Not saying carbon capture will never work, but so far, well…
-
@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
-
@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.
