4 ms·

Combatting the byproducts of the entire industrial world is a huge undertaking. We should not expect statistically significant contributions to the fight, until

by Hugsun 2y ago

Combatting the byproducts of the entire industrial world is a huge undertaking. We should not expect statistically significant contributions to the fight, until the most promising technologies have been scaled up massively. This does not mean the field is just composed of scams. The opposite could be true with the same results we see.

schiffern 2y ago
>We should not expect statistically significant contributions to the fight, until the most promising technologies have been scaled up massively. Just to put a finer point on it, we do not want a large scale-up until we largely stop burning fossil fuel for stationary baseload power. Otherwise when you zoom out and look at the whole energy system, you're just "digging a hole and filling it back in again" (I mean this both thermodynamically and economically), plus adding unavoidable inefficiency losses at every step. So in reality the entire chain would be generating negative net energy for society. Such a futile energy system isn't a workable solution, obviously. No, right not we should be researching and laying the groundwork for a future (post-combustion) scale-up, but environmentally we should not be scaling up just yet. Scaling up right now would actually generate more pollution, not less.
- Hugsun 2y ago
  Well said. > Otherwise when you zoom out and look at the whole energy system, you're just "digging a hole and filling it back in again" (I mean this both thermodynamically and economically), plus adding unavoidable inefficiency losses at every step. So in reality the entire chain would be generating negative net energy for society. Such a futile energy system isn't a workable solution, obviously. That is true in the abstract but there is yet more nuance that is important to consider. Capturing co2 doesn't have to consume as much energy as is released when it's emitted. Although, many methods, like everything revolving around trees and biomass do have this negative net energy property. There are chemical ones that don't if I'm not mistaken[1]. There is also the unreliability of most renewable energy sources. While we haven't solved all the energy storage problems. There might still be periods where it would be somewhat sensible to use surplus renewable energy to capture carbon, while a low-wind, low-sun place is powered by fossil fuels. We do of course want to shut all of them down ASAP, but the optimal ordering might not be as strict as you imply. I agree with your broader point though. There is a lot of potential for energy waste if carbon capture is prematurely applied aggressively. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/how-icelands-carbfix-is-harnessing-power-turning-co2-into-stone-2023-10-30/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/how-ic...

by Hugsun 2y ago

schiffern 2y ago

>We should not expect statistically significant contributions to the fight, until the most promising technologies have been scaled up massively. Just to put a finer point on it, we do not want a large scale-up until we largely stop burning fossil fuel for stationary baseload power. Otherwise when you zoom out and look at the whole energy system, you're just "digging a hole and filling it back in again" (I mean this both thermodynamically and economically), plus adding unavoidable inefficiency losses at every step. So in reality the entire chain would be generating negative net energy for society. Such a futile energy system isn't a workable solution, obviously. No, right not we should be researching and laying the groundwork for a future (post-combustion) scale-up, but environmentally we should not be scaling up just yet. Scaling up right now would actually generate more pollution, not less.

Hugsun 2y ago
Well said. > Otherwise when you zoom out and look at the whole energy system, you're just "digging a hole and filling it back in again" (I mean this both thermodynamically and economically), plus adding unavoidable inefficiency losses at every step. So in reality the entire chain would be generating negative net energy for society. Such a futile energy system isn't a workable solution, obviously. That is true in the abstract but there is yet more nuance that is important to consider. Capturing co2 doesn't have to consume as much energy as is released when it's emitted. Although, many methods, like everything revolving around trees and biomass do have this negative net energy property. There are chemical ones that don't if I'm not mistaken[1]. There is also the unreliability of most renewable energy sources. While we haven't solved all the energy storage problems. There might still be periods where it would be somewhat sensible to use surplus renewable energy to capture carbon, while a low-wind, low-sun place is powered by fossil fuels. We do of course want to shut all of them down ASAP, but the optimal ordering might not be as strict as you imply. I agree with your broader point though. There is a lot of potential for energy waste if carbon capture is prematurely applied aggressively. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/how-icelands-carbfix-is-harnessing-power-turning-co2-into-stone-2023-10-30/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/how-ic...