4 ms·

> But we are committed now to living in a world that will be radically different and less pleasant for a lot of people. Committed? We will have extra energy f

> But we are committed now to living in a world that will be radically different and less pleasant for a lot of people. Committed? We will have extra energy for carbon capture on the next decade. This is a problem we can solve. Not before it gets worse, but we can stop it from being permanent.

forgetfreeman 2y ago
Great, now we need viable large scale carbon capture technology and enough loose funds to bribe an industry into existence globally. That 2nd part is the real trick.
geysersam 2y ago
Stop living in a fantasy. Direct air carbon capture can never be more efficient than just not burning fossile fuels in the first place.
- Brigand 2y ago
  Having excess energy from solar could make it possible to capture the excess co2 over time.
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  Sure it can. Why wouldn't it? Say you find a source of energy with zero cost. Now direct air carbon capture is free. "But you don't have a source with zero cost." Great, now we're talking numbers, how cheap does it have to be? So long as energy transport has inevitable losses, carbon capture stands a chance. In other words, IMO we should consider fossil fuel offsetting with carbon capture as a highly lossy energy transport technology that can reach any fossil fuel consumer on earth.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Even with free energy, you'd need to invest a lot of capital and then dispose of the CO2 somewhere.
  - geysersam 2y ago
    Energy is not the only cost. There are also massive material costs building the carbon capture infrastructure. A reasonable estimate for the scale required is the existing fossile fuel infrastructure. That is, direct air carbon capture means investing an amount on the order of the value of the existing fossile fuel infrastructure to spend energy to achieve nothing of value (except offsetting the damage we caused by not switching to renewables earlier). It's a complete nonstarter. Only a vehicle used by the fossile industry to delay the transition.
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      I wonder if people may be able to organize some entity that collects money for everybody to use in projects that benefit the society... But I guess, no, that's impossible!
Voultapher 2y ago
CO2 is a red herring, yes it matters but it's only one thing in a long list of things our lifestyle impacts https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/. Regarding energy transitions and carbon capture: > Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  That’s significantly moving the goal post. Yes, it’s a given that biodiversity will take a hit for a pretty long time due to human activity but frankly, so what? I personally care more about avoiding millions dying of starvation but you do you. I understand that said millions being mostly in Nigeria and India make some in the west care less about them that cute animals, but still.
  - DangitBobby 2y ago
    This attitude towards other life sucks ass.
    - jajko 2y ago
      Well we kill it for pleasure, to eat them and treat them horribly, and almost absolutely nobody ever bats an eye. Folks that visit slaughterhouse often don't eat meat for few weeks but then revert back. Don't expect miracles, humans are mostly still pretty primitive species driven largely by emotions which swing semi randomly, all wars are, if you drill deep enough caused by this and only this. Or check any elections. One day, maybe not so long in future as many may think, our descendants will judge us as primitive barbaric savages. And they will be mostly right.
lossolo 2y ago
What extra energy? Energy consumption around the world is rising every year and will rise even higher because of climate change. And carbon capture is not a viable solution to climate change. "According to the IPCC’s Working Group III report, carbon capture is one of the least-effective, most-expensive climate change mitigation options on Earth." "Even today, some projects already operating around the world have not been as successful as planned. In Australia, the CCS project run by Chevron has not yet made its Gorgon project meet its target of 80% carbon dioxide capture. A recent report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) on two Norwegian projects that store carbon dioxide under the seabed called into question the long-term viability of CCS." "There are currently 42 operational commercial CCS and CCUS projects across the world with the capacity to store 49 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, according to the Global CCS Institute, which tracks the industry. That is about 0.13% of the world’s roughly 37 billion metric tons of annual energy and industry-related carbon dioxide emissions." https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/03/20/opinion/carbon-capture-wont-fix-our-climate-problem https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/03/20/opinion/carbon-c... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/01/is-carbon-capture-and-storage-really-a-silver-bullet-for-the-climate-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/01/is-carbo... https://archive.is/e0y4W https://archive.is/e0y4W

forgetfreeman 2y ago

Great, now we need viable large scale carbon capture technology and enough loose funds to bribe an industry into existence globally. That 2nd part is the real trick.

geysersam 2y ago

Stop living in a fantasy. Direct air carbon capture can never be more efficient than just not burning fossile fuels in the first place.

Brigand 2y ago
Having excess energy from solar could make it possible to capture the excess co2 over time.
FeepingCreature 2y ago
Sure it can. Why wouldn't it? Say you find a source of energy with zero cost. Now direct air carbon capture is free. "But you don't have a source with zero cost." Great, now we're talking numbers, how cheap does it have to be? So long as energy transport has inevitable losses, carbon capture stands a chance. In other words, IMO we should consider fossil fuel offsetting with carbon capture as a highly lossy energy transport technology that can reach any fossil fuel consumer on earth.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Even with free energy, you'd need to invest a lot of capital and then dispose of the CO2 somewhere.
- geysersam 2y ago
  Energy is not the only cost. There are also massive material costs building the carbon capture infrastructure. A reasonable estimate for the scale required is the existing fossile fuel infrastructure. That is, direct air carbon capture means investing an amount on the order of the value of the existing fossile fuel infrastructure to spend energy to achieve nothing of value (except offsetting the damage we caused by not switching to renewables earlier). It's a complete nonstarter. Only a vehicle used by the fossile industry to delay the transition.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    I wonder if people may be able to organize some entity that collects money for everybody to use in projects that benefit the society... But I guess, no, that's impossible!

Voultapher 2y ago

CO2 is a red herring, yes it matters but it's only one thing in a long list of things our lifestyle impacts https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/. Regarding energy transitions and carbon capture: > Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
That’s significantly moving the goal post. Yes, it’s a given that biodiversity will take a hit for a pretty long time due to human activity but frankly, so what? I personally care more about avoiding millions dying of starvation but you do you. I understand that said millions being mostly in Nigeria and India make some in the west care less about them that cute animals, but still.
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  This attitude towards other life sucks ass.
  - jajko 2y ago
    Well we kill it for pleasure, to eat them and treat them horribly, and almost absolutely nobody ever bats an eye. Folks that visit slaughterhouse often don't eat meat for few weeks but then revert back. Don't expect miracles, humans are mostly still pretty primitive species driven largely by emotions which swing semi randomly, all wars are, if you drill deep enough caused by this and only this. Or check any elections. One day, maybe not so long in future as many may think, our descendants will judge us as primitive barbaric savages. And they will be mostly right.

lossolo 2y ago

What extra energy? Energy consumption around the world is rising every year and will rise even higher because of climate change. And carbon capture is not a viable solution to climate change. "According to the IPCC’s Working Group III report, carbon capture is one of the least-effective, most-expensive climate change mitigation options on Earth." "Even today, some projects already operating around the world have not been as successful as planned. In Australia, the CCS project run by Chevron has not yet made its Gorgon project meet its target of 80% carbon dioxide capture. A recent report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) on two Norwegian projects that store carbon dioxide under the seabed called into question the long-term viability of CCS." "There are currently 42 operational commercial CCS and CCUS projects across the world with the capacity to store 49 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, according to the Global CCS Institute, which tracks the industry. That is about 0.13% of the world’s roughly 37 billion metric tons of annual energy and industry-related carbon dioxide emissions." https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/03/20/opinion/carbon-capture-wont-fix-our-climate-problem https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/03/20/opinion/carbon-c... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/01/is-carbon-capture-and-storage-really-a-silver-bullet-for-the-climate-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/01/is-carbo... https://archive.is/e0y4W https://archive.is/e0y4W