10 ms·

Large amounts of carbon capture as a solution is an 'illusion'

135 points by voisin 3y ago

modeless 3y ago
These are the guys that produced hilariously wrong forecasts for the solar market 12 years in a row. I'm going to go ahead and take their opinion with a grain of salt. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/12/has-the-international-energy-agency-finally-improved-at-forecasting-solar-growth/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/12/has-the-international...
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  Yea, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpLhuguXsA8YE8V?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpLhuguXsA8YE8V?format=png&name=...
  - voisin 3y ago
    Nice graph. I’d love if they showed the level of what is needed to stay below 1.5C as per the title so the viewer could compare.
    - rsanek 3y ago
      my guess is that it's so high, it would change the scale so much and dwarf all the other data
      - voisin 3y ago
        Well I guess that’s sobering. It would still be nice to have some context given the current annual growth rate.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/unsupported.html https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/unsupported.html here is a great calculator^^
- adamlett 3y ago
  If you can’t spot a flaw in the facts or the arguments, I guess you can always cast doubt on the credibility of organizations presenting the facts and arguments. That way you don’t have to think about something that’s making you uncomfortable to think about.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    Well, is the organization in question not supposed be the expert that I could defer to when in doubt? As it stands, since I am not a person who is immersed in this technology, I would like to hear from someone with a decent track record. Now, it is true that the org in question, may have the facts to back up the arguments, but comes to the wrong conclusions, but it does not really help the advocates for one simple reason: "If the experts can't get right, how can I?".
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - baryphonic 3y ago
    The article didn't cite IEA making an argument or even presenting any facts; rather, it reported an assertion that carbon capture isn't enough. All we can go on is the credibility of IEA, which GP has argued – with citation – is wanting. The number one argument against this kind of doomerism is that we don't know what we don't know. Natural CO2 capture is why we have an oxygen atmosphere in the first place. That process wouldn't necessarily work today due to funguses and so on, but perhaps some technological breakthrough (genetically engineered trees? dense organic materials? who knows?) could work as soon as it is discovered.
    - adamlett 3y ago
      The article didn't cite IEA making an argument or even presenting any facts; rather, it reported an assertion that carbon capture isn't enough. Maybe we read different articles, because I distinctly remember reading in the article that the energy cost of CO2 capture to achieve status quo using current technology would require more energy than the world is currently producing (fact), which means the solution is unrealistic (argument). The number one argument against this kind of doomerism is that we don't know what we don't know If that's the number one argument, I appreciate that you don't go on to cite number two, and three, because those would have to be incredibly weak arguments. but perhaps some technological breakthrough (genetically engineered trees? dense organic materials? who knows?) could work as soon as it is discovered. It's also within the realm of possibilities that aliens will descend and use their superior technology to restore the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But I would advice against a plan that could only succeed if this were to happen.
- kitd 3y ago
  That article also concludes that they have significantly improved with the most recent forecasts though. Edit: Here in the UK, we have been having the public enquiry into the UK's handling of the Covid pandemic. One thing that has come up frequently is that the scientists think about things from a scientific PoV, politicians from politics, economists from economics, etc, etc, but that what was lacking was a more coherent decision making body that was sufficiently skilled to look at all these as a whole. A bit like "clinical medicine" != "public health". It may well be that the IEA look at the subject from an energy resources PoV, but miss the political pressures that governments feel from climate-supporting electorates. And why shouldn't they, it's not their speciality. As pointed out in the article, their reports are one (albeit important) input into the larger solar energy policy decision making process.
  - modeless 3y ago
    Check the sibling comment for a graph that claims otherwise. And even if they did change after more than a decade it doesn't give me confidence in new predictions from them.
  - kragen 3y ago
    on the contrary, it's precisely the energy resources pov that would predict continued rapid growth in pv
    - kitd 3y ago
      Not if that growth was enabled by political or economic decisions outside the IEA's scope.
      - kragen 3y ago
        that makes no sense
- acdha 3y ago
  Skepticism is warranted but PV outlook is also a bit tricky since it’s similar to a massively scaled process and China was able to bring an enormous amount of capacity online. I’m not sure that there’s much possibility of that kind of curve for carbon capture.
  - twoodfin 3y ago
    Given that the primary input to many carbon capture methods is energy, as long as PV keeps scaling (not guaranteed!) it should be possible to scale carbon capture along with it.
  - kragen 3y ago
    yes there is
rob74 3y ago
If you want to be polite, you can call it an illusion. If you don't, you can call it a scam (wanting to convince public opinion/politicians that continuing to burn fossil fuels is not a problem because the CO2 can be captured and magicked away).
- kefabean 3y ago
  Or worse a scam because it drives additional exploitation that would otherwise be uneconomic without government subsidy. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/54079/great-carbon-capture-scam/ https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/54079/great-c...
  - gausswho 3y ago
    That article could use an update. The scam continues via hundreds of millions of subsidy through the Inflation Reduction Act (thanks Joe Manchin). A pipe burst recently and asphyxiated people in a nearby town in Louisiana. https://theintercept.com/2023/08/24/carbon-pipeline-ccs-air-products-louisiana https://theintercept.com/2023/08/24/carbon-pipeline-ccs-air-...
    - velcrovan 3y ago
      It’s true, every big industry needs regulation and oversight.
- jupp0r 3y ago
  The continuation of fossil fuel emissions and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere don't have to be tied together. Of course the package of these two combined is a scam. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't scale up direct air capture to billions of tons of CO2 per year. The reduction in climate change effects would be absolutely worth it. It might also be more economical than decarbonizing absolutely everything (ie chemical processes).
- charles_f 3y ago
