7 ms·

Carbon capture and storage is a fantasy

54 points by blueflow 2y ago

bongdudebrah 2y ago
Did they though? I have never met anyone who thought oil companies were helping the environment in any way.
- blueflow 2y ago
  A while ago carbon capture startups were somewhat known on HN. I remember because i argued under seemingly each of them that their concept is not sound in terms of thermodynamics. So when i saw this VOX article, i felt the need to post this here a la "told you so".
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    Well it is obviously going to take energy to reverse the process. I do not think any of them have argued differently. I am bullish on some kind of fuel-from-air technology gaining widespread adoption. Something to act as a sink to the increasingly glut of “free” renewable energy (assuming they can beat out the crypto miners). As far as I know, it is strictly a matter of price, there is no technological reason why it cannot work.
    - CapstanRoller 2y ago
      >there is no technological reason why it cannot work There is, however, a big thermodynamics reason: EROEI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
      - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
        I do not understand the argument. Historically you were describing harvesting some resource (oil from the ground, sun from the sky, wind from the air, etc) and calculating your return. Carbon capture is about taking energy today and converting it into a different form of stored energy. Energy conversion is not lossless -you end up with less embodied energy than you started. Who cares? If you are taking overproduced solar and turning it into methane/ammonia, you can now “store sunlight” for night or seasonal grid backup in winter. It comes down to economics. Electricity is less valuable than a combustible fuel in several contexts.
        CapstanRoller 2y ago
        >If you are taking overproduced solar and turning it into methane/ammonia And that overproduced solar is made using... petroleum. The argument is very simple: we're basically just burning up oil with extra steps, then pretending the intermediate products can somehow undo the damage caused by burning up that oil (and now claiming that we're getting fuel back!) aka "extend and pretend" We need to stop putting that carbon into the atmosphere, because the reality is that the process isn't reversible on human timescales. The only answer seems to be degrowth, but asking for negative GDP is basically heresy.
        foobarkey 2y ago
        Your math is bonkers somewhere, solar panels can for sure capture more energy than ehat we used to produce them
        CapstanRoller 2y ago
        >Your math is bonkers somewhere Not my math. Industry's math. And it's bonkers because "green products" have to sell, electric cars have to sell, etc. The economy has to keep growing. Big Line has to keep going up. What doesn't sell, but might actually help us get out of this mess? Mass transit, dense subsidized housing, remote work, degrowth (negative GDP). None of this stuff sells, especially the last one. >they can I'm not arguing hypotheticals here https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2023/7/3/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-will-admit https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2023/7/3/solar-pa...
      - foobarkey 2y ago
        True but it’s also OK if EROEI is less than one when using renewables (think solar in africa) In fact ROI is more important to focus on, given solar panels last 20 years and the cost of installation is covered in 10 years, it will create profit for 10 (oversimplifying). Then the methane can be converted to LNG and transported by ship to Europe/US or somewhere else
        CapstanRoller 2y ago
        Wait, who is talking about profit? You can make "profit" appear anywhere by playing with spreadsheets. Spreadsheets do not reflect the actual reality of our rapidly-heating planet and dying biosphere, though.
        foobarkey 2y ago
        If you haven’t noticed we got into this mess by chasing profit, the best chance to get out of it is to make carbon capture economically viable that’s why making money is important part of the puzzle. Alternatively some sort of world government or dictatorship would work too, but in democratic/capitalist society the problem wont get solved unless someone can make the moneys
        CapstanRoller 2y ago
        >the best chance to get out of it is to make carbon capture economically viable Same energy as "yeah we got addicted to heroin, and the best way of getting out of this mess is to subsidize heroin so we can keep buying" How about not putting that carbon into the atmosphere in the first place? Oops, that upsets The Big Line. >democratic/capitalist The fact that you put these words together with that symbol clearly demonstrates that you Just Don't Get It. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." — Upton Sinclair, probably
    - Swizec 2y ago
      > As far as I know, it is strictly a matter of price, there is no technological reason why it cannot work Trees, bogs, and permafrost are already super efficient at carbon capture. This is more of a culture/incentives problem than a technology problem. Plant forests, cut them down, turn them into housing or whatever. Voila: carbon captured for the next 50 or so years. People would love to pay you for cheaper abundant lumber.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Trees, bogs and permafrost are < 0.1% efficient at turning photons into fuel. A solar cell is >20% efficient at turning photons into electricity.
        Swizec 2y ago
