Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
Obviously...
-
@thomasfuchs I'll say it then: carbon capture and storage will never work.
Storing it as a gas underground makes no sense whatsoever.
Converting it to other forms takes more energy than we get from turning it into a gas in the first place.
I can always be proven wrong but as things are I am 100% confident that the way forward is to treat it as a laughable form of greenwashing by the most evil lobbies on the planet.
@renardboy
It will never be profitable whatsoever but I think we need to capture and convert it. And invest the energy. It's the best method to make sure this is not getting back into the atmosphere.I don't see it as a valuable business, more like a necessity to keep us all alive.
@thomasfuchs -
@renardboy
It will never be profitable whatsoever but I think we need to capture and convert it. And invest the energy. It's the best method to make sure this is not getting back into the atmosphere.I don't see it as a valuable business, more like a necessity to keep us all alive.
@thomasfuchs@momo @thomasfuchs Perhaps. To this end I'd say gassify biomass in retorts, use the creosote as a wood preservative for railroad ties and such, use the gas for fuel, and crush the charcoal to use it as soil amendment.
But before biomass as fuel can even be considered we must reduce our energy use by like an order of magnitude.
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs this is a great chart, do you have a link to the source?
-
@thomasfuchs yeah I'm all for cleaning up the atmosphere and ideally as fast as possible but it boggles the mind people prioritise it over *stopping setting it on fire*
@zbrown @thomasfuchs and it'll be orders of magnitude more expensive to cleanup later, if even possible, not burning it is incredibly economical.
-
@thomasfuchs one of the best solutions for carbon capture is to build out of wood instead of concrete.
Producing cement uses a lot of energy and is one of the largest sources of CO₂, while building with wood is not only more energy efficient but also stores carbon and makes buildings easier to recycle.
There are a lot of really exciting things happening and all it took was a planetary catastrophe taken to the brink, a petroclass revealed as pedophiles and leeches, an empire brought to its knees by its own hubris, and 40-50C days all over the world, 30 days a year.
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs the solar panel one is in ACX's "sigmoid misidentification hall of shame" https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-sigmoids-wont-save-you
-
@thomasfuchs The first part, before anything else, is to eliminate use of fossil fuels. There is no amount of effort we can invest in sequestration that would not be better invested in reducing fossil fuel use in the first place.
@renardboy @thomasfuchs yes this.
Stop pissing on the floor before trying to make a robot cleaning fast enough that the piss doesn't stain the floor
We really did good when we replaced and reworked the CFC gases everywhere we could, and with strong incentives (legal and monetary). And now that some solutions are technically in reach, but only need to be deployed at scale + stopping the ancient. The LAST people to be followed should be the oil industry
(I'm glossing over some hard industries reliant on oil, but on the energy front, nuclear, wind, solar could replace most of the 80% of oil to be burned) -
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs "You are justified to keep going" graph they all pray will take off.
vs
"You can be replaced" graph they are afraid of and keep trying to minimize.
-
Anyway we need both at some point, but solar (and wind, etc) is way more important for now because it directly replaces emissions.
Hopefully we figure out the other part eventually.
@thomasfuchs And electrifying everything. Transport, heatpumps, etc. - much more energy efficient.
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs when people say carbon capture I hear "we'll refreeze the glaciers"
-
@thomasfuchs it works, as it allows politicians to justify their plans to emit more than the planet can take, which was the thing's whole purpose
@ehproque @thomasfuchs, not so much their plans to emit more as their lack of plans not to punt the problem to whoever's elected next as it's too much of a long-term thing…
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs
> Actual carbon storageWe used to have a good CO₂ storage in the Amazonian and other old forests. We oughta bring 'em back. And the cheapest CO₂ storage is for CO₂ not produced from the fossil fuels.
As for the chart: it proves CCS is a scam. I'd like to see __actual__ price per metric ton of CO₂ stored, considering taxpayer money put into the "storage facilities".
Diret grants from EU Innovation Fund to CCS rose from €1bn in 2021 to €3bn in 2025. Tax "reliefs" for BigOil "R&D" are magnitude higher.
-
@thomasfuchs this is a great chart, do you have a link to the source?
@nimro @thomasfuchs
The solar power part looks like the IEA's annually-updated World Energy Outlook projections.I don't immediately recognise the CCS data but suspect that's from the IEA too; here's a recent report of theirs; compare "announced" to "operational".
-
@violetmadder @thomasfuchs Absolutely true, but we can't increase that meaningfully, so relying on that as a solution to the increased emissions since the industrial revolution makes no sense whatsoever.
We can absolutely increase that, VERY meaningfully.
First off, cease to destroy it.
Then, use the amount of resources currently being pissed into atrocities like data centers and war, instead for massive landscape rehabilitation projects. For example:
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
No mining or drilling ... no transportation ... no refining ...
no wars ... no Straits to block ... little waste to bury ...just free energy produced by the nuclear reactor in the sky.
Just grab it and go ...
Well ....... DERP!! -
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs To put the two charts on the same scale: 2,000 terawatt-hours of solar corresponds to around 1,000 megatonnes of avoided CO2 emissions from a fossil fuel-rich electrical grid. More if it's mostly coal.
-
Anyway we need both at some point, but solar (and wind, etc) is way more important for now because it directly replaces emissions.
Hopefully we figure out the other part eventually.
@thomasfuchs it’s not more important for now, they just produce money which carbon capture does not. Changing to renewables won’t disappear infinite growth needs (capitalism leitmotiv), which is the root of all current problems. Besides to produce solar pannels and wind turbines you need to keep on burning fossil fuels.
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs carbon capture brought to you by Intel Itanium
