3 ms·
Correcting you because you're wrong. They're talking specifically about emissions caused by the capture plant being greater than emissions it captures. The carb
by simondotau 5y ago
Correcting you because you're wrong. They're talking specifically about emissions caused by the capture plant being greater than emissions it captures. The carbon footprint would be lower if the plant didn't exist.
The plant was not penalised for emissions it failed to capture.
- rank0 5y agoThe original study is considering the emissions of the entire hydrogen plant, not just the carbon capture portion. Its a hydrogen plant with a carbon capture piece on top. Not a “carbon capture plant.”
- simondotau 5y agoCorrect but irrelevant. Operation of the plant resulted in more emissions than were captured. The fact that hydrogen was also produced is a net neutral in that equation. If you want to describe this in terms of a hydrogen produced with a particular net emissions footprint, that's fine. It's dirty hydrogen that's been made less less dirty.
- ars 5y agoAnd that's a good thing, not a bad thing. As usual, environmentalists are the environment's worst enemies "dirty hydrogen"? Seriously? We need hydrogen, that's not something optional. They made it better, yet you are calling them names.
- simondotau 5y agoYou're twisting my words. My point is that we should judge this facility on the net emissions required to produce hydrogen, not how those emissions were caused/captured/offset. And once you've accounted for this, talking about the fact they're using carbon capture is marketing fluff; what matters is the overall footprint. This is akin to how "hybrid" cars are perceived. Being a hybrid doesn't make it any greener than a non-hybrid with the same fuel economy numbers.