        I didn't say fuel. I said carbon sequestration :) > Peatlands are the largest natural terrestrial carbon store. They store more carbon than all other vegetation types in the world combined. Damaged peatlands are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for almost 5% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-climate-change https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-cl... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/21/headway/peat-carbon-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/21/headway/peat-... Also burning the stuff negates the carbon capture part.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        A quarter inch of lime will sequester as much carbon per acre as your peatland. The numbers don't work for using plants for sequestration. 1-3% of the world's land is urbanized, the rest is either already green or doesn't support extensive plant life. We can increase the green land area number, but not substantially. We can release thousands of years worth of carbon sequestration in a peat bog in a few days by destroying the bogs. We don't have thousands of years to put it back. The economics don't work for industrial sequestration. The numbers don't work for green sequestration. Our only choice is to stop putting the carbon into the atmosphere in the first place.
    - mullingitover 2y ago
      I have a great idea for a startup which bioengineers a solar-powered carbon capture system. These systems would capture carbon and embed it in cellulose. That cellulose could then be used for a variety of purposes: as a building material, fuel source, etc. We could engineer these systems to be very aesthetically pleasing, with colorful 'leaves' and various types of cellulose layers of different colors and hardness. They'd be useful as shade structures, and they could also have other uses such as preventing soil erosion.
      - repelsteeltje 2y ago
        But what would happen to those cellulose machines long term? What might large quantities of the residue look like if left buried for, say, a couple million years? Might well prove to be a valuable resource for large scale energy production in a distant future!
      - travisporter 2y ago
        https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2022/07/24/terraform-industries-whitepaper/ https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2022/07/24/terrafo... The section titled ”Tree. You’ve invented a tree.” may be of interest to you. Also the late David mackay has a great chapter in his book about this
    - orthecreedence 2y ago
      I feel the same. I think overall it'd be cheaper to make fuels for ICE from air than to trash and rebuild every single vehicle. We probably need fusion energy to make that a reality though.
  - lumost 2y ago
    My understanding is that carbon capture at the time of emissions is extraordinarily difficult/impossible. However accelerating the carbon capture process through enhanced rock weathering and similar technologies is quite practical. The challenge is that one would need to purchase such carbon offsets in a way that isn't prone to rampant fraud.
  - blitzar 2y ago
    The founders cant hear you telling them "told you so" over the roar of their Gulfstream engines.
- lovethevoid 2y ago
  Yes, people still regularly repeat the idea that carbon capture is worthwhile. Major tech companies invested in carbon capture projects (such as Google earlier this year with $35m investment into CCS).
- protastus 2y ago
  Irrespective of the popular sentiment towards oil companies, CCS is a major component of climate policy towards net zero by 2050, and the article points out why the current trajectory needs significant and time-sensitive improvements.
aeturnum 2y ago
The take I have heard is that carbon capture, in theory, is an important part of dealing with emissions from sectors which don't have a realistic carbon-neutral alternative (i.e. smelting). However, the main problem is that the "impact" of carbon capture is mostly accounting tricks and not actually, you know, capturing the carbon. The LaBarge facility mentioned in this article is a great example - where the carbon "captured" was mostly used to extract more fossil fuels from the ground. Given that sorry state of the existing facilities, we've committed a truly embarrassing amount of public funding to the tech. That said, my understanding is that we really could use a working form of carbon capture to make the math work around the edges of reduction targets. It's a bit of a double scam: where oil companies have diverted money away from developing a technology we actually need and also where we've diverted money away from areas that are much more important overall to invest in a scam.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Big Oil has always had a huge vested interest in CCS because it allows them to continue producing fossil fuels (which, by virtue of being captured, become less of a threat).
- euroderf 2y ago
  OTOH if the world could find a market price for CO2 capture, maybe taxes on fossil fuels could be tied to that price ? It would make them expensive(r) fer sher.
  - rickydroll 2y ago
    You don't need a market price for CO2 capture. Treat carbon taxes like VAT. Pick a dollar value for each ton of CO2 produced. Charge the producer of that CO2 a carbon tax. Sometimes, you want to tax after the producer, and sometimes, you want to tax a producer indirectly. For example, it would be almost impossible to tax individuals for transportation CO2, but you use a bulk carbon tax on energy sources as a reasonable proxy for end-user-produced CO2. A carbon tax is regressive because it affects poor people much more than rich people. One way to fix that is to provide a progressive CO2 tax rebate. Based on your income, you get your theoretical carbon tax back; the amount decreases as income/wealth increases.
triceratops 2y ago
