3 ms·

Ummm. Dumb question here. Why do we have CO2 pipelines? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to capture CO2 from the atmosphere at the location where the CO2 was needed?

bequanna 3y ago
Good point. The answer is: Ridiculously high Government subsidies. In other words, this is simply a stealth tax on the public where the only winners are corporations which benefit via very generous tax credits.
- imglorp 3y ago
  It's ANOTHER subsidy for the fossil industry. We (earth) already pay [1] them around us$1T/yr to accelerate our demise. CO2 offset subsidies are on top of this [2]. So instead of stopping X, we pay them to continue X and then pay them to cook some books about X. Insane. We will be the first species driven to extinction because the alternative wasn't profitable. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidies-2022 https://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidi... [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/carbon_credit.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/carbon_credit.asp
  - lozenge 3y ago
    Oh, don't worry too much. As a Nobel Prize winning economist once said, Agriculture is an industry affected heavily by climate change, but it's only worth 2% of world GDP.
- EuropeOverlords 3y ago
  [flagged]
bagels 3y ago
It's cheaper to capture it where it is concentrated, at the source (eg. power plants).
- dilippkumar 3y ago
  Is the efficiency gained by capturing it from a stronger concentration enough to offset the costs of building pipelines? Why not burn wood in a room near the destination site and get extremely concentrated CO2 right there and capture that instead? Are pipelines somehow even more economical than that?
  - derobert 3y ago
    Because then you have to transport the wood to the site, transport the ash (etc.) off the site, and build something useful to do with the produced energy. Most of that would be trucks or ships if it's on a navigable waterway. Oil and pipeline companies are building pipes to move gases because it is the cheapest way to do it.
  - gus_massa 3y ago
    I think it's better to charcoal the wood and burry the charcoal. If charcoal is stored properly, it takes a lot of time to decompose and keep the carbon down there for a long time. And it has less storage problems than CO2 that is a gas and wants to escape. Probably instead of wood, it would be better to use other agricultural waste. For example here, some sugar factories use the rests of the sugarcane ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagasse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagasse ) to burn it and produce heat and electricity. I'm not sure if it can be charcoaled and buried instead.
George83728 3y ago
There's nothing remotely economical about capturing CO2 in the first place. But if you're dead set on doing it, it costs the least to do it where the CO2 concentration is the highest (where it's produced.)
- mistrial9 3y ago
  fortunately we are realizing that this is not an economic problem, it is a "poison survival" problem
  - George83728 3y ago
    Carbon capture is not a solution to anything except further enriching fossil fuel companies. It's a big fat scam, the only real solutions to climate change are renewable energy and nuclear power.
webmobdev 3y ago
Seems to be a shady political operation to help the fracking industry in the US: > Huffman notes that today most of the carbon dioxide transported in pipelines is used for something called "enhanced oil recovery." That's a process where oil companies inject CO2 into oil wells to boost the pressure and pump out more petroleum. > Currently over 70% of carbon capture projects involve "enhanced oil recovery," says Bruce Robertson, energy finance analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a nonprofit think tank. The CO2 in the pipeline that ruptured in Satartia was headed to an oil field where it would have been used to extract more oil.
- q1w2 3y ago
  There's nothing shady about this practice. It's simple science.
  - DoingIsLearning 3y ago
    I have not seen any convincing evidence of the Economic _feasibility_ of Carbon Capture irrespective of the scientific _possibility_ of Carbon Capture. Forgive the general public's skepticism but so far Carbon Capture comes across very much like another greenwashing attempt from industries that will drag their feet into emissions reduction.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    The shady part is when you tell people it's carbon capture, with a clear hint of helping avoid CO2 emissions, when actually the end state is even more oil out of the well.
    - lozenge 3y ago
      Yes, it's called Carbon Capture and Storage. Once we switch to renewables and don't need this oil any more, the expensive fancy plant is useless as it is only designed to store carbon that one way.
hannob 3y ago
Legitimate question, but the answer is simple: No. The cost of CO2 capture largely depends on the concentration of CO2. Transport is relatively cheap. If you capture from the atmosphere, that's the most expensive thing you could possibly do. That's also why people try all kinds of things to increase CO2 concentration. Like Oxyfuel technology, which basically means you're burning without nitrogen, so what you end up with has a higher CO2 content. It's also why CCS is hard in industries where by design CO2 concentration in the exhaust is low (Aluminium is one of them), and why most of the existing CCS projects are at facilities that by design have high CO2 concentrations (mainly gas upgraders).

