3 ms·

This is how carbon capture is being used currently. However, I it's absolutely not the goal of legislation that funds carbon capture research - research that wa

by elil17 2y ago

This is how carbon capture is being used currently. However, I it's absolutely not the goal of legislation that funds carbon capture research - research that was lobbied for by environmental groups (not that big oil didn't lobby for it too). It's also not the goal of people I know who are working on carbon capture technology research. The goal is to reduce global atmospheric carbon levels. The problem is that doing that isn't technically or economically feasible at the moment. If we could make carbon capture cheaper and more efficient (and that's a big if - it may not be possible, which is why research is needed), carbon could be permanently sequestered.

thelastgallon 2y ago
A ton of {coal,petroleum,natural gas} emits {2.6,2.75,3.2} tons of CO2. 8.5 billion tons of coal burnt every year. 4000 billion cubic meters of Natural gas/year (~3000 billion tons - gemini), Global oil production is 4.5 billion metric tons/year. I don't see a reason to subsidize fossil fuels, release all this carbon, and then subsidize fossil fuels companies even more to capture something thats measured in parts per million. And all this to waste 67% to 75% of energy. See Rejected energy: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2023-10/US%20Energy%202022.png https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2023-10/U... We'd be better off not burning fossil fuels, we have the technology today. People are ok spending billions on carbon capture. But are against subsidizing EVs, ICE cars emit 1 ton of CO2 for every 2500 miles, every car emits 5 tons CO2/year. For a lifetime of 20 years, thats 100 tons of CO2. Why not fund EVs as carbon capture? Or is the only path forward to give money to fossil fuel companies? Twenty-seven DAC plants have been commissioned to date worldwide, capturing almost 0.01 Mt CO2/year[1]. Thats the equivalent of 2000 EVs. [1]https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/direct-air-capture https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation...
- Gud 2y ago
  Electric Vehicles is a pretty broad subject. What absolutely must be well developed is the public transport, take Switzerland as an example. Naturally, personal transports should be electrical, but even more important is to get people on trains. The numbers don’t lie
  - thelastgallon 2y ago
    Switzerland has 600 vehicles/1000 people, US has 900. Sure, its lower, but not significantly lower. US is 238 times larger and people live/commute farther. Public transit is better, but it won't work everywhere because of entrenched interests and strong resistance. It takes decades to do minor infrastructure projects, it will take centuries for US to have public transit that can work. Whats even better is walking/biking with no need of public transit infrastructure. While that hopefully, eventually happens, it is much easier to stop buying new gas cars. Nobody is saying sell your gas car rightaway and buy EVs. There are people buying new gas cars today, which will pollute and emit CO2 for the next 20 years. Instead of buying a gas car, why not buy an EV? And if you must have a gas car (which is understandable, it may not work for your specific use case), buy a used car. After all, whats the big difference between a 2023 ICE car vs 2024.
  - lamontcg 2y ago
    Trains are so politically unviable in the US that you might as well be talking about nuclear fusion.

by elil17 2y ago

thelastgallon 2y ago

A ton of {coal,petroleum,natural gas} emits {2.6,2.75,3.2} tons of CO2. 8.5 billion tons of coal burnt every year. 4000 billion cubic meters of Natural gas/year (~3000 billion tons - gemini), Global oil production is 4.5 billion metric tons/year. I don't see a reason to subsidize fossil fuels, release all this carbon, and then subsidize fossil fuels companies even more to capture something thats measured in parts per million. And all this to waste 67% to 75% of energy. See Rejected energy: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2023-10/US%20Energy%202022.png https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2023-10/U... We'd be better off not burning fossil fuels, we have the technology today. People are ok spending billions on carbon capture. But are against subsidizing EVs, ICE cars emit 1 ton of CO2 for every 2500 miles, every car emits 5 tons CO2/year. For a lifetime of 20 years, thats 100 tons of CO2. Why not fund EVs as carbon capture? Or is the only path forward to give money to fossil fuel companies? Twenty-seven DAC plants have been commissioned to date worldwide, capturing almost 0.01 Mt CO2/year[1]. Thats the equivalent of 2000 EVs. [1]https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/direct-air-capture https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation...

Gud 2y ago
Electric Vehicles is a pretty broad subject. What absolutely must be well developed is the public transport, take Switzerland as an example. Naturally, personal transports should be electrical, but even more important is to get people on trains. The numbers don’t lie
- thelastgallon 2y ago
  Switzerland has 600 vehicles/1000 people, US has 900. Sure, its lower, but not significantly lower. US is 238 times larger and people live/commute farther. Public transit is better, but it won't work everywhere because of entrenched interests and strong resistance. It takes decades to do minor infrastructure projects, it will take centuries for US to have public transit that can work. Whats even better is walking/biking with no need of public transit infrastructure. While that hopefully, eventually happens, it is much easier to stop buying new gas cars. Nobody is saying sell your gas car rightaway and buy EVs. There are people buying new gas cars today, which will pollute and emit CO2 for the next 20 years. Instead of buying a gas car, why not buy an EV? And if you must have a gas car (which is understandable, it may not work for your specific use case), buy a used car. After all, whats the big difference between a 2023 ICE car vs 2024.
- lamontcg 2y ago
  Trains are so politically unviable in the US that you might as well be talking about nuclear fusion.