If carbon capture is a fantasy, and we aren't banning air travel and cement production worldwide tomorrow, then there really is no hope. Can we even get to carbon neutral without carbon capture that works at scale? While keeping in mind that that the true goal is carbon negative, in order to reverse the damage wreaked over the past century. Of course, the fossil fuel industry's idea of carrying on business as usual offset by carbon capture is a total delusion.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > then there really is no hope. Yep, solutions involving austerity are a non-starter. In particular if you have no plan to help the third world develop beyond it's current state they will never cooperate with your ideology. > reverse the damage wreaked over the past century. We also accomplished quite a bit and cleaned and improved a lot of land over the last century. > the fossil fuel industry's idea of carrying on business as usual The business and all users of the product have changed significantly over the past several decades. New forms of energy are being developed and earnestly deployed. Progress is always slow. It's unlikely we will be finished in our lifetimes, but that's hardly any reason to abandon hope.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > if you have no plan to help the third world develop beyond it's current state Developed countries should help developing countries leapfrog the fossil fuel stage. They should subsidize a massive buildout of solar, wind, geothermal, batteries, and some nuclear and hydro. Standing around pointing fingers doesn't help anyone. > your ideology. Not everything you disagree with is an "ideology". > We also accomplished quite a bit and cleaned and improved a lot of land over the last century. We also ruined and destroyed a lot of land over the last century. I love economic progress, modern comforts, and modern medicine. But let's honestly acknowledge it has had downsides.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > help developing countries leapfrog the fossil fuel stage. Yes and food should be free. Why is this not happening then? > Standing around pointing fingers doesn't help anyone. Standing around and promulgating unworkable ideas is no better. This is a forum. We are here to discuss. If you want to "help anyone" you are in entirely the wrong place. > Not everything you disagree with is an "ideology". We can agree about the problems. The solutions are almost always ideological. My opposition is rooted in a different ideology. There's nothing wrong with this; however, trying to convince people to hamstring themselves for the sake of my ideas is likely to fail. For what I hope are obvious reasons. I'm thinking of ways to actually solve the problem with realistic strategies. I tend to do this whenever the "climate doom and gloom" set come out of the woodwork and broadcast their hopeless message in a backwards effort to "look cool." The deep irony, of course, is they all do this from the developed world and probably have never been to the places I'm thinking of. > We also ruined and destroyed a lot of land over the last century. Obviously. There's no point in examining this outside of questioning "was it worth it?" To which I've clearly answered "yes, and I think you're a bit deluded if you insist otherwise."
m0llusk 2y ago
This argument is limited to use of CCS to support fossil fuel use. Unrelated projects such as using algae to sequester atmospheric carbon as are being tried in Israel and South Africa are showing great promise. It is unfortunate that oil industry critics are so fixated on their limited goals that they can't be bothered to take care with their language or pay attention to what else is going on.
- ghouse 2y ago
  The algae, forest, and other capture projects do not appear to sequester, on a geologic time scale, the atmospheric carbon. Even the sequestering of carbon through enhanced oil recovery is of uncertain time scale.
xracy 2y ago
At this point, my smell test is "how much does the 'solution' smell of gas money." and if it does, I assume they don't want to do the hard work required cause it's not in their interests, and it hasn't been for decades. (ahem Carbon offsets) In practice it's so much harder to debunk these solutions because we don't have good ways of dealing with bad-faith actors. The non-dismissive way to view Carbon Capture is this: Carbon Capture will be relevant when we actually reach zero emissions, and not a minute sooner. Until then, it is at best, creative accounting that does nothing, and at worst actively preventing electrification. The thought experiment I remember giving me clarity on this is: Imagine you have a solar plant that is fully dedicated to removing carbon from the atmosphere. 100 times out of 100, you would rather just stop the emissions at the source by making the emitter use the green energy. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJslrTT-Yhc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJslrTT-Yhc
- snehk 2y ago
  > when we actually reach zero emissions Where does this mindset come from that this is necessary? There's no data to back this up.
  - xracy 2y ago
    That what's necessary? Zero emissions? OR that Carbon Capture is necessary when we reach it? Zero emissions seems necessary to stop climate change escalating. Carbon Capture seems necessary when we get to Zero emissions to attempt to reverse course.
- soco 2y ago
  But why not having both? When we reach zero emissions having also a battle tested carbon capture solution can only be beneficial, right? It's not like we have a zero sum game. Where I must agree with you that often I see this as greenwashing, oil companies push on with pollution while also gaslighting us with some half-assed capture solution...
  - xracy 2y ago
    I think as long as gas companies have a place to hide in greenwashing, they're going to do it. Maybe carbon capture is a fine thing to invest in, but I can tell you that as long as it's on the table, the other options aren't going to get as much investment as they should.