  It's a logical progression from an industry that depends on it and went from "nah, human CO2 production is marginal" to "ok human CO2 is significant but it doesn't have an effect on climate", now "ok it has an effect but that's ok because someone (else) will come up with a magical solution".
xkcd1963 3y ago
So the only counter-solution they offer is to force the gas- and oil-industry to invest more into green solutions?
- mangecoeur 3y ago
  Sounds good
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  The O&G industry won't invest judiciously (they'll do it reluctantly). Anyone else would do it better. And the best employees in that industry can easily move to the green tech market so there's nothing to lose in the transition. Let's outlaw the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, and tax it as much as possible to make the alternatives more economical until renewables are crushing O&G for good. It isn't like renewables (or nuclear is necessary) is a saturated market already.
  - xkcd1963 3y ago
    The cost of manufacturing renewals doesn't seem to be accounted for. As example, it takes a lot of chemicals to produce batteries and electronics and it is unknown what happens to the waste in the manufactoring process. We see now the negative impact the increase of oil and gas price has on the European markets. Everything becomes more expensive if energy itself becomes more expensive. Outlawing gas and oil while cheaper or equally cheap alternatives are not present wouldn't work
ktzar 3y ago
Plant trees. Chop trees. Build stuff. Bury wood. Repeat. Note: it doesn't mean keep burning gas at the same time.
- cogman10 3y ago
  Yeah, this is pretty much the only solution. The only step I'd add is "make charcoal, bury charcoal". That ultimately releases H2O back to the ecosystem and you only bury the carbon. As a bonus, it's an exothermic process, so you could recapture some of that energy to make electricity.
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    If you are worried about rising sea levels, why try to release the H2O back into the ecosystem?
    - Tostino 3y ago
      That's...not how this works at all. Is this a joke?
      - RecycledEle 3y ago
        No, it's not a joke. Please explain this to me.
        Tostino 3y ago
        The rising sea levels aren't about more water being in the environment, it's about more water being in liquid form rather than stored in solid form in glaciers on land. The small amount of water being in a tree trunk vs released back into the atmosphere isn't even close to registering.
        RecycledEle 3y ago
        But enough water does matter. By the argument of insignificance, all North American CO2 emissions from 2024 will not matter.
vouaobrasil 3y ago
The article highlights one possible problem with carbon capture: that we can't capture enough. But there is another problem with it. It's still a solution within the system of intense, worldwide consumerism. Therefore, if more carbon is captured, it will make fossil fuel use more attractive and so people will use more of it to consume more of Earth's other resources -- especially since carbon capture reduces the incentive to develop other green technologies. I expect carbon capture to be much like other 'green incentives' like recycling and driving electric vehicles. Stuff is done but the CO2 keeps on goin', now at around 420ppm. We need a new dimensions to these solutions: a more active attack against the capitalistic system that causes these emissions in the first place.
gmuslera 3y ago
Only carbon capture keeping with the current level of emissions (from us and from the feedback loops that we are triggering is an illusion. Is essentially taking water from a lake with an expensive dropper while multiple firehoses (making profit for doing that) are feeding even more water to it. But, it is part of the solution. Even shutting down the firehoses from one day to the next won’t stop the cumulative effect of all the water that is already in the lake. Things will fall by its own weight. Anything that tries to be “solution” should target both things.
- Pxtl 3y ago
  )
lordswork 3y ago
Direct Air Capture (DAC) will always be more expensive than reducing emissions, but it could be useful to set the baseline cost in a progressive carbon tax such that all emissions are taxed at a rate that will cover removing them via DAC, creating incentives to reduce emissions and reduce DAC costs.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  That would actually also incentivize the greatest emitters to come up with more efficient methods of capturing CO2.
  - empyrrhicist 3y ago
    Or, more cheaply, non-emitting alternatives
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      Combination of both makes the most sense. There won't likely be battery-based passenger jets anytime soon, for example. Meanwhile, humanity is so mixed up that "everyone" has some family members far away and it would be cruel to deny them the travel. In that scenario, let the airline think about carbon capture, too.
      - empyrrhicist 3y ago
        I mean, sure - I don't think banning CC is sensible. I just have thermodynamic doubts about whether it's ever going to make much sense, and in the short term it seems to be a ploy by fossil fuel interests.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
kragen 3y ago
obviously it needs to be scaled up to 'inconceivable' levels, yes, but the only problem with that is that it would require abundant cheap energy guess what, pv modules are down to €0.10 per peak watt this month: https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preisindex/ https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preis... that's half the price they've been at during 02019-02022, which is ten times cheaper than the price a decade earlier; it seems like the price-fixing cartel announced at davos in 02019 has collapsed. but already at those prices they were putting coal plants out of business with energy prices so low they don't cover the cost of the coal, even if the power plant were free. and they've just dropped by half from that price the available global solar resource is about 2000× world marketed energy consumption (excluding crops) the iea is unparalleled in its history of failing to conceive the consequences of cheap pv; see modeless's link https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/12/has-the-international-energy-agency-finally-improved-at-forecasting-solar-growth/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/12/has-the-international... the future is already here, it just isn't widely distributed
- gizmo 3y ago
  The energy required for carbon capture is larger than the all energy produced by burning fossil fuels over the past 100 years (00100 years?). It's not literally impossible, but energy would have to be "too cheap to meter" for it to be even worth thinking about. In a world with unlimited energy (green or not) the problems caused by global warming are no longer that big of a deal. Neither are the other problems the world faces today. Unlimited energy results in, more or less, unlimited prosperity.
  - kragen 3y ago
    your figures on carbon capture energy costs are incorrect, because we don't have to reduce the carbon dioxide back to carbon to sequester it your conception of human nature may also be unrealistic; unlimited warfare is another possible result of unlimited energy