bequanna 3y ago

Good point. The answer is: Ridiculously high Government subsidies. In other words, this is simply a stealth tax on the public where the only winners are corporations which benefit via very generous tax credits.

imglorp 3y ago
It's ANOTHER subsidy for the fossil industry. We (earth) already pay [1] them around us$1T/yr to accelerate our demise. CO2 offset subsidies are on top of this [2]. So instead of stopping X, we pay them to continue X and then pay them to cook some books about X. Insane. We will be the first species driven to extinction because the alternative wasn't profitable. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidies-2022 https://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidi... [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/carbon_credit.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/carbon_credit.asp
- lozenge 3y ago
  Oh, don't worry too much. As a Nobel Prize winning economist once said, Agriculture is an industry affected heavily by climate change, but it's only worth 2% of world GDP.
EuropeOverlords 3y ago
[flagged]

bagels 3y ago

It's cheaper to capture it where it is concentrated, at the source (eg. power plants).

dilippkumar 3y ago
Is the efficiency gained by capturing it from a stronger concentration enough to offset the costs of building pipelines? Why not burn wood in a room near the destination site and get extremely concentrated CO2 right there and capture that instead? Are pipelines somehow even more economical than that?
- derobert 3y ago
  Because then you have to transport the wood to the site, transport the ash (etc.) off the site, and build something useful to do with the produced energy. Most of that would be trucks or ships if it's on a navigable waterway. Oil and pipeline companies are building pipes to move gases because it is the cheapest way to do it.
- gus_massa 3y ago
  I think it's better to charcoal the wood and burry the charcoal. If charcoal is stored properly, it takes a lot of time to decompose and keep the carbon down there for a long time. And it has less storage problems than CO2 that is a gas and wants to escape. Probably instead of wood, it would be better to use other agricultural waste. For example here, some sugar factories use the rests of the sugarcane ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagasse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagasse ) to burn it and produce heat and electricity. I'm not sure if it can be charcoaled and buried instead.

George83728 3y ago

There's nothing remotely economical about capturing CO2 in the first place. But if you're dead set on doing it, it costs the least to do it where the CO2 concentration is the highest (where it's produced.)

mistrial9 3y ago
fortunately we are realizing that this is not an economic problem, it is a "poison survival" problem
- George83728 3y ago
  Carbon capture is not a solution to anything except further enriching fossil fuel companies. It's a big fat scam, the only real solutions to climate change are renewable energy and nuclear power.

webmobdev 3y ago

Seems to be a shady political operation to help the fracking industry in the US: > Huffman notes that today most of the carbon dioxide transported in pipelines is used for something called "enhanced oil recovery." That's a process where oil companies inject CO2 into oil wells to boost the pressure and pump out more petroleum. > Currently over 70% of carbon capture projects involve "enhanced oil recovery," says Bruce Robertson, energy finance analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a nonprofit think tank. The CO2 in the pipeline that ruptured in Satartia was headed to an oil field where it would have been used to extract more oil.

q1w2 3y ago
There's nothing shady about this practice. It's simple science.
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  I have not seen any convincing evidence of the Economic _feasibility_ of Carbon Capture irrespective of the scientific _possibility_ of Carbon Capture. Forgive the general public's skepticism but so far Carbon Capture comes across very much like another greenwashing attempt from industries that will drag their feet into emissions reduction.
- pyrale 3y ago
  The shady part is when you tell people it's carbon capture, with a clear hint of helping avoid CO2 emissions, when actually the end state is even more oil out of the well.
  - lozenge 3y ago
    Yes, it's called Carbon Capture and Storage. Once we switch to renewables and don't need this oil any more, the expensive fancy plant is useless as it is only designed to store carbon that one way.

hannob 3y ago

Legitimate question, but the answer is simple: No. The cost of CO2 capture largely depends on the concentration of CO2. Transport is relatively cheap. If you capture from the atmosphere, that's the most expensive thing you could possibly do. That's also why people try all kinds of things to increase CO2 concentration. Like Oxyfuel technology, which basically means you're burning without nitrogen, so what you end up with has a higher CO2 content. It's also why CCS is hard in industries where by design CO2 concentration in the exhaust is low (Aluminium is one of them), and why most of the existing CCS projects are at facilities that by design have high CO2 concentrations (mainly gas upgraders).