54 points by blueflow 2y ago

bongdudebrah 2y ago

Did they though? I have never met anyone who thought oil companies were helping the environment in any way.

blueflow 2y ago
A while ago carbon capture startups were somewhat known on HN. I remember because i argued under seemingly each of them that their concept is not sound in terms of thermodynamics. So when i saw this VOX article, i felt the need to post this here a la "told you so".
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  Well it is obviously going to take energy to reverse the process. I do not think any of them have argued differently. I am bullish on some kind of fuel-from-air technology gaining widespread adoption. Something to act as a sink to the increasingly glut of “free” renewable energy (assuming they can beat out the crypto miners). As far as I know, it is strictly a matter of price, there is no technological reason why it cannot work.
  - CapstanRoller 2y ago
    >there is no technological reason why it cannot work There is, however, a big thermodynamics reason: EROEI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
      I do not understand the argument. Historically you were describing harvesting some resource (oil from the ground, sun from the sky, wind from the air, etc) and calculating your return. Carbon capture is about taking energy today and converting it into a different form of stored energy. Energy conversion is not lossless -you end up with less embodied energy than you started. Who cares? If you are taking overproduced solar and turning it into methane/ammonia, you can now “store sunlight” for night or seasonal grid backup in winter. It comes down to economics. Electricity is less valuable than a combustible fuel in several contexts.
      - CapstanRoller 2y ago
        >If you are taking overproduced solar and turning it into methane/ammonia And that overproduced solar is made using... petroleum. The argument is very simple: we're basically just burning up oil with extra steps, then pretending the intermediate products can somehow undo the damage caused by burning up that oil (and now claiming that we're getting fuel back!) aka "extend and pretend" We need to stop putting that carbon into the atmosphere, because the reality is that the process isn't reversible on human timescales. The only answer seems to be degrowth, but asking for negative GDP is basically heresy.
        foobarkey 2y ago
        Your math is bonkers somewhere, solar panels can for sure capture more energy than ehat we used to produce them
        CapstanRoller 2y ago
        >Your math is bonkers somewhere Not my math. Industry's math. And it's bonkers because "green products" have to sell, electric cars have to sell, etc. The economy has to keep growing. Big Line has to keep going up. What doesn't sell, but might actually help us get out of this mess? Mass transit, dense subsidized housing, remote work, degrowth (negative GDP). None of this stuff sells, especially the last one. >they can I'm not arguing hypotheticals here https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2023/7/3/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-will-admit https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2023/7/3/solar-pa...
    - foobarkey 2y ago
      True but it’s also OK if EROEI is less than one when using renewables (think solar in africa) In fact ROI is more important to focus on, given solar panels last 20 years and the cost of installation is covered in 10 years, it will create profit for 10 (oversimplifying). Then the methane can be converted to LNG and transported by ship to Europe/US or somewhere else
      - CapstanRoller 2y ago
        Wait, who is talking about profit? You can make "profit" appear anywhere by playing with spreadsheets. Spreadsheets do not reflect the actual reality of our rapidly-heating planet and dying biosphere, though.
        foobarkey 2y ago
        If you haven’t noticed we got into this mess by chasing profit, the best chance to get out of it is to make carbon capture economically viable that’s why making money is important part of the puzzle. Alternatively some sort of world government or dictatorship would work too, but in democratic/capitalist society the problem wont get solved unless someone can make the moneys
        CapstanRoller 2y ago
        >the best chance to get out of it is to make carbon capture economically viable Same energy as "yeah we got addicted to heroin, and the best way of getting out of this mess is to subsidize heroin so we can keep buying" How about not putting that carbon into the atmosphere in the first place? Oops, that upsets The Big Line. >democratic/capitalist The fact that you put these words together with that symbol clearly demonstrates that you Just Don't Get It. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." — Upton Sinclair, probably