    - scythe 3y ago
      Currently the DoE or some other USG agency has been doing a lot of modeling of just pumping CO2 into underground caverns. (It was in Physics Today.)
wheelerof4te 3y ago
1. Fossil fuels can't just run out because they are produced continuously by dead matter decaying over time. It's in the name. 2. Carbon dioxide is good for the plant life. Plants are literally "breathing" it and producing oxygen. As with everything in nature, this is balanced by the fact that animals breathe oxygen and release...you guessed it, carbon dioxide. 3. Vulcanic eruptions all over the planet release three orders of magnitude more CO2 than all of humanity combined over a period of one year. These eruptions happen in the Earth's oceans, as well, where they are more frequent as there is simply more ocean floor than there is land on the surface. So, please stop with the disinformation already. Or just reduce the carbon footprint in the most developed countries in the world and leave the developing world to go through the fossil fuel phase that those countries went through.
- kubb 3y ago
  1. Achilles can never catch up with the turtle because whenever Achilles would reach the turtle, the turtle is already a little bit further away.
- uxp8u61q 3y ago
  I knew there were climate skeptics, but this is the first time I encounter such lunacy in the wild. Let me ask you this - the US economic boom is largely attributable to slavery and WW2 decimating its rivals and forcing them to agree to quasi-vassality. Should we bring back slavery and start a new world war? So that it's "fair" for the developing countries?
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    "the US economic boom is largely attributable to slavery and WW2 decimating its rivals and forcing them to agree to quasi-vassality. Should we bring back slavery and start a new world war? So that it's "fair" for the developing countries?" Ah, another strawman I have to argue on the internet. I did not say that, so don't put it in my mouth, please. Tell me why you think that things science already confirmed are "lunacy" to you?
    - 3y ago
radu_floricica 3y ago
Meh. Geoengineering is the actual solution, even thought it's politically impossible to voice. See global warming after ships stopped burning sulfur. We're stuck on "carbon" as if this is the only variable we can control. A mix of naturalistic fallacy with tribalism, maybe? The politically correct truth is that carbon is the only thing we've ever changed in nature, so it's the proper and safe act to move it back. Any attempt to point out that neither is true gets coded as a political attack and wrongthink. Either way it's a non issue. AIG or not, we're definitely going to have at least much better ML models allowing for real predictions of interventions. Chances of global warming actually being a problem long term are hovering around zero right now.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  You can't argue with "the truth" here. Global warming has been a mainstream scarecrow for decades now. In truth, it was just a way to slow down the growth of rival industrialized countries, or countries that are yet to industrialize. By promoting expensive, inefficient "clean" energy sources (but not nuclear!), they are stunting the growth of developing nations.
  - radu_floricica 3y ago
    You think? To me it looks like it handicaps developed countries more. For one thing, many developing countries simply ignore the limits, or aren't even close to them yet. Also they have much more choice in choosing their technology stack - they can if they want invest in wind and solar and nuclear. First world has lots of money already sunk in old style generation, and needs to replace it - at much higher levels of consumption.
sackfield 3y ago
"The amount of electricity needed to power these technologies would be greater than the entire world’s electricity demand today" This is where the argument falls off. For what its worth I think they are right in the sense that relying solely on carbon capture is bad economics, but having it in the mix makes a tonne of sense. I do expect carbon capture to become more efficient over time just as much as I expect energy to become more abundant, and part of that energy budget should go towards capturing the carbon output into the environment from legacy technologies.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Enough sunlight falls on Earth every 2 minutes to power humanity for a year [1]. If we need more power, we construct additional renewables. We will need to generate enough aggregate power in order to sequester all of the excess carbon emitted into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. When the price of power goes to zero or negative, that is the ideal time for batteries to charge that provide power to carbon capture facilities. Of course, we should still be leaning into generation and consumption that does not emit carbon. Otherwise we continue to rack up carbon debt we will have to pay back with future clean energy. [1] https://www.ku.ac.ae/two-minutes-of-sun-enough-to-power-a-year-s-usage-of-humanity-gulf-news https://www.ku.ac.ae/two-minutes-of-sun-enough-to-power-a-ye...
  - pests 3y ago
    Covering just 20% of the Sahara with solar panels causes a 1.5 C increase in global temperatures. Solar panels are dark, and dark absorbs heat. Solar panels are what, not even 30% efficient yet? So for every watt generated of useful energy, is two watts of extra heat. Not a problem small scale, definitely something to think about long term. Similar feedback loop to ice sheets melting exposing darker land and ocean beneath. Also explored in the sci-fi book "Project Hail Mary"
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - 3y ago
CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
Yes, but these scams help people to feel better while also laundering money. Reduce usage, plant trees, and build more stuff with wood, and turn the leftovers into charcoal to help support the soil.
benf76 3y ago
We can capture just as well as we can recycle plastic.
- underseacables 3y ago
  Plastic recycling is pretty much a dead industry. There is so little municipal plastic recycling done, and so precious little done with what plastic is recycled, that plastic continues to just build up in waste. Some companies are attempting to use recycled plastic, such as the building industries, but where it is most needed, consumer plastics, is badically dead. Even LEGO declined to use recycled plastic. We must move away from plastic as rapidly as possible. That is a monumental endeavor but it is necessary.
infecto 3y ago
These threads always read like extremists for me. The theme is distilled into carbon capture is a scam and the only solution is reducing our usage of energy. Well that’s not a realistic solution either so I am very happy that maybe one day some of these techs play out. I want us to use more electricity because of growth. Have cleaner generation and hopefully carbon capture that can work at scale.
- nprateem 3y ago
  Or we could ban private yachts, planes, etc and plant millions of trees to literally hedge against the tech not working
lukas099 3y ago
My favorite form of carbon capture is building habitat for organisms. Then you are increasing the carrying capacity of the planet for life, which also stores carbon. And you are addressing the extinction event.
