3 ms·

From a logical standpoint carbon capture is a scam [0]. The argument is "if you don't have spare energy, why are you spending it on carbon capture? And if you h

From a logical standpoint carbon capture is a scam [0]. The argument is "if you don't have spare energy, why are you spending it on carbon capture? And if you have spare energy (you don't), why not spend the money you usee to build the over capacity to bring clean energy somewhere else?" That is all assuming your entire power grid is 100% clean (it isn't) because otherwise you fall in case 0 where you spend energy that could be spent on offsetting non-clean energy usage. [0] https://youtu.be/nJslrTT-Yhc https://youtu.be/nJslrTT-Yhc

pfdietz 4y ago
Carbon capture is not a scam, but it is premature. It could make sense once fossil fuels are abolished, or at least we stop using them at fixed locations where CO2 can be captured without releasing it to the atmosphere.
kbenson 4y ago
It depends on the speed of capture. If you can capture faster than conversion reduces, and there are time constraints that mean reducing carbon now is better than later, then it can make sense. It's the same as whether you should reduce expenses or increase income. Both yield a net increase, but there are variables than can make one better than the other in the short term. Whichever yields the most benefit for the effort is probably the best one, or if one has a time constraints and the other doesn't, that might be the best one to focus on.
SamBam 4y ago
Except that energy production is local, while carbon capture is global. If you power a carbon capture device in Greenland using geothermal, you can probably get a lot more energy than you can reasonably give you the grid. In that case, using the rest for carbon capture makes sense. Further, carbon capture is going to need to be part of our future mix, as we'll never be able to be 100% green in the reasonable future. It's good to spend a tiny percentage of our resources now improving the technology.
bsdetector 4y ago
This videos shows the perverse mindset of climate activists that you "have to change your lifestyle" and personally suffer to solve the problem. It's a common refrain and erroneous, but here particularly so as only carbon capture, mechanical or natural, can fully solve the problem -- that is, there's already too much greenhouse effect and even an extreme agrarian lifestyle won't solve the problem. Climate change is a problem nobody can personally solve and I think this personal suffering makes them feel like they're doing something.
fooker 4y ago
The counterpoint is that energy can be difficult to transport, but the atmosphere dissipates carbon for free. So it might sense to do this where you produce energy, to use up extra energy which could be otherwise wasted.
dotnet00 4y ago
I wouldn't go as far as to argue that it's a scam, I do think it's a complex issue which might require rethinking the way we geographically distribute infrastructure. Carbon capture from the atmosphere is certainly extremely inefficient and not too practical (yet, at least), but carbon capture straight from large emitters like at factories should be much more efficient as it isn't having to go through as much air. Combined with the difficulty of transporting electricity in many circumstances, carbon capture solutions which involve cleaning up the output from factories using something like an on-site small-modular reactor are probably a lot more practical. While of course the SMR would be better spent replacing a fossil fuel plant in the immediate term, in the longer term the output from the factory would also need to be cleaned up anyway. So given enough serious interest in building SMRs/getting rid of fossil fuels, the temporary cost of allocating an SMR to carbon capture at a factory would be small compared to allocating it to replacing a fossil fuel plant (since another would be built soon enough to replace the latter).
incrudible 4y ago
So far, nobody needs a permit to capture CO2 from the atmosphere. You can harvest it without license, at any scale. Building a power line, possibly across international borders, is a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare.

pfdietz 4y ago

Carbon capture is not a scam, but it is premature. It could make sense once fossil fuels are abolished, or at least we stop using them at fixed locations where CO2 can be captured without releasing it to the atmosphere.

kbenson 4y ago

It depends on the speed of capture. If you can capture faster than conversion reduces, and there are time constraints that mean reducing carbon now is better than later, then it can make sense. It's the same as whether you should reduce expenses or increase income. Both yield a net increase, but there are variables than can make one better than the other in the short term. Whichever yields the most benefit for the effort is probably the best one, or if one has a time constraints and the other doesn't, that might be the best one to focus on.

SamBam 4y ago

Except that energy production is local, while carbon capture is global. If you power a carbon capture device in Greenland using geothermal, you can probably get a lot more energy than you can reasonably give you the grid. In that case, using the rest for carbon capture makes sense. Further, carbon capture is going to need to be part of our future mix, as we'll never be able to be 100% green in the reasonable future. It's good to spend a tiny percentage of our resources now improving the technology.

bsdetector 4y ago

This videos shows the perverse mindset of climate activists that you "have to change your lifestyle" and personally suffer to solve the problem. It's a common refrain and erroneous, but here particularly so as only carbon capture, mechanical or natural, can fully solve the problem -- that is, there's already too much greenhouse effect and even an extreme agrarian lifestyle won't solve the problem. Climate change is a problem nobody can personally solve and I think this personal suffering makes them feel like they're doing something.

fooker 4y ago

The counterpoint is that energy can be difficult to transport, but the atmosphere dissipates carbon for free. So it might sense to do this where you produce energy, to use up extra energy which could be otherwise wasted.

dotnet00 4y ago

I wouldn't go as far as to argue that it's a scam, I do think it's a complex issue which might require rethinking the way we geographically distribute infrastructure. Carbon capture from the atmosphere is certainly extremely inefficient and not too practical (yet, at least), but carbon capture straight from large emitters like at factories should be much more efficient as it isn't having to go through as much air. Combined with the difficulty of transporting electricity in many circumstances, carbon capture solutions which involve cleaning up the output from factories using something like an on-site small-modular reactor are probably a lot more practical. While of course the SMR would be better spent replacing a fossil fuel plant in the immediate term, in the longer term the output from the factory would also need to be cleaned up anyway. So given enough serious interest in building SMRs/getting rid of fossil fuels, the temporary cost of allocating an SMR to carbon capture at a factory would be small compared to allocating it to replacing a fossil fuel plant (since another would be built soon enough to replace the latter).

incrudible 4y ago

So far, nobody needs a permit to capture CO2 from the atmosphere. You can harvest it without license, at any scale. Building a power line, possibly across international borders, is a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare.