Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C

cicero.oslo.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 221 posts

Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C

#31

Post by hurricanetc »

caf wrote: post #22
hurricanetc wrote: post #21

CCS is absolutely going to be necessary. So is nuclear. What is the renewable alternative for the cement, steel, shipping, and aviation industries? Environmentalists need to get out of their own way and stop treating good as the enemy of perfect. Some progress is better than no progress. All technologies and approaches will be required. https://mobile.twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/11948866002552...

For steel, it's hydrogen direct reduction. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261...

That process is entirely electric and so the benefits depend completely on the energy provider, is 10 years away from actually-maybe happening, and requires CCS to be carbon neutral. The last bit is the most relevant to this particular discussion.

Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C

#32

Post by hannob »

Valgrim wrote: post #30
natch wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the reference to cement supposed to indicate here?

Cement releases CO2 as part of it's chemical curing process. It contributes to about 8% of worldwide emissions. Another industry where CO2 as a chemical byproduct is vented at a massive scale in the atmosphere is with the steel industry. Both are good targets for carbon capture at the source.

> Cement releases CO2 as part of it's chemical curing process. It contributes to about 8% of worldwide emissions.

Just to nitpick here, but I think this is crucial to understand: 8% is more plausibly a number for the total emissions of cement, including energy emissions. The chemical emissions are more in the range of 4%.

Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C

#33

Post by bamboozled »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #25
leoedin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This relies on the right sort of rock. Is it ubiquitous enough that we can account for meaningful amounts of carbon sequestration?

Yes, by many orders of magnitude, to capture not just all existing emissions but the emissions that results from burning of all the fossil fuels on the planet.

Have you read about this! Curious about what others think!

Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C

#34

Post by hannob »

hurricanetc wrote: post #31
caf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For steel, it's hydrogen direct reduction. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261...

That process is entirely electric and so the benefits depend completely on the energy provider, is 10 years away from actually-maybe happening, and requires CCS to be carbon neutral. The last bit is the most relevant to this particular discussion.

> requires CCS to be carbon neutral

Why would that be? Hydrogen doesn't contain any carbon. If you produce the hydrogen from electrolysis and the electricity from renewables the process would be carbon free. (You can still argue that there are emissions in construction and such, but I don't think that's what you meant.)

Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C

#36

Post by [deleted] »

natch wrote: post #29
algo_trader wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2019 we built ~500 large renewable energy projects. Total 180GW, or about 2 per day. We can and should built about x2-x3 more. Current bottlenecks is NIMBY, competing fossil assets, and transmission. It will be hard, so feel "ill but hopeful".

The numbers were referring to carbon capture and sequestration projects, not renewable energy projects. Both help with getting carbon out of the atmosphere. But they are not the same thing. Energy projects generally produce or help deliver energy for the locale that creates and funds them. That means there is political will for them, locally. CCS projects benefit the global climate, but not the local taxpayers direct…

[deleted]

Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C

#37

Post by Swenrekcah »

algo_trader wrote: post #11

CC will probably never happen on the large scale. It is inherently inefficient and a final, last resort. Preventing emissions: Renewable electricity. EVs. Hydrogen. Synthetic food stuffs. Etc Handling the last 5%-10%: tax carbon, and allow nature to recover (rain forests, fisheries, natural bio-mass, etc). The idea of carbon capture while some developing country is cutting down forests is bizarre. Luckily population…

Regardless of the method priority rank, all carbon emissions should be taxed starting yesterday. If an imported item can not be proven to be carbon taxed already then tax it in customs.

The taxation should be revenue neutral, that is every cent gained is redistributed to the people, or some part of it to carbon capturing projects.

Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C

#38

Post by [deleted] »

revax wrote: post #28
algo_trader wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2019 we built ~500 large renewable energy projects. Total 180GW, or about 2 per day. We can and should built about x2-x3 more. Current bottlenecks is NIMBY, competing fossil assets, and transmission. It will be hard, so feel "ill but hopeful".

What does a "renewable energy project" means?

[deleted]

Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C

#39

Post by johnmorrison »

phs318u wrote: post #2

It'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".

I think looking at the total rate is naturally going to feel heavy.

Instead, consider this: per country on average, that rate is between one every 4 years, and 2 every year, until 2050.

That's not bad at all.

Re: Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C

#40

Post by tonyedgecombe »

hannob wrote: post #32
Valgrim wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cement releases CO2 as part of it's chemical curing process. It contributes to about 8% of worldwide emissions. Another industry where CO2 as a chemical byproduct is vented at a massive scale in the atmosphere is with the steel industry. Both are good targets for carbon capture at the source.

> Cement releases CO2 as part of it's chemical curing process. It contributes to about 8% of worldwide emissions. Just to nitpick here, but I think this is crucial to understand: 8% is more plausibly a number for the total emissions of cement, including energy emissions. The chemical emissions are more in the range of 4%.

I'm not sure it would even be practical to capture the carbon emitted during the curing process as this is happening at it's final destination rather than during manufacture.
Post reply on HN