- Jeff_Brown 3y ago
  Life usually sequesters carbon only until it rots. An implication of this is that maintaining the Amazon is good for us, not because it captures more carbon -- it's biomass is not on net growing -- but because if we cut it down its biomass shrinks (because it goes into the air).
  - lukas099 3y ago
    If you are building new habitat you can lock up carbon permanently by creating a self-replenishing ecosystem. This can be jump-started with dead organic matter but will eventually become a living system.
reqo 3y ago
I mean, there is already a solution; it's called Photosynthesis. But we don't have any problem destroying the very ecosystems that captures carbon! I guess we'll jsut destroy the solution that already exists and in the meantime hope for some black magic to happen in distant future.
- lazide 3y ago
  Photosynthesis won’t really help here without ways to sequester biomass on extremely large scales, which we don’t seem to have. The original biomass was sequestered via methods/means that don’t seem to exist anymore, and we’ve been digging it out/pumping it out and releasing it. Without a means to get it back underground, it will just be rereleased when it rots.
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    So, in addition to ignoring the very solution nature gave us, you argue that we must bury the dead plant matter because the CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere if we don't. You realize there are bacteria and insects that eat this matter and that it is used as a fertilizer?
    - kragen 3y ago
      the bacteria and the insects release the carbon as carbon dioxide or, worse, as methane
    - lazide 3y ago
      You clearly have no idea how the carbon cycle works, or why fossil fuels are a problem do you? The carbon being released when burning fossil fuels was previously stuck under ground due to various geological processes. Near as we can tell, over 10’s-100’s of millions of years and due to very disruptive (and relatively unique) geological processes. Once released into the air again, it will keep cycling between plants and the atmosphere (increasing total average atmospheric co2) until something sticks it back under the ground. That’s the problem. Trees, photosynthesis, etc. only temporarily change things. Eventually all the living things rot, burn, or get eaten and digested, and it all ends up back up in the atmosphere again. If there are active/current geologic processes putting some of that carbon back underground where it can’t get back into the atmosphere, it appears to be small in effect and slow. Everything we see appears to not be doing that. It’s easy to verify in most cases too. A forest permanently storing carbon would be sitting on hundreds of feet of it. it’s typically 3-6 ft at most. That fossil carbon has to go back under ground or it will go back into the air sooner than later. And continue to be a problem long term. And near as we can tell, those historic geological processes aren’t happening anymore, at least not at any scale we can rely on here, or timeline that helps us at all.
elil17 3y ago
> The IEA also points out that carbon capture can’t be used as a linchpin by the fossil fuel industry to maintain the status quo. I think 90% of people working on CC agree with this already. We will still need CC because we’ve already emitted too much carbon and because we will need cleanly produced CO2 for industrial use after fossil fuels have been phased out.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  I don’t see how fossil fuels could possibly be phased out. Is there another way to make plastics?
  - HermanMartinus 3y ago
    You're mixing things up here. We're talking about the "fuel" part where we used fossil fuels to make energy. This isn't about making plastics.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Does making plastic not release co2?
stevep98 3y ago
Cool worlds has a great new video discussing the difficulties with carbon capture. https://youtu.be/EBN9JeX3iDs?si=fwkVomJUsw2_4Oa9 https://youtu.be/EBN9JeX3iDs?si=fwkVomJUsw2_4Oa9
rsanek 3y ago
So the claim is that it's impossible because it's too expensive energy wise? Kind of an insane take, how would this be different than claiming renewables aren't a solution 50 years ago because they're too expensive? Things get cheaper over time, and we're only just starting to scale CC. I would say we should invest way more in CC. we need to see alot more stuff like the AMC from Frontier, ideally from governments.
- nayuki 3y ago
  Carbon dioxide capture requires more energy than the amount released by combustion which produced that CO2 in the first place.
  - kragen 3y ago
    this is not correct, and i am surprised to see such careless errors from you, because you are usually so trustworthy
_yb2s 3y ago
In WWII the USA spent about 40% of GDP on the war effort. Direct air capture of all carbon emissions with current tech would only cost about 20% of GDP[1]. So if it were a big enough priority, we could be doing it now. Sure reducing emissions and or developing better tech would make that much cheaper, but even the worst case scenario with current tech seems affordable if you take it seriously as an existential risk. [1] my own rough calculation based on looking up the current market cost of the already commercially available carbon capture technologies, not considering challenges or economies of scale
robotomir 3y ago
I'm starting to think some kind of shade megastructure in orbit might might be the only solution to lowering global temperature. I know that light exerts pressure and that keeping it in place would be a major challenge, but still.
- geysersam 3y ago
  Isn't it easier/cheaper to build infrastructure for renewable energy and make laws that disincentives consumption of products with large external costs? Why explore exotic untested and potentially dangerous geo-engineering before even trying to apply the solutions people have known for decades?
tnel77 3y ago
I think we need to approach climate change from every possible angle. More green energy production, reducing overall energy consumption, and carbon capture are all avenues we should pursue. Who knows if there will be a breakthrough in 20 years that’ll make carbon capture even more economical?
mensetmanusman 3y ago
nothing is a solution, it takes everything to move the needle.
John7149 3y ago
Large carbon capture has been solved and demonstrated using a technique called iron fertilization. Basically just dump iron sulphate into ocean to simulate large algae bloom (nature best carbon capturer). They will then die to sink to bottom of ocean or eaten as part of ocean food chain. It was so successful weather actually registered temporary cooling in one of the experiment. It scared the regional government (Canada if I recalled correctly - probably directed by USA) this can solve the global warming and swiftly banned it. Government loves carbon taxation. Solving carbon issue is never a consideration. Even Greta has been trained to not touch about the real solution iron fertilization to solve climate change. Everything else solution at this stage can be effectively smoke and mirror scam encourage by worldwide governments. You can talk to Putin about how much he wants Siberia thawed. USA and EU loves the carbon taxes. Anyone thinking governments wanted reverse carbon capture, I have plenty of climate change books to sell you.

