as if the

I find it kind of funny that people are quick to hate on technologies that could enable reduced emissions while continuing to burn fossil fuels. It's as if the goal all along wasn't to actually reduce emissions, but to destroy Oil and Gas. Reactions similar to yours abound, and they are antithetical towards the goal of solving climate change. Of course, not saying that this technology in particular can achieve net zero emissions by any means, but if it could in a more cost effective manner, it would be more societally beneficial than the alternative of overhauling the entire energy production infrastructure.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
titzer 5y ago
> it would be significantly more cost effective (thus societally beneficial) than to overhaul the entire energy production infrastructure. Citation needed on that cost effectiveness estimate, but regardless, all infrastructure is incrementally rebuilt and replaced over the years. So instead of eventually building replacement coal [1] plants with fancy (and leaky) CC, we could as well build different plants that don't emit any CO2. [1] or natural gas, which is what's been happening over the past 10-15 years in the US, primarily because natural gas became cheaper. Those natural gas plants produced less CO2 than coal, which has primarily driven any reduction in the US's CO2 output. But natural gas still produces huge amounts of CO2 and will never be carbon neutral.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  "Citation" of a hypothetical? Doesn't make any sense. Thought the spirit of my comment was pretty clear, but the point was that if technology could enable continued use of fossil fuels in a net zero manner, and in a more cost efficient way than replacing energy infrastructure, that it should be welcomed. But instead you get a lot of commenters hating on the idea because it would allow fossil fuels to live on, even if consumption of those was net zero. Which implies they don't care about solving climate change, but care specifically about destroying the fossil fuel industry. Yes things get replaced over time and the replacement technology will end up being whatever's most economical (in a free market) or whatever's most economical given legal constraints (in a controlled market). There's no inherent virtue of generating power from solar versus coal if you could do both in a net zero manner. Though of course, fossil fuels are limited in supply. Getting net zero or renewables to be more cost effective than fossil fuels is the fastest way to solve the problem. That transition would happen naturally over time as fossil fuels became more scarce, thus more expensive.
  - titzer 5y ago
    I'll just point you to this [1], which describes the situation better than I can. In short, no, capture capture is not going to be net zero, and even if it were, it doesn't actually reduce air pollution. [1] https://news.stanford.edu/2019/10/25/study-casts-doubt-carbon-capture/ https://news.stanford.edu/2019/10/25/study-casts-doubt-carbo...
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      Do you understand what a hypothetical is?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > "Citation" of a hypothetical Yes, the claim that one hypothetical option would be more efficient than another demands support, in the form of evidence, or reasoning from supported theory. Typical citing the support and stating any necessary connecting reasoning to reach the conclusion from it is the way to provide that. Just because you are comparing hypotheticals doesn't free the conclusion you claim from that comparison from the need for justification.
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      Do you understand what a hypothetical is?
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Do you understand what a hypothetical is? Yes, do you understand that making predictive conclusions about hypothetical alternatives is itself a claim that such conclusions can be justified (which is true, that's pretty much the whole point of science) and invites a call for the justification of the particular predictive conclusion you have offered?
        adam_arthur 5y ago
        Clearly you don't. The merits of carbon capture technology, obviously (very much so) have nothing to do with my comment
Robotbeat 5y ago
Yes, destroying oil and gas is a good idea for several reasons. 1) these capture demos usually don’t capture ALL the CO2 emitted. 2) gas still has leaks and oil still has spills 3) there’s potentially a finite amount of easy to access carbon capture storage repositories. Using it for more fossil fuel burning is maybe a bad idea. 4) there are still geopolitical problems associated with oil and gas 5) there is still a FINITE AMOUNT of oil and gas. 6) If we keep oil and gas infrastructure in place, what’s to stop a Trumpian populist in the future from just stopping the carbon capture program to save money and reduce costs? Then we’d be back to square one. This has happened in the past when the Bush admin suspended environmental rules because of “oil shortage.” But if we get rid of oil and gas infrastructure, that’ll basically be impossible except with massive reinvestment. 7) There’s reason to believe these programs are just headfakes by oil and gas, cover to keep emitting as much as possible while alsways promising to start carbon capture “next year” or whatever.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Thank you for validating the theory that many appear to have lost the plot and are primarily motivated by destroying oil and gas rather than solving climate change. I don't think it's an intentional conclusion many reach, just that they've subconsciously mixed up the purpose of what they're advocating to solve. Also does anybody responding understand what a hypothetical proposition is? Why are you all responding about the technical merits of carbon capture, which has nothing to do with my comment.
Swenrekcah 5y ago
There are far more problems with fossil fuel than just destabilising the climate. It also acidifies the oceans, it kills by air poisoning and just is generally bad and also nonrenewable. We do need a paradigm shift in the way we utilise the earth’s resources. That is why CCS gets a bad rap, it’s like the alcoholic parent saying they can continue drinking because there’s this new hangover drug and also a great skin remedy for your bruises. I actually really support all the climate mitigation strategies and CCS is definitely an important one, but together with a strict ban on new coal and oil projects. Natural gas seems an OK tradeoff for now if each new plant is tied directly to the shuttering of a coal or oil one.
- jeeeb 5y ago
  > It also acidifies the oceans, it kills by air poisoning and just is generally bad and also nonrenewable. Isn’t ocean acidification caused by increased amounts of dissolved CO2 in the oceans though? If your capturing CO2 (and larger particles as a side effect), it would seem to address both concerns. CCS is obviously a stop gap but it seems like it could potentially be a very effective and politically realistic stop gap, if it can be made work at scale.
  - manicdee 5y ago
    CCS is not a stopgap it is stage dressing for an illusionist. It’s a sham, a smoke and mirrors trick, a misdirection. It is far cheaper to simply pay a fossil fuel plant to stop operating than to provide meaningful levels of emissions reduction via CCS. There is a cheaper option which is to facilitate the establishment of commercial renewables programs which will compete the fossil fuel burners out of the market.
bee_rider 5y ago
It is hypothetically possible that a some carbon capture technology could be more cost effective than renewables, but we'd need to be clear about what exactly we mean by cost. I mean hypothetically the cost could swing either way if we really accounted for everything-- nonrenewables have tons of costs that get externalized, renewables are a growing market and expertise in dealing with them might be very profitable.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

