Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C
1–10 of 221 posts
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C
#2It's worth pointing out the "omg" math moment in this paper. According to various mitigation scenarios modelled, the amount of CCS required (in addition to other mitigating approaches) requires the construction of an "average typical" CCS facility at a rate of between one a week, and one a day, until 2050.
I'm not sure how to describe how this makes me feel, other than "ill".
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C
#3It's worth pointing out the "omg" math moment in this paper. According to various mitigation scenarios modelled, the amount of CCS required (in addition to other mitigating approaches) requires the construction of an "average typical" CCS facility at a rate of between one a week, and one a day, until 2050. I'm not sure how to describe how this makes me feel, other than "ill".
Another thing is where will all that energy required to break down CO2 come from. It's so bizarre that you hear so little about that, almost like nobody can do simple accounting on Joules:
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C
#4It's worth pointing out the "omg" math moment in this paper. According to various mitigation scenarios modelled, the amount of CCS required (in addition to other mitigating approaches) requires the construction of an "average typical" CCS facility at a rate of between one a week, and one a day, until 2050. I'm not sure how to describe how this makes me feel, other than "ill".
Another thing is where will all that energy required to break down CO2 come from. It's so bizarre that you hear so little about that, almost like nobody can do simple accounting on Joules: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
Isn't the lack of that energy the reason for proposing storage in the first place?
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C
#5It's worth pointing out the "omg" math moment in this paper. According to various mitigation scenarios modelled, the amount of CCS required (in addition to other mitigating approaches) requires the construction of an "average typical" CCS facility at a rate of between one a week, and one a day, until 2050. I'm not sure how to describe how this makes me feel, other than "ill".
It has been widely reported than China is to build a Coronavirus treatment hospital in Wuhan in six days to manage the treatment of people with said virus.
This article is suggesting that we ought to treat climate change with a similar degree of alarm and urgency. This is not happening, therefore we should start preparing for the probable scenarios, not the improbable ones.
“To get to net-zero emissions, the residual emissions must be counteracted by CO2 removal to achieve net zero emissions (dark green). Most models do this with afforestation or bioenergy with CCS (BECCS). Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions (such as methane) add to the residual emissions (not shown).”
I'm all for massive afforestation programs, I'm less for BECCS – fight nature with nature I say.
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C
#6It's worth pointing out the "omg" math moment in this paper. According to various mitigation scenarios modelled, the amount of CCS required (in addition to other mitigating approaches) requires the construction of an "average typical" CCS facility at a rate of between one a week, and one a day, until 2050. I'm not sure how to describe how this makes me feel, other than "ill".
Another thing is where will all that energy required to break down CO2 come from. It's so bizarre that you hear so little about that, almost like nobody can do simple accounting on Joules: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
Binding carbon from CO2 does not necessarily cost energy. The reactions CaO -> CaCO3 is exothermic, and the same is true for the equivalent reaction for magnesium, and the reactions forming carbonates from the silicates of those metals. Eroding volcanic rock naturally pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere, as erosion slowly reveals metals that were reduced by the volcanic heat. This process is naturally quite slow, but it can be sped up, for example, by fracking basaltic rocks and feeding carbonated water in them.
The pilot project for was ran in Iceland and was successful enough to lead to both constructing a full-scale plant and scaling the process out to multiple different locations in Europe. The current main open problem is substituting seawater for fresh water for the process (Using a lot of fresh water is not exactly a problem in Iceland, but presents challenges for scaling the process out).
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C
#7It's worth pointing out the "omg" math moment in this paper. According to various mitigation scenarios modelled, the amount of CCS required (in addition to other mitigating approaches) requires the construction of an "average typical" CCS facility at a rate of between one a week, and one a day, until 2050. I'm not sure how to describe how this makes me feel, other than "ill".
Another thing is where will all that energy required to break down CO2 come from. It's so bizarre that you hear so little about that, almost like nobody can do simple accounting on Joules: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
Very true. I may email the researchers of this report about this, surely they've spent time thinking about this.
(More recent stats)
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-prod...
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption...
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C
#8My intuition is that it would be almost always cheaper to pay e.g. Norway and Saudi Arabia to not pump out the captured carbon (in form of fossilized plant matter) in the first place, instead of pumping it out in the form of oil, burning it, then capturing the CO2, liquifying it and finally pumping it back underground where hopefully it doesn't bubble up again. But that would be the problem a world-wide carbon emission trade/carbon tax would solve...
Weirdly, I always see oil nations such as Norway here or Saudi Arabia pushing for CCS, as if this solution would be in their interest... while really reducing CO2 emmissions for them would be as simple as pushing a stop button.
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another thing is where will all that energy required to break down CO2 come from. It's so bizarre that you hear so little about that, almost like nobody can do simple accounting on Joules: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
Binding carbon from CO2 does not necessarily cost energy. The reactions CaO -> CaCO3 is exothermic, and the same is true for the equivalent reaction for magnesium, and the reactions forming carbonates from the silicates of those metals. Eroding volcanic rock naturally pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere, as erosion slowly reveals metals that were reduced by the volcanic heat. This process is naturally quite slow, but it…
This relies on the right sort of rock. Is it ubiquitous enough that we can account for meaningful amounts of carbon sequestration?
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C
#10My intuition is that it would be almost always cheaper to pay e.g. Norway and Saudi Arabia to not pump out the captured carbon (in form of fossilized plant matter) in the first place, instead of pumping it out in the form of oil, burning it, then capturing the CO2, liquifying it and finally pumping it back underground where hopefully it doesn't bubble up again. But that would be the problem a world-wide carbon emissi…
I mean it actually isn’t that simple. In a market with significant inelasticity in demand you’d certainly see the price rise if they pressed the stop button, but the decline in consumption in the short term wouldn’t be as severe. As long as there’s other places to get the product the market would adjust to meet that demand.
Granted in the long term higher prices would help a lot, but a tax at the point of demand/consumption would likely work a whole lot more cleanly.