135 points by voisin 3y ago

These are the guys that produced hilariously wrong forecasts for the solar market 12 years in a row. I'm going to go ahead and take their opinion with a grain of salt. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/12/has-the-international-energy-agency-finally-improved-at-forecasting-solar-growth/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/12/has-the-international...

jnsaff2 3y ago
Yea, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpLhuguXsA8YE8V?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpLhuguXsA8YE8V?format=png&name=...
- voisin 3y ago
  Nice graph. I’d love if they showed the level of what is needed to stay below 1.5C as per the title so the viewer could compare.
  - rsanek 3y ago
    my guess is that it's so high, it would change the scale so much and dwarf all the other data
    - voisin 3y ago
      Well I guess that’s sobering. It would still be nice to have some context given the current annual growth rate.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/unsupported.html https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/unsupported.html here is a great calculator^^
adamlett 3y ago
If you can’t spot a flaw in the facts or the arguments, I guess you can always cast doubt on the credibility of organizations presenting the facts and arguments. That way you don’t have to think about something that’s making you uncomfortable to think about.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Well, is the organization in question not supposed be the expert that I could defer to when in doubt? As it stands, since I am not a person who is immersed in this technology, I would like to hear from someone with a decent track record. Now, it is true that the org in question, may have the facts to back up the arguments, but comes to the wrong conclusions, but it does not really help the advocates for one simple reason: "If the experts can't get right, how can I?".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- baryphonic 3y ago
  The article didn't cite IEA making an argument or even presenting any facts; rather, it reported an assertion that carbon capture isn't enough. All we can go on is the credibility of IEA, which GP has argued – with citation – is wanting. The number one argument against this kind of doomerism is that we don't know what we don't know. Natural CO2 capture is why we have an oxygen atmosphere in the first place. That process wouldn't necessarily work today due to funguses and so on, but perhaps some technological breakthrough (genetically engineered trees? dense organic materials? who knows?) could work as soon as it is discovered.
  - adamlett 3y ago
    The article didn't cite IEA making an argument or even presenting any facts; rather, it reported an assertion that carbon capture isn't enough. Maybe we read different articles, because I distinctly remember reading in the article that the energy cost of CO2 capture to achieve status quo using current technology would require more energy than the world is currently producing (fact), which means the solution is unrealistic (argument). The number one argument against this kind of doomerism is that we don't know what we don't know If that's the number one argument, I appreciate that you don't go on to cite number two, and three, because those would have to be incredibly weak arguments. but perhaps some technological breakthrough (genetically engineered trees? dense organic materials? who knows?) could work as soon as it is discovered. It's also within the realm of possibilities that aliens will descend and use their superior technology to restore the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But I would advice against a plan that could only succeed if this were to happen.
kitd 3y ago
That article also concludes that they have significantly improved with the most recent forecasts though. Edit: Here in the UK, we have been having the public enquiry into the UK's handling of the Covid pandemic. One thing that has come up frequently is that the scientists think about things from a scientific PoV, politicians from politics, economists from economics, etc, etc, but that what was lacking was a more coherent decision making body that was sufficiently skilled to look at all these as a whole. A bit like "clinical medicine" != "public health". It may well be that the IEA look at the subject from an energy resources PoV, but miss the political pressures that governments feel from climate-supporting electorates. And why shouldn't they, it's not their speciality. As pointed out in the article, their reports are one (albeit important) input into the larger solar energy policy decision making process.
- modeless 3y ago
  Check the sibling comment for a graph that claims otherwise. And even if they did change after more than a decade it doesn't give me confidence in new predictions from them.
- kragen 3y ago
  on the contrary, it's precisely the energy resources pov that would predict continued rapid growth in pv
  - kitd 3y ago
    Not if that growth was enabled by political or economic decisions outside the IEA's scope.
    - kragen 3y ago
      that makes no sense
acdha 3y ago
Skepticism is warranted but PV outlook is also a bit tricky since it’s similar to a massively scaled process and China was able to bring an enormous amount of capacity online. I’m not sure that there’s much possibility of that kind of curve for carbon capture.
- twoodfin 3y ago
  Given that the primary input to many carbon capture methods is energy, as long as PV keeps scaling (not guaranteed!) it should be possible to scale carbon capture along with it.
- kragen 3y ago
  yes there is

rob74 3y ago

If you want to be polite, you can call it an illusion. If you don't, you can call it a scam (wanting to convince public opinion/politicians that continuing to burn fossil fuels is not a problem because the CO2 can be captured and magicked away).

kefabean 3y ago
Or worse a scam because it drives additional exploitation that would otherwise be uneconomic without government subsidy. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/54079/great-carbon-capture-scam/ https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/54079/great-c...
- gausswho 3y ago
  That article could use an update. The scam continues via hundreds of millions of subsidy through the Inflation Reduction Act (thanks Joe Manchin). A pipe burst recently and asphyxiated people in a nearby town in Louisiana. https://theintercept.com/2023/08/24/carbon-pipeline-ccs-air-products-louisiana https://theintercept.com/2023/08/24/carbon-pipeline-ccs-air-...
  - velcrovan 3y ago
    It’s true, every big industry needs regulation and oversight.
jupp0r 3y ago
The continuation of fossil fuel emissions and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere don't have to be tied together. Of course the package of these two combined is a scam. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't scale up direct air capture to billions of tons of CO2 per year. The reduction in climate change effects would be absolutely worth it. It might also be more economical than decarbonizing absolutely everything (ie chemical processes).
charles_f 3y ago
It's a logical progression from an industry that depends on it and went from "nah, human CO2 production is marginal" to "ok human CO2 is significant but it doesn't have an effect on climate", now "ok it has an effect but that's ok because someone (else) will come up with a magical solution".

