5 ms·

Flagging as a clickbait title. The title seems to suggest that shell has a carbon capture plant that is emitting more than producing, where in reality it's a h

Flagging as a clickbait title. The title seems to suggest that shell has a carbon capture plant that is emitting more than producing, where in reality it's a hydrogen generation plan that captures some, but not all co2. This article is way less better: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-gas/shell-hydrogen-true-emissions/ https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-gas/shell-...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
_Nat_ 5y ago
Looks like you're right. [This fact-sheet](https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/quest.html https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/quest.html ) lists the plant has intending a 35% capture-rate. And while that's a weirdly low target-(capture-rate), it doesn't seem hidden. Looks like [a Canadian-government-hosted report from 2011](https://open.alberta.ca/publications/quest-carbon-capture-and-storage-project-report-2011 https://open.alberta.ca/publications/quest-carbon-capture-an... ) also includes this in the executive-summary: > The purpose of the Quest Project is to deploy technology to capture CO2 produced at the Scotford Upgrader and to transport, compress and inject the CO2 for permanent storage in a saline formation near Thorhild, Alberta. Over one million tonnes of CO2 per year will be captured, representing greater than 35% capture of the CO2 produced from the Upgrader. Quest is a part of the Athabasca Oil Sands Project (AOSP), an oil sands joint venture operated by Shell and owned by Shell Canada, Chevron Canada and Marathon Oil. So if they're capturing ~38.4% when they proposed "greater than 35% capture" to the government, then... that sounds kinda like they're doing what they said they'd do.
DoingIsLearning 5y ago
The issue still stands why are governments subsidizing this dead end research? 5.6 trillion dollars of taxpayer money went to Fossil Fuel subsidies. That's almost 7% of the world's gdp, or about 11 million dollars per minute just in 2020 [0] Oil companies continue to capture trillions in subsidies while deflecting blame and misleading the public along the way. [0] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  The main argument for technology like this is that it's relatively quick to develop-and-deploy in existing infrastructure. It's basically an emergency-bandage, meant to provide first-aid, to help reduce emissions in the short-term. Traditionally, the expert-consensus has been that solving climate-change'll require a multi-pronged strategy. Stuff like this would be intended to reduce some of the emissions now, reducing the build-up before greener technologies come online.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    This is PR talk, there is no band aid. The price drop of EV batteries has killed the use case for hydrogen, which was mostly city buses. Now that charging networks have been deployed and widespread, the argument of Hydrogen at gas stations is dead. It was a good idea but let's stop spending money on this.
    - kmlx 5y ago
      unfortunately we need lots and lots of band aids. the problem is that EVs are a tiny solution to a small problem. the rest of the problems don’t go away by using EVs. food production, mining, chemical engineering, shipping, aviation and many other high CO2 industries still have no solutions. so we’ll need band aids. some industries might never be possible to have zero CO2. for those we’ll need permanent band aids. and the best band aid is CCS. we could get rid of all CO2 right now if we use CCS everywhere. but no one wants to spend trillions on this. so we’re left arguing…
stjohnswarts 5y ago
I would like to see the absolute amount of energy produce vs emitted carbon compared with oil/gas/{fossil_fuel} rather than an article by a pissed off reporter/magazine. Is it an improvement over existing technology/efficiency? Is it just the first step and can be improved or has it been a failure? These are the types of articles people should write. NetZero carbon won't happen over night.
lvs 5y ago
What's clickbait about it? When the public is sold on carbon capture by the fossil fuel industry, they're given to believe it's a net negative technology. You can argue that it is self-deception, but there is still a deception involved. Governments are only kicking the can by subsidizing things like this. Canada put $654 million into it? That would have been 654 MW worth of utility-scale solar panels.
- rosndo 5y ago
  > they're given to believe it's a net negative technology Would you be able to cite some sources that support this claim?
  - lvs 5y ago
    Would you be able to waste your own time googling the obvious instead?
    - rosndo 5y ago
      If it’s so obvious, could you point me towards an useful query to put into google? Surely you can come up with at least something to support your claim about what the public is being led to believe?
      - lvs 5y ago
        Can you point me toward some references on the sky being blue and water wet? I just need a starting point for my research. Genuinely interested.
        rosndo 5y ago
        Don’t be a child.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

_Nat_ 5y ago

Looks like you're right. [This fact-sheet](https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/quest.html https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/quest.html ) lists the plant has intending a 35% capture-rate. And while that's a weirdly low target-(capture-rate), it doesn't seem hidden. Looks like [a Canadian-government-hosted report from 2011](https://open.alberta.ca/publications/quest-carbon-capture-and-storage-project-report-2011 https://open.alberta.ca/publications/quest-carbon-capture-an... ) also includes this in the executive-summary: > The purpose of the Quest Project is to deploy technology to capture CO2 produced at the Scotford Upgrader and to transport, compress and inject the CO2 for permanent storage in a saline formation near Thorhild, Alberta. Over one million tonnes of CO2 per year will be captured, representing greater than 35% capture of the CO2 produced from the Upgrader. Quest is a part of the Athabasca Oil Sands Project (AOSP), an oil sands joint venture operated by Shell and owned by Shell Canada, Chevron Canada and Marathon Oil. So if they're capturing ~38.4% when they proposed "greater than 35% capture" to the government, then... that sounds kinda like they're doing what they said they'd do.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago

The issue still stands why are governments subsidizing this dead end research? 5.6 trillion dollars of taxpayer money went to Fossil Fuel subsidies. That's almost 7% of the world's gdp, or about 11 million dollars per minute just in 2020 [0] Oil companies continue to capture trillions in subsidies while deflecting blame and misleading the public along the way. [0] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...

_Nat_ 5y ago
The main argument for technology like this is that it's relatively quick to develop-and-deploy in existing infrastructure. It's basically an emergency-bandage, meant to provide first-aid, to help reduce emissions in the short-term. Traditionally, the expert-consensus has been that solving climate-change'll require a multi-pronged strategy. Stuff like this would be intended to reduce some of the emissions now, reducing the build-up before greener technologies come online.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  This is PR talk, there is no band aid. The price drop of EV batteries has killed the use case for hydrogen, which was mostly city buses. Now that charging networks have been deployed and widespread, the argument of Hydrogen at gas stations is dead. It was a good idea but let's stop spending money on this.
  - kmlx 5y ago
    unfortunately we need lots and lots of band aids. the problem is that EVs are a tiny solution to a small problem. the rest of the problems don’t go away by using EVs. food production, mining, chemical engineering, shipping, aviation and many other high CO2 industries still have no solutions. so we’ll need band aids. some industries might never be possible to have zero CO2. for those we’ll need permanent band aids. and the best band aid is CCS. we could get rid of all CO2 right now if we use CCS everywhere. but no one wants to spend trillions on this. so we’re left arguing…

stjohnswarts 5y ago

I would like to see the absolute amount of energy produce vs emitted carbon compared with oil/gas/{fossil_fuel} rather than an article by a pissed off reporter/magazine. Is it an improvement over existing technology/efficiency? Is it just the first step and can be improved or has it been a failure? These are the types of articles people should write. NetZero carbon won't happen over night.

lvs 5y ago

What's clickbait about it? When the public is sold on carbon capture by the fossil fuel industry, they're given to believe it's a net negative technology. You can argue that it is self-deception, but there is still a deception involved. Governments are only kicking the can by subsidizing things like this. Canada put $654 million into it? That would have been 654 MW worth of utility-scale solar panels.

rosndo 5y ago
> they're given to believe it's a net negative technology Would you be able to cite some sources that support this claim?
- lvs 5y ago
  Would you be able to waste your own time googling the obvious instead?
  - rosndo 5y ago
    If it’s so obvious, could you point me towards an useful query to put into google? Surely you can come up with at least something to support your claim about what the public is being led to believe?
    - lvs 5y ago
      Can you point me toward some references on the sky being blue and water wet? I just need a starting point for my research. Genuinely interested.
      - rosndo 5y ago
        Don’t be a child.