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?
@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
-
@thomasfuchs when people say carbon capture I hear "we'll refreeze the glaciers"
@thesquirrelfish @thomasfuchs or the futurama “drop a giant ice cube in the ocean every once in a while” gag
-
@thomasfuchs maybe solar powered carbon capture? (Oh no… I’ve become “tech bro reinvents the tree”)
@angst_ridden @thomasfuchs tbh that could be deployed in areas where for example due to a lack of water afforestation is not possible
after all, photosynthesis, with a net equation of n H2O+n CO2->(CH2O)n+n O2, consumes a tonne and a third of water for each tonne of carbon fixed, plus more that is lost through evapotranspiration
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs carbon capture is supposed to be a post-climate change solution for the future, once the main issues are solved and emission are zero out carbon is taken to produce non oil plastic and revert the emissions of the previous century.
treating it as a solution is like having a broken pipe and trowing sponges at wet floor -
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
-
Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
@thomasfuchs the problem with capturing all the atmospheric carbon is that there's an awful lot of carbon that people dug up, so it'll take a lot of effort and *space* to put it back down there again,
-
@shadows @liiwi @renardboy @thomasfuchs I have recently come back from the Alps, and the largest glacier has been reduced by half. There are huge cracks in the mountains growing millimetre by millimetre as the support from the ice disappears. It is heartbreaking
@connynasch good thing you took the train. Right?
-
@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.
My issue with CC is that it uses these great solutions as an accounting mechanism to shield bad actors. When you rent a wood building/apartment you are increasing demand for a fiat with those intentions. It bastardises any goodwill, further enabling fossil.
-
@DavidM_yeg @thomasfuchs Man, fuck these guys so much.
I seriously cannot understand how someone can be so twisted as to pawn off our children's future like that.
@renardboy @DavidM_yeg @thomasfuchs but they're YOUR children not theirs
-
@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.
@renardboy @momo @thomasfuchs or two
-
@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".
@sheddi @nimro @thomasfuchs It’s here: https://projects.propublica.org/why-carbon-capture-cant-solve-climate-change/
The graphs are by ProPublica, the data is from the IEA, and they discuss it properly at the end*
(* the end of one of those irritating weird-to-scroll feature pages, unfortunately)
-
@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
Yeah, but setting it on fire is soooo much more comfortable. -
@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.
@renardboy
No, you are mistaken. We need the carbon dioxide to get out of the atmosphere and stay out of the atmosphere. That means no conversion into fuel and burn it back into the air.It means turn it into carbon so that it can be stored without gassing out by accident reverting all the capture effort.
Using CO2 from the air for combustion fuel means "This current heat stays as it is". Storing it means "We start to revert the climate catastrophy." and the price tag for that is not measured in costs for capturing, transforming and storing, its measured in extinction prevented.
@thomasfuchs -
@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 @thomasfuchs
Yup. Preventing emissions is 1000x more efficient than capture and storage. If and when we have so much surplus of green energy that we can use it to clean the air, go for it, but otherwise, it's replacing one shitstain with another. -
@sheddi @nimro @thomasfuchs It’s here: https://projects.propublica.org/why-carbon-capture-cant-solve-climate-change/
The graphs are by ProPublica, the data is from the IEA, and they discuss it properly at the end*
(* the end of one of those irritating weird-to-scroll feature pages, unfortunately)
@noctuaminervae thank you!
-
S suneauken@mastodon.world shared this topic