xkcd1963 3y ago

So the only counter-solution they offer is to force the gas- and oil-industry to invest more into green solutions?

mangecoeur 3y ago
Sounds good
rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
The O&G industry won't invest judiciously (they'll do it reluctantly). Anyone else would do it better. And the best employees in that industry can easily move to the green tech market so there's nothing to lose in the transition. Let's outlaw the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, and tax it as much as possible to make the alternatives more economical until renewables are crushing O&G for good. It isn't like renewables (or nuclear is necessary) is a saturated market already.
- xkcd1963 3y ago
  The cost of manufacturing renewals doesn't seem to be accounted for. As example, it takes a lot of chemicals to produce batteries and electronics and it is unknown what happens to the waste in the manufactoring process. We see now the negative impact the increase of oil and gas price has on the European markets. Everything becomes more expensive if energy itself becomes more expensive. Outlawing gas and oil while cheaper or equally cheap alternatives are not present wouldn't work

ktzar 3y ago

Plant trees. Chop trees. Build stuff. Bury wood. Repeat. Note: it doesn't mean keep burning gas at the same time.

cogman10 3y ago
Yeah, this is pretty much the only solution. The only step I'd add is "make charcoal, bury charcoal". That ultimately releases H2O back to the ecosystem and you only bury the carbon. As a bonus, it's an exothermic process, so you could recapture some of that energy to make electricity.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  If you are worried about rising sea levels, why try to release the H2O back into the ecosystem?
  - Tostino 3y ago
    That's...not how this works at all. Is this a joke?
    - RecycledEle 3y ago
      No, it's not a joke. Please explain this to me.
      - Tostino 3y ago
        The rising sea levels aren't about more water being in the environment, it's about more water being in liquid form rather than stored in solid form in glaciers on land. The small amount of water being in a tree trunk vs released back into the atmosphere isn't even close to registering.
        RecycledEle 3y ago
        But enough water does matter. By the argument of insignificance, all North American CO2 emissions from 2024 will not matter.

vouaobrasil 3y ago

The article highlights one possible problem with carbon capture: that we can't capture enough. But there is another problem with it. It's still a solution within the system of intense, worldwide consumerism. Therefore, if more carbon is captured, it will make fossil fuel use more attractive and so people will use more of it to consume more of Earth's other resources -- especially since carbon capture reduces the incentive to develop other green technologies. I expect carbon capture to be much like other 'green incentives' like recycling and driving electric vehicles. Stuff is done but the CO2 keeps on goin', now at around 420ppm. We need a new dimensions to these solutions: a more active attack against the capitalistic system that causes these emissions in the first place.

gmuslera 3y ago

Only carbon capture keeping with the current level of emissions (from us and from the feedback loops that we are triggering is an illusion. Is essentially taking water from a lake with an expensive dropper while multiple firehoses (making profit for doing that) are feeding even more water to it. But, it is part of the solution. Even shutting down the firehoses from one day to the next won’t stop the cumulative effect of all the water that is already in the lake. Things will fall by its own weight. Anything that tries to be “solution” should target both things.

Pxtl 3y ago
)

lordswork 3y ago

Direct Air Capture (DAC) will always be more expensive than reducing emissions, but it could be useful to set the baseline cost in a progressive carbon tax such that all emissions are taxed at a rate that will cover removing them via DAC, creating incentives to reduce emissions and reduce DAC costs.

inglor_cz 3y ago
That would actually also incentivize the greatest emitters to come up with more efficient methods of capturing CO2.
- empyrrhicist 3y ago
  Or, more cheaply, non-emitting alternatives
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Combination of both makes the most sense. There won't likely be battery-based passenger jets anytime soon, for example. Meanwhile, humanity is so mixed up that "everyone" has some family members far away and it would be cruel to deny them the travel. In that scenario, let the airline think about carbon capture, too.
    - empyrrhicist 3y ago
      I mean, sure - I don't think banning CC is sensible. I just have thermodynamic doubts about whether it's ever going to make much sense, and in the short term it seems to be a ploy by fossil fuel interests.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

kragen 3y ago

obviously it needs to be scaled up to 'inconceivable' levels, yes, but the only problem with that is that it would require abundant cheap energy guess what, pv modules are down to €0.10 per peak watt this month: https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preisindex/ https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preis... that's half the price they've been at during 02019-02022, which is ten times cheaper than the price a decade earlier; it seems like the price-fixing cartel announced at davos in 02019 has collapsed. but already at those prices they were putting coal plants out of business with energy prices so low they don't cover the cost of the coal, even if the power plant were free. and they've just dropped by half from that price the available global solar resource is about 2000× world marketed energy consumption (excluding crops) the iea is unparalleled in its history of failing to conceive the consequences of cheap pv; see modeless's link https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/12/has-the-international-energy-agency-finally-improved-at-forecasting-solar-growth/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/12/has-the-international... the future is already here, it just isn't widely distributed

gizmo 3y ago
The energy required for carbon capture is larger than the all energy produced by burning fossil fuels over the past 100 years (00100 years?). It's not literally impossible, but energy would have to be "too cheap to meter" for it to be even worth thinking about. In a world with unlimited energy (green or not) the problems caused by global warming are no longer that big of a deal. Neither are the other problems the world faces today. Unlimited energy results in, more or less, unlimited prosperity.
- kragen 3y ago
  your figures on carbon capture energy costs are incorrect, because we don't have to reduce the carbon dioxide back to carbon to sequester it your conception of human nature may also be unrealistic; unlimited warfare is another possible result of unlimited energy
  - scythe 3y ago
    Currently the DoE or some other USG agency has been doing a lot of modeling of just pumping CO2 into underground caverns. (It was in Physics Today.)