  - Swizec 2y ago
    > As far as I know, it is strictly a matter of price, there is no technological reason why it cannot work Trees, bogs, and permafrost are already super efficient at carbon capture. This is more of a culture/incentives problem than a technology problem. Plant forests, cut them down, turn them into housing or whatever. Voila: carbon captured for the next 50 or so years. People would love to pay you for cheaper abundant lumber.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      Trees, bogs and permafrost are < 0.1% efficient at turning photons into fuel. A solar cell is >20% efficient at turning photons into electricity.
      - Swizec 2y ago
        I didn't say fuel. I said carbon sequestration :) > Peatlands are the largest natural terrestrial carbon store. They store more carbon than all other vegetation types in the world combined. Damaged peatlands are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for almost 5% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-climate-change https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-cl... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/21/headway/peat-carbon-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/21/headway/peat-... Also burning the stuff negates the carbon capture part.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        A quarter inch of lime will sequester as much carbon per acre as your peatland. The numbers don't work for using plants for sequestration. 1-3% of the world's land is urbanized, the rest is either already green or doesn't support extensive plant life. We can increase the green land area number, but not substantially. We can release thousands of years worth of carbon sequestration in a peat bog in a few days by destroying the bogs. We don't have thousands of years to put it back. The economics don't work for industrial sequestration. The numbers don't work for green sequestration. Our only choice is to stop putting the carbon into the atmosphere in the first place.
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    I have a great idea for a startup which bioengineers a solar-powered carbon capture system. These systems would capture carbon and embed it in cellulose. That cellulose could then be used for a variety of purposes: as a building material, fuel source, etc. We could engineer these systems to be very aesthetically pleasing, with colorful 'leaves' and various types of cellulose layers of different colors and hardness. They'd be useful as shade structures, and they could also have other uses such as preventing soil erosion.
    - repelsteeltje 2y ago
      But what would happen to those cellulose machines long term? What might large quantities of the residue look like if left buried for, say, a couple million years? Might well prove to be a valuable resource for large scale energy production in a distant future!
    - travisporter 2y ago
      https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2022/07/24/terraform-industries-whitepaper/ https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2022/07/24/terrafo... The section titled ”Tree. You’ve invented a tree.” may be of interest to you. Also the late David mackay has a great chapter in his book about this
  - orthecreedence 2y ago
    I feel the same. I think overall it'd be cheaper to make fuels for ICE from air than to trash and rebuild every single vehicle. We probably need fusion energy to make that a reality though.
- lumost 2y ago
  My understanding is that carbon capture at the time of emissions is extraordinarily difficult/impossible. However accelerating the carbon capture process through enhanced rock weathering and similar technologies is quite practical. The challenge is that one would need to purchase such carbon offsets in a way that isn't prone to rampant fraud.
- blitzar 2y ago
  The founders cant hear you telling them "told you so" over the roar of their Gulfstream engines.
lovethevoid 2y ago
Yes, people still regularly repeat the idea that carbon capture is worthwhile. Major tech companies invested in carbon capture projects (such as Google earlier this year with $35m investment into CCS).
protastus 2y ago
Irrespective of the popular sentiment towards oil companies, CCS is a major component of climate policy towards net zero by 2050, and the article points out why the current trajectory needs significant and time-sensitive improvements.