titzer 5y ago

> it would be significantly more cost effective (thus societally beneficial) than to overhaul the entire energy production infrastructure. Citation needed on that cost effectiveness estimate, but regardless, all infrastructure is incrementally rebuilt and replaced over the years. So instead of eventually building replacement coal [1] plants with fancy (and leaky) CC, we could as well build different plants that don't emit any CO2. [1] or natural gas, which is what's been happening over the past 10-15 years in the US, primarily because natural gas became cheaper. Those natural gas plants produced less CO2 than coal, which has primarily driven any reduction in the US's CO2 output. But natural gas still produces huge amounts of CO2 and will never be carbon neutral.

adam_arthur 5y ago
"Citation" of a hypothetical? Doesn't make any sense. Thought the spirit of my comment was pretty clear, but the point was that if technology could enable continued use of fossil fuels in a net zero manner, and in a more cost efficient way than replacing energy infrastructure, that it should be welcomed. But instead you get a lot of commenters hating on the idea because it would allow fossil fuels to live on, even if consumption of those was net zero. Which implies they don't care about solving climate change, but care specifically about destroying the fossil fuel industry. Yes things get replaced over time and the replacement technology will end up being whatever's most economical (in a free market) or whatever's most economical given legal constraints (in a controlled market). There's no inherent virtue of generating power from solar versus coal if you could do both in a net zero manner. Though of course, fossil fuels are limited in supply. Getting net zero or renewables to be more cost effective than fossil fuels is the fastest way to solve the problem. That transition would happen naturally over time as fossil fuels became more scarce, thus more expensive.
- titzer 5y ago
  I'll just point you to this [1], which describes the situation better than I can. In short, no, capture capture is not going to be net zero, and even if it were, it doesn't actually reduce air pollution. [1] https://news.stanford.edu/2019/10/25/study-casts-doubt-carbon-capture/ https://news.stanford.edu/2019/10/25/study-casts-doubt-carbo...
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Do you understand what a hypothetical is?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > "Citation" of a hypothetical Yes, the claim that one hypothetical option would be more efficient than another demands support, in the form of evidence, or reasoning from supported theory. Typical citing the support and stating any necessary connecting reasoning to reach the conclusion from it is the way to provide that. Just because you are comparing hypotheticals doesn't free the conclusion you claim from that comparison from the need for justification.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Do you understand what a hypothetical is?
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Do you understand what a hypothetical is? Yes, do you understand that making predictive conclusions about hypothetical alternatives is itself a claim that such conclusions can be justified (which is true, that's pretty much the whole point of science) and invites a call for the justification of the particular predictive conclusion you have offered?
      - adam_arthur 5y ago
        Clearly you don't. The merits of carbon capture technology, obviously (very much so) have nothing to do with my comment