wheelerof4te 3y ago

1. Fossil fuels can't just run out because they are produced continuously by dead matter decaying over time. It's in the name. 2. Carbon dioxide is good for the plant life. Plants are literally "breathing" it and producing oxygen. As with everything in nature, this is balanced by the fact that animals breathe oxygen and release...you guessed it, carbon dioxide. 3. Vulcanic eruptions all over the planet release three orders of magnitude more CO2 than all of humanity combined over a period of one year. These eruptions happen in the Earth's oceans, as well, where they are more frequent as there is simply more ocean floor than there is land on the surface. So, please stop with the disinformation already. Or just reduce the carbon footprint in the most developed countries in the world and leave the developing world to go through the fossil fuel phase that those countries went through.

kubb 3y ago
1. Achilles can never catch up with the turtle because whenever Achilles would reach the turtle, the turtle is already a little bit further away.
uxp8u61q 3y ago
I knew there were climate skeptics, but this is the first time I encounter such lunacy in the wild. Let me ask you this - the US economic boom is largely attributable to slavery and WW2 decimating its rivals and forcing them to agree to quasi-vassality. Should we bring back slavery and start a new world war? So that it's "fair" for the developing countries?
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  "the US economic boom is largely attributable to slavery and WW2 decimating its rivals and forcing them to agree to quasi-vassality. Should we bring back slavery and start a new world war? So that it's "fair" for the developing countries?" Ah, another strawman I have to argue on the internet. I did not say that, so don't put it in my mouth, please. Tell me why you think that things science already confirmed are "lunacy" to you?
  - 3y ago

radu_floricica 3y ago

Meh. Geoengineering is the actual solution, even thought it's politically impossible to voice. See global warming after ships stopped burning sulfur. We're stuck on "carbon" as if this is the only variable we can control. A mix of naturalistic fallacy with tribalism, maybe? The politically correct truth is that carbon is the only thing we've ever changed in nature, so it's the proper and safe act to move it back. Any attempt to point out that neither is true gets coded as a political attack and wrongthink. Either way it's a non issue. AIG or not, we're definitely going to have at least much better ML models allowing for real predictions of interventions. Chances of global warming actually being a problem long term are hovering around zero right now.

wheelerof4te 3y ago
You can't argue with "the truth" here. Global warming has been a mainstream scarecrow for decades now. In truth, it was just a way to slow down the growth of rival industrialized countries, or countries that are yet to industrialize. By promoting expensive, inefficient "clean" energy sources (but not nuclear!), they are stunting the growth of developing nations.
- radu_floricica 3y ago
  You think? To me it looks like it handicaps developed countries more. For one thing, many developing countries simply ignore the limits, or aren't even close to them yet. Also they have much more choice in choosing their technology stack - they can if they want invest in wind and solar and nuclear. First world has lots of money already sunk in old style generation, and needs to replace it - at much higher levels of consumption.

sackfield 3y ago

"The amount of electricity needed to power these technologies would be greater than the entire world’s electricity demand today" This is where the argument falls off. For what its worth I think they are right in the sense that relying solely on carbon capture is bad economics, but having it in the mix makes a tonne of sense. I do expect carbon capture to become more efficient over time just as much as I expect energy to become more abundant, and part of that energy budget should go towards capturing the carbon output into the environment from legacy technologies.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Enough sunlight falls on Earth every 2 minutes to power humanity for a year [1]. If we need more power, we construct additional renewables. We will need to generate enough aggregate power in order to sequester all of the excess carbon emitted into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. When the price of power goes to zero or negative, that is the ideal time for batteries to charge that provide power to carbon capture facilities. Of course, we should still be leaning into generation and consumption that does not emit carbon. Otherwise we continue to rack up carbon debt we will have to pay back with future clean energy. [1] https://www.ku.ac.ae/two-minutes-of-sun-enough-to-power-a-year-s-usage-of-humanity-gulf-news https://www.ku.ac.ae/two-minutes-of-sun-enough-to-power-a-ye...
- pests 3y ago
  Covering just 20% of the Sahara with solar panels causes a 1.5 C increase in global temperatures. Solar panels are dark, and dark absorbs heat. Solar panels are what, not even 30% efficient yet? So for every watt generated of useful energy, is two watts of extra heat. Not a problem small scale, definitely something to think about long term. Similar feedback loop to ice sheets melting exposing darker land and ocean beneath. Also explored in the sci-fi book "Project Hail Mary"
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 3y ago

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago

Yes, but these scams help people to feel better while also laundering money. Reduce usage, plant trees, and build more stuff with wood, and turn the leftovers into charcoal to help support the soil.

benf76 3y ago

We can capture just as well as we can recycle plastic.

underseacables 3y ago
Plastic recycling is pretty much a dead industry. There is so little municipal plastic recycling done, and so precious little done with what plastic is recycled, that plastic continues to just build up in waste. Some companies are attempting to use recycled plastic, such as the building industries, but where it is most needed, consumer plastics, is badically dead. Even LEGO declined to use recycled plastic. We must move away from plastic as rapidly as possible. That is a monumental endeavor but it is necessary.

infecto 3y ago

These threads always read like extremists for me. The theme is distilled into carbon capture is a scam and the only solution is reducing our usage of energy. Well that’s not a realistic solution either so I am very happy that maybe one day some of these techs play out. I want us to use more electricity because of growth. Have cleaner generation and hopefully carbon capture that can work at scale.

nprateem 3y ago
Or we could ban private yachts, planes, etc and plant millions of trees to literally hedge against the tech not working

lukas099 3y ago

My favorite form of carbon capture is building habitat for organisms. Then you are increasing the carrying capacity of the planet for life, which also stores carbon. And you are addressing the extinction event.