aeturnum 2y ago

The take I have heard is that carbon capture, in theory, is an important part of dealing with emissions from sectors which don't have a realistic carbon-neutral alternative (i.e. smelting). However, the main problem is that the "impact" of carbon capture is mostly accounting tricks and not actually, you know, capturing the carbon. The LaBarge facility mentioned in this article is a great example - where the carbon "captured" was mostly used to extract more fossil fuels from the ground. Given that sorry state of the existing facilities, we've committed a truly embarrassing amount of public funding to the tech. That said, my understanding is that we really could use a working form of carbon capture to make the math work around the edges of reduction targets. It's a bit of a double scam: where oil companies have diverted money away from developing a technology we actually need and also where we've diverted money away from areas that are much more important overall to invest in a scam.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Big Oil has always had a huge vested interest in CCS because it allows them to continue producing fossil fuels (which, by virtue of being captured, become less of a threat).

euroderf 2y ago
OTOH if the world could find a market price for CO2 capture, maybe taxes on fossil fuels could be tied to that price ? It would make them expensive(r) fer sher.
- rickydroll 2y ago
  You don't need a market price for CO2 capture. Treat carbon taxes like VAT. Pick a dollar value for each ton of CO2 produced. Charge the producer of that CO2 a carbon tax. Sometimes, you want to tax after the producer, and sometimes, you want to tax a producer indirectly. For example, it would be almost impossible to tax individuals for transportation CO2, but you use a bulk carbon tax on energy sources as a reasonable proxy for end-user-produced CO2. A carbon tax is regressive because it affects poor people much more than rich people. One way to fix that is to provide a progressive CO2 tax rebate. Based on your income, you get your theoretical carbon tax back; the amount decreases as income/wealth increases.

triceratops 2y ago

If carbon capture is a fantasy, and we aren't banning air travel and cement production worldwide tomorrow, then there really is no hope. Can we even get to carbon neutral without carbon capture that works at scale? While keeping in mind that that the true goal is carbon negative, in order to reverse the damage wreaked over the past century. Of course, the fossil fuel industry's idea of carrying on business as usual offset by carbon capture is a total delusion.

