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

51–60 of 221 posts

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

#51

Post by johnmorrison »

the8472 wrote: post #49
johnmorrison wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. We should be able to reach net-zero emissions in the energy industry by around 2040 (optimistic, but realistic target), and even produce enough clean electricity to power clean electric solutions in transport/agriculture/industrial/appliance sectors (which are the other main contributors to net GHG emissions). The only problem is that a lot of this technology is still missing / not adopting fast enough.…

> and even produce enough clean electricity to power clean electric solutions in transport/agriculture/industrial/appliance sectors The agriculture part is overly optimistic. Agriculture entails GHG emissions from deforestation, fertilizer production, ruminant methane, NOx emissions, soil carbon depletion and other secondary effects. It's not like we can solve our problems by electrifying tractors.

> deforestation

There isn't net deforestation globally, though.

> ruminant methane

Yeah, this is one of the hardest ones to fix, but I think lab grown meat will get there eventually. Like I said, I'm not optimistic animal agriculture will have sufficient technology to eliminate most of its emissions in time - that's why we need CCS in the meantime.

My point is, the energy industry will be ready with extra capacity to power clean agriculture solutions when they are ready.

> It's not like we can solve our problems by electrifying tractors.

I don't think that's the route we should go.

Primarily indoor farming seems to be a much better long term route for plants, I prefer if we eventually get rid of most rural farmland and slowly shift it back to nature.

Cover our flat city rooftops with small farms and trees, and produce most plant agriculture indoor very close to the consumer in indoor vertical farms. Controlled environment + indoor climate, more resource efficiency, almost no risk of infections, no need for most of the chemicals we use today.

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

#52

Post by labawi »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #40
hannob wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

AFAIK the usual cement types do not release CO₂ during curing, though a significant amount of CO₂ is released from the ingredients while baking. Sometimes the released CO₂ is reabsorbed when curing (lime).

What type of cement are you talking about?

Reference: http://matse1.matse.illinois.edu/concrete/prin.html

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

#53

Post by acidburnNSA »

algo_trader wrote: post #17
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".

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".

Is that 180GW of capacity or of generation? With renewables these values are often different by ~4x due to intermittency.

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

#54

Post by cagenut »

This article has some good charts and visualizations. Just to add one for context, this is from the IPCC SR15 report 2 years ago:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...

The yellow sections are BECCS, which is basically burning biosmass for energy and then using CCS to capture the co2 from it. That is to say, CCS has already been factored into the models as a necessary assumption for a long time now.

Keep in mind this is completely distinct from using CCS for continued burning of coal/gas/oil, and absolutely not about using it for enhanced oil recovery. Using CCS in those scenarios is like losing money on every unit sold and trying to make it up in volume, its simply bad math.

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

#55

Post by NeedMoreTea »

johnmorrison wrote: post #39
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.

Presuming every country has the same ability to pay. Once you get outside the G20, or top 40, you may well be asking the impossible.

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

#56

Post by pfdietz »

CCS can be a way to keep using fossil fuels for dispatchable supply, in a way that meshes nicely with renewables.

In particular: make hydrogen from the fossil fuel 24/7, store the hydrogen, sequester the CO2, and when needed burn the hydrogen in power plants (or other uses).

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

#57

Post by pfdietz »

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 when lime is made from limestone. The curing of cement absorbs CO2 (less than was released in making the lime).

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

#58

Post by pfdietz »

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...

I very much doubt nuclear is going to be necessary, or even viable. And this is particularly the case if CCS is viable, because that means we can keep pairing renewables, plus fossil (with CCS) to fill in the gaps.

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

#59

Post by labawi »

johnmorrison wrote: post #39
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.

Depends whether you are China or Vatican. Perhaps a per-capita calculation would be more appropriate:

1/day global = 1/day / 7000·1Mp = 1/20y per 1M people; 5/1y per 100M. USA should do a lot more, Africa can get a pass.

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

#60

Post by wott »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #37
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.

> The taxation should be revenue neutral, that is every cent gained is redistributed to the people,

It definitely should not, for almost every such cent is unavoidably re-used in buying something else (and thus keeps on feeding the crazy economic machine), which ends up in energy consumption and carbon emission in a way or another.

Post reply on HN