13 ms·

It seems like the discussion of carbon capture at the source of emission has gone down and discussion of this has gone up. Why is that?

slackfan 4y ago
More money to be made from government contract bidding.
catchnear4321 4y ago
Capture at the source is a product. Maybe with a maintenance contract. Capture elsewhere is a service. Possibly a public service. The financial math is different.
jakear 4y ago
As with everything else, production happens in china consumption happens in USA. The system works.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Because most sources of CO2/GHG have alternatives powered by renewable electricity that are cheaper than the old way which involves generating than capturing the CO2. e.g. burn gas to generate electricity and capture CO2, or just use renewables. burn gas to heat things, or just use renewables and heat pumps Still good to capture unavoidable ones like methane from pre-existing coal mines, wells and landfills.
hraedon 4y ago
Coal plants aren't profitable to run if they're required to retrofit for carbon capture, not many new coal plants are going to be built in countries that care about climate change (so requiring CCS on new builds has minimal utility), and there are a lot of political obstacles to shutting existing plants down or mandating these sorts of improvements. Given those constraints, centralized capture is at least a plausible option that doesn't involve starting big fights with entrenched interests in coal-reliant states. Is it more efficient or more likely to work than direct capture? No. It is, however, politically possible and worth exploring.
Paul-Craft 4y ago
Because "we can just capture carbon from the air" is a narrative that makes it sound like we don't have to sacrifice any part of our lifestyle to accomplish the goal of mitigating climate change. It's propaganda, pure and simple.
mrguyorama 4y ago
Essentially, the people in US politics who are willing to act on climate change are an extreme minority, regardless of what americans in general want. Go ahead and try to make a law that makes coal less profitable without Manchin's support. If you have a problem with that, welcome to the club. Unfortunately, if you want to change the game to make it such that it's easier to do the right thing, you ALSO have to get Manchin's support. In fact, to do some things would require the other party's support as well, and their SOP is to kill anything you push for, and has been since 2012.

slackfan 4y ago

More money to be made from government contract bidding.

catchnear4321 4y ago

Capture at the source is a product. Maybe with a maintenance contract. Capture elsewhere is a service. Possibly a public service. The financial math is different.

jakear 4y ago

As with everything else, production happens in china consumption happens in USA. The system works.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Because most sources of CO2/GHG have alternatives powered by renewable electricity that are cheaper than the old way which involves generating than capturing the CO2. e.g. burn gas to generate electricity and capture CO2, or just use renewables. burn gas to heat things, or just use renewables and heat pumps Still good to capture unavoidable ones like methane from pre-existing coal mines, wells and landfills.

hraedon 4y ago

Coal plants aren't profitable to run if they're required to retrofit for carbon capture, not many new coal plants are going to be built in countries that care about climate change (so requiring CCS on new builds has minimal utility), and there are a lot of political obstacles to shutting existing plants down or mandating these sorts of improvements. Given those constraints, centralized capture is at least a plausible option that doesn't involve starting big fights with entrenched interests in coal-reliant states. Is it more efficient or more likely to work than direct capture? No. It is, however, politically possible and worth exploring.

Paul-Craft 4y ago

Because "we can just capture carbon from the air" is a narrative that makes it sound like we don't have to sacrifice any part of our lifestyle to accomplish the goal of mitigating climate change. It's propaganda, pure and simple.

mrguyorama 4y ago

Essentially, the people in US politics who are willing to act on climate change are an extreme minority, regardless of what americans in general want. Go ahead and try to make a law that makes coal less profitable without Manchin's support. If you have a problem with that, welcome to the club. Unfortunately, if you want to change the game to make it such that it's easier to do the right thing, you ALSO have to get Manchin's support. In fact, to do some things would require the other party's support as well, and their SOP is to kill anything you push for, and has been since 2012.