akira2501 2y ago
> then there really is no hope. Yep, solutions involving austerity are a non-starter. In particular if you have no plan to help the third world develop beyond it's current state they will never cooperate with your ideology. > reverse the damage wreaked over the past century. We also accomplished quite a bit and cleaned and improved a lot of land over the last century. > the fossil fuel industry's idea of carrying on business as usual The business and all users of the product have changed significantly over the past several decades. New forms of energy are being developed and earnestly deployed. Progress is always slow. It's unlikely we will be finished in our lifetimes, but that's hardly any reason to abandon hope.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > if you have no plan to help the third world develop beyond it's current state Developed countries should help developing countries leapfrog the fossil fuel stage. They should subsidize a massive buildout of solar, wind, geothermal, batteries, and some nuclear and hydro. Standing around pointing fingers doesn't help anyone. > your ideology. Not everything you disagree with is an "ideology". > We also accomplished quite a bit and cleaned and improved a lot of land over the last century. We also ruined and destroyed a lot of land over the last century. I love economic progress, modern comforts, and modern medicine. But let's honestly acknowledge it has had downsides.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > help developing countries leapfrog the fossil fuel stage. Yes and food should be free. Why is this not happening then? > Standing around pointing fingers doesn't help anyone. Standing around and promulgating unworkable ideas is no better. This is a forum. We are here to discuss. If you want to "help anyone" you are in entirely the wrong place. > Not everything you disagree with is an "ideology". We can agree about the problems. The solutions are almost always ideological. My opposition is rooted in a different ideology. There's nothing wrong with this; however, trying to convince people to hamstring themselves for the sake of my ideas is likely to fail. For what I hope are obvious reasons. I'm thinking of ways to actually solve the problem with realistic strategies. I tend to do this whenever the "climate doom and gloom" set come out of the woodwork and broadcast their hopeless message in a backwards effort to "look cool." The deep irony, of course, is they all do this from the developed world and probably have never been to the places I'm thinking of. > We also ruined and destroyed a lot of land over the last century. Obviously. There's no point in examining this outside of questioning "was it worth it?" To which I've clearly answered "yes, and I think you're a bit deluded if you insist otherwise."

m0llusk 2y ago

This argument is limited to use of CCS to support fossil fuel use. Unrelated projects such as using algae to sequester atmospheric carbon as are being tried in Israel and South Africa are showing great promise. It is unfortunate that oil industry critics are so fixated on their limited goals that they can't be bothered to take care with their language or pay attention to what else is going on.

ghouse 2y ago
The algae, forest, and other capture projects do not appear to sequester, on a geologic time scale, the atmospheric carbon. Even the sequestering of carbon through enhanced oil recovery is of uncertain time scale.

xracy 2y ago

At this point, my smell test is "how much does the 'solution' smell of gas money." and if it does, I assume they don't want to do the hard work required cause it's not in their interests, and it hasn't been for decades. (ahem Carbon offsets) In practice it's so much harder to debunk these solutions because we don't have good ways of dealing with bad-faith actors. The non-dismissive way to view Carbon Capture is this: Carbon Capture will be relevant when we actually reach zero emissions, and not a minute sooner. Until then, it is at best, creative accounting that does nothing, and at worst actively preventing electrification. The thought experiment I remember giving me clarity on this is: Imagine you have a solar plant that is fully dedicated to removing carbon from the atmosphere. 100 times out of 100, you would rather just stop the emissions at the source by making the emitter use the green energy. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJslrTT-Yhc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJslrTT-Yhc

snehk 2y ago
> when we actually reach zero emissions Where does this mindset come from that this is necessary? There's no data to back this up.
- xracy 2y ago
  That what's necessary? Zero emissions? OR that Carbon Capture is necessary when we reach it? Zero emissions seems necessary to stop climate change escalating. Carbon Capture seems necessary when we get to Zero emissions to attempt to reverse course.
soco 2y ago
But why not having both? When we reach zero emissions having also a battle tested carbon capture solution can only be beneficial, right? It's not like we have a zero sum game. Where I must agree with you that often I see this as greenwashing, oil companies push on with pollution while also gaslighting us with some half-assed capture solution...
- xracy 2y ago
  I think as long as gas companies have a place to hide in greenwashing, they're going to do it. Maybe carbon capture is a fine thing to invest in, but I can tell you that as long as it's on the table, the other options aren't going to get as much investment as they should.