Robotbeat 5y ago

Yes, destroying oil and gas is a good idea for several reasons. 1) these capture demos usually don’t capture ALL the CO2 emitted. 2) gas still has leaks and oil still has spills 3) there’s potentially a finite amount of easy to access carbon capture storage repositories. Using it for more fossil fuel burning is maybe a bad idea. 4) there are still geopolitical problems associated with oil and gas 5) there is still a FINITE AMOUNT of oil and gas. 6) If we keep oil and gas infrastructure in place, what’s to stop a Trumpian populist in the future from just stopping the carbon capture program to save money and reduce costs? Then we’d be back to square one. This has happened in the past when the Bush admin suspended environmental rules because of “oil shortage.” But if we get rid of oil and gas infrastructure, that’ll basically be impossible except with massive reinvestment. 7) There’s reason to believe these programs are just headfakes by oil and gas, cover to keep emitting as much as possible while alsways promising to start carbon capture “next year” or whatever.

adam_arthur 5y ago
Thank you for validating the theory that many appear to have lost the plot and are primarily motivated by destroying oil and gas rather than solving climate change. I don't think it's an intentional conclusion many reach, just that they've subconsciously mixed up the purpose of what they're advocating to solve. Also does anybody responding understand what a hypothetical proposition is? Why are you all responding about the technical merits of carbon capture, which has nothing to do with my comment.

Swenrekcah 5y ago

There are far more problems with fossil fuel than just destabilising the climate. It also acidifies the oceans, it kills by air poisoning and just is generally bad and also nonrenewable. We do need a paradigm shift in the way we utilise the earth’s resources. That is why CCS gets a bad rap, it’s like the alcoholic parent saying they can continue drinking because there’s this new hangover drug and also a great skin remedy for your bruises. I actually really support all the climate mitigation strategies and CCS is definitely an important one, but together with a strict ban on new coal and oil projects. Natural gas seems an OK tradeoff for now if each new plant is tied directly to the shuttering of a coal or oil one.

jeeeb 5y ago
> It also acidifies the oceans, it kills by air poisoning and just is generally bad and also nonrenewable. Isn’t ocean acidification caused by increased amounts of dissolved CO2 in the oceans though? If your capturing CO2 (and larger particles as a side effect), it would seem to address both concerns. CCS is obviously a stop gap but it seems like it could potentially be a very effective and politically realistic stop gap, if it can be made work at scale.
- manicdee 5y ago
  CCS is not a stopgap it is stage dressing for an illusionist. It’s a sham, a smoke and mirrors trick, a misdirection. It is far cheaper to simply pay a fossil fuel plant to stop operating than to provide meaningful levels of emissions reduction via CCS. There is a cheaper option which is to facilitate the establishment of commercial renewables programs which will compete the fossil fuel burners out of the market.

bee_rider 5y ago

It is hypothetically possible that a some carbon capture technology could be more cost effective than renewables, but we'd need to be clear about what exactly we mean by cost. I mean hypothetically the cost could swing either way if we really accounted for everything-- nonrenewables have tons of costs that get externalized, renewables are a growing market and expertise in dealing with them might be very profitable.