Jeff_Brown 3y ago
Life usually sequesters carbon only until it rots. An implication of this is that maintaining the Amazon is good for us, not because it captures more carbon -- it's biomass is not on net growing -- but because if we cut it down its biomass shrinks (because it goes into the air).
- lukas099 3y ago
  If you are building new habitat you can lock up carbon permanently by creating a self-replenishing ecosystem. This can be jump-started with dead organic matter but will eventually become a living system.

reqo 3y ago

I mean, there is already a solution; it's called Photosynthesis. But we don't have any problem destroying the very ecosystems that captures carbon! I guess we'll jsut destroy the solution that already exists and in the meantime hope for some black magic to happen in distant future.

lazide 3y ago
Photosynthesis won’t really help here without ways to sequester biomass on extremely large scales, which we don’t seem to have. The original biomass was sequestered via methods/means that don’t seem to exist anymore, and we’ve been digging it out/pumping it out and releasing it. Without a means to get it back underground, it will just be rereleased when it rots.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  So, in addition to ignoring the very solution nature gave us, you argue that we must bury the dead plant matter because the CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere if we don't. You realize there are bacteria and insects that eat this matter and that it is used as a fertilizer?
  - kragen 3y ago
    the bacteria and the insects release the carbon as carbon dioxide or, worse, as methane
  - lazide 3y ago
    You clearly have no idea how the carbon cycle works, or why fossil fuels are a problem do you? The carbon being released when burning fossil fuels was previously stuck under ground due to various geological processes. Near as we can tell, over 10’s-100’s of millions of years and due to very disruptive (and relatively unique) geological processes. Once released into the air again, it will keep cycling between plants and the atmosphere (increasing total average atmospheric co2) until something sticks it back under the ground. That’s the problem. Trees, photosynthesis, etc. only temporarily change things. Eventually all the living things rot, burn, or get eaten and digested, and it all ends up back up in the atmosphere again. If there are active/current geologic processes putting some of that carbon back underground where it can’t get back into the atmosphere, it appears to be small in effect and slow. Everything we see appears to not be doing that. It’s easy to verify in most cases too. A forest permanently storing carbon would be sitting on hundreds of feet of it. it’s typically 3-6 ft at most. That fossil carbon has to go back under ground or it will go back into the air sooner than later. And continue to be a problem long term. And near as we can tell, those historic geological processes aren’t happening anymore, at least not at any scale we can rely on here, or timeline that helps us at all.

elil17 3y ago

> The IEA also points out that carbon capture can’t be used as a linchpin by the fossil fuel industry to maintain the status quo. I think 90% of people working on CC agree with this already. We will still need CC because we’ve already emitted too much carbon and because we will need cleanly produced CO2 for industrial use after fossil fuels have been phased out.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
I don’t see how fossil fuels could possibly be phased out. Is there another way to make plastics?
- HermanMartinus 3y ago
  You're mixing things up here. We're talking about the "fuel" part where we used fossil fuels to make energy. This isn't about making plastics.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Does making plastic not release co2?

stevep98 3y ago

Cool worlds has a great new video discussing the difficulties with carbon capture. https://youtu.be/EBN9JeX3iDs?si=fwkVomJUsw2_4Oa9 https://youtu.be/EBN9JeX3iDs?si=fwkVomJUsw2_4Oa9

rsanek 3y ago

So the claim is that it's impossible because it's too expensive energy wise? Kind of an insane take, how would this be different than claiming renewables aren't a solution 50 years ago because they're too expensive? Things get cheaper over time, and we're only just starting to scale CC. I would say we should invest way more in CC. we need to see alot more stuff like the AMC from Frontier, ideally from governments.

nayuki 3y ago
Carbon dioxide capture requires more energy than the amount released by combustion which produced that CO2 in the first place.
- kragen 3y ago
  this is not correct, and i am surprised to see such careless errors from you, because you are usually so trustworthy

_yb2s 3y ago

In WWII the USA spent about 40% of GDP on the war effort. Direct air capture of all carbon emissions with current tech would only cost about 20% of GDP[1]. So if it were a big enough priority, we could be doing it now. Sure reducing emissions and or developing better tech would make that much cheaper, but even the worst case scenario with current tech seems affordable if you take it seriously as an existential risk. [1] my own rough calculation based on looking up the current market cost of the already commercially available carbon capture technologies, not considering challenges or economies of scale

robotomir 3y ago

I'm starting to think some kind of shade megastructure in orbit might might be the only solution to lowering global temperature. I know that light exerts pressure and that keeping it in place would be a major challenge, but still.

geysersam 3y ago
Isn't it easier/cheaper to build infrastructure for renewable energy and make laws that disincentives consumption of products with large external costs? Why explore exotic untested and potentially dangerous geo-engineering before even trying to apply the solutions people have known for decades?

tnel77 3y ago

I think we need to approach climate change from every possible angle. More green energy production, reducing overall energy consumption, and carbon capture are all avenues we should pursue. Who knows if there will be a breakthrough in 20 years that’ll make carbon capture even more economical?

mensetmanusman 3y ago

nothing is a solution, it takes everything to move the needle.

John7149 3y ago

Large carbon capture has been solved and demonstrated using a technique called iron fertilization. Basically just dump iron sulphate into ocean to simulate large algae bloom (nature best carbon capturer). They will then die to sink to bottom of ocean or eaten as part of ocean food chain. It was so successful weather actually registered temporary cooling in one of the experiment. It scared the regional government (Canada if I recalled correctly - probably directed by USA) this can solve the global warming and swiftly banned it. Government loves carbon taxation. Solving carbon issue is never a consideration. Even Greta has been trained to not touch about the real solution iron fertilization to solve climate change. Everything else solution at this stage can be effectively smoke and mirror scam encourage by worldwide governments. You can talk to Putin about how much he wants Siberia thawed. USA and EU loves the carbon taxes. Anyone thinking governments wanted reverse carbon capture, I have plenty of climate change books to sell you.