3 ms·
Providing cheap CO2 to industry (at any price!) is almost certainly going to be incentivized vs. pumping it underground, since the former provides revenue and t
by matthewdgreen 3y ago
Providing cheap CO2 to industry (at any price!) is almost certainly going to be incentivized vs. pumping it underground, since the former provides revenue and the latter is pure expense. At small scales that probably won't matter, and will just offset dirtier sources. But at small scales this technology is just a novelty: it's only interesting to think about it at very large scale. And once it exists at large scale you really have to think very hard about how you're going to (artificially) counter the natural incentives that might produce perverse effects.
- erikerikson 3y agoNot if you can sell carbon credits for pumping underground?
- natch 3y ago*claiming to pump underground. ftfy If pumping underground even works beyond the timeline needed to claim the tax credit.
- _aavaa_ 3y agoThat isn't quiet true. One of the major pushes for carbon capture is CCUS which is a fancy word for greenwashing. You install carbon capture facilities and pump that carbon deep underground. But you do it not to store the carbon, but to get even more oil out of the ground [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery
- gretch 3y agoI would support this, assuming ratio is ~1:1. It’s much bette than the alternative today where people pump oil and don’t put anything back. Quote from your link > “The project is expected to inject a net 18 million ton CO2“