4 ms·
This strategy is called CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage), as opposed to CCS (without the U). As someone who as previously worked in the field, I
by setopt 2y ago
This strategy is called CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage), as opposed to CCS (without the U). As someone who as previously worked in the field, I think it’s a bad idea.
Carbon capture is expensive. Even if you capture at concentrated point sources like power plants or factories, and capture only between 80-95% of the emitted CO2, it’s still quite expensive (e.g. natural gas power can be roughly 25% more expensive when you add carbon capture), and it’s already hard enough to build the capture capacity that we would need to make an impact on global warming.
The goal of paying for all that should be to remove those emissions from the world, whereas most utilization processes end up with some or all of that CO2 in the atmosphere in the end. In which case you have wasted energy and money while not saving the environment.
- segfaltnh 2y agoYes but if you generate food from plant emissions that reduces demand for livestock, the net production of CO2 drops, in theory. Your concerns make a ton of sense for some CCUS cases though.
- setopt 2y agoSure – but I’m willing to bet that we can make butter far more efficiently by cutting out CO2 as a middle man, and e.g. utilizing plant waste more directly in a chemical plant. To be clear: I’m not saying that all research on CO2 utilization is wasted. I’m all for e.g. research into CO2 as a heat pump refrigerant, or feeding CO2 from composting into green houses. But the moment you want to use either industrial CO2 or direct air capture for something else then offsetting global warming, then I think it’s a bad idea.
- segfaltnh 2y agoInteresting, thanks for clarifying. I'm inclined to agree, though I think the world has a place for both types of technology.