4 ms·

I’m basing it on things like https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2026.121752 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2026.121752 finding that it’s going to be hard bo

by acdha 2mo ago

I’m basing it on things like https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2026.121752 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2026.121752 finding that it’s going to be hard both to scale up and get past 90% unless we have massive amounts of clean energy available. To me that means that we shouldn’t be approving any new fossil emissions and treating capture / sequestration as a nice bonus if we can make it work rather than something we can count on the make the numbers work. The best thing I see is that economic pressure is mounting: even with Trump breaking so many laws on behalf of the fossil fuel industry, people want to deploy solar or wind power because that saves them money.

LogicFailsMe 2mo ago
From the paper you cite, here's the thing: "The decarbonization of industrial hard-to-abate sectors through CCUS is critical, and that can be illustrated by looking at the target sources, such as the cement industry, accountable for 6–7% of global anthropogenic emissions [1]; or the steel manufacturing value chain, responsible for 7% of global energy-related emissions [2]. Given such dimensions, it can be concluded that carbon capture is critical to achieving CO2 restriction goals." "In the cement industry it is worth highlighting that 60–70% of the total emissions of CO2 does not come from fuel combustion, but from the decomposition of the limestone into calcium oxide and CO2 " So you can't get past 90% in the first place without carbon sequestration. We have the same goal, but we see different paths to achieving it. I think if we do what it takes with carbon sequestration, the free market solves this for real as more and more profitable renewable power generation is stood up. But I do not believe that happens without the fossil fuel incumbents soft landing or finding bagholders to take the hit in the long run. And I won't count on Americans to demand better given all it took was the president to say he hates EVs and EV sales plummeted. Personally, my house is more or less off the grid electrically already with a ton of solar panels and 75 kWH of battery backup. I voted with my wallet.

by acdha 2mo ago

LogicFailsMe 2mo ago

From the paper you cite, here's the thing: "The decarbonization of industrial hard-to-abate sectors through CCUS is critical, and that can be illustrated by looking at the target sources, such as the cement industry, accountable for 6–7% of global anthropogenic emissions [1]; or the steel manufacturing value chain, responsible for 7% of global energy-related emissions [2]. Given such dimensions, it can be concluded that carbon capture is critical to achieving CO2 restriction goals." "In the cement industry it is worth highlighting that 60–70% of the total emissions of CO2 does not come from fuel combustion, but from the decomposition of the limestone into calcium oxide and CO2 " So you can't get past 90% in the first place without carbon sequestration. We have the same goal, but we see different paths to achieving it. I think if we do what it takes with carbon sequestration, the free market solves this for real as more and more profitable renewable power generation is stood up. But I do not believe that happens without the fossil fuel incumbents soft landing or finding bagholders to take the hit in the long run. And I won't count on Americans to demand better given all it took was the president to say he hates EVs and EV sales plummeted. Personally, my house is more or less off the grid electrically already with a ton of solar panels and 75 kWH of battery backup. I voted with my wallet.