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

81–90 of 221 posts

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

#81

Post by tonyedgecombe »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #76
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3. The oil and gas industry is well placed to provide CCS services from an engineering perspective. Even without your second point it would be a commercial opportunity for them.

The oil and gas industry might well go bankrupt in the next decade as investors start to anticipate the huge cost of running declining businesses (with declining yields), and account for the trillions of stranded assets. Also, government will ask these companies to pay for the health and environmental cost of all their emissions. The insurance industry will also refuse to support them at some point. Why expect such a…

There is still money to be made in declining industries, tobacco is a good example.

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

#82

Post by Tuna-Fish »

darkmighty wrote: post #44
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By available, do you mean 'It exists on the planet crust', or 'It can be accessed at a significantly lower cost than the forward (breakdown, e.g. the cost of equivalent oil) energy cost?'[1], and if so, do you have sources to back that up? [1] If it costs more, or even not significantly (an order of magnitude at least) less than the cost of oil for equivalent emissions, than the economic proposition is dire. Solution…

The first definitely, the second remains to be proven. You can find most of the relevant scientific articles by searching for 'carbfix' on sciencedirect.

The current results are promising, but there are still challenges to overcome. Notably, the system they run in Iceland absolutely guzzled fresh water, and while this is not a problem in Iceland, it would prevent the scaling up of this project to a true planetary-scale solution. Work is ongoing for figuring out if saltwater would clog up the wells too badly, and how this can be mitigated.

Also, as the carbfix project took in CO2 and H2S as highly concentrated gases, as the direct problem was to get rid of the emissions of a geothermal plant. To scale up to carbon capture from the atmosphere, they'd have to either set up their system to use less concentrated input gases, or figure out a cost-effective method of separating and concentrating CO2 from the atmosphere.

Not saying this is necessarily a silver bullet for all our emissions, just saying that the original concern of the poster I replied to about where the energy to split CO2 it going to come from is not actually as big of a deal as it seems.

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

#83

Post by the8472 »

trickstra wrote: post #68
the8472 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cement releases CO2 as part of it's chemical curing process. It contributes to about 8% of worldwide emissions. There are 2 sources of CO2 during cement manufacture. One is from the decomposition of lime, the other is from the energy production needed to make the process work. The latter could be avoided by electrical heating, a solar furnace or other renewable heat sources. The decomposition part can be compensate…

Could you point me to any of the newer cement chemistries?

silicate and magnesium oxide based ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorel_cement https://www.solidiatech.com/solutions.html

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

#84

Post by greglindahl »

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?

180GW / 500 = 360 megawatts average, does that help set the scale?

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

#86

Post by chrisco255 »

inciampati wrote: post #27
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…

We are at the point of last resort. There is no viable way to solve the distributed problem of carbon emission. People can argue all they want about renewables and regulation. Half the world won't give a damn, and we'll be left where we are. Carbon capture is a much more centralized response. It actually might be possible for a few rich nations to get together and implement systems to drive it at scale. Unfortunately…

We're at historically normal levels of warming. We are cooler now as a planet than we were during the early Neolithic (early Holocene from 10K to 5.5K years ago. Eventually we'll plunge into another glacial period, and no amount of CO2 will stop it.

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

#87

Post by daxfohl »

londons_explore wrote: post #16

People are missing the fact that the oil and gas industry is strongly in favour of CCS for 2 main reasons: 1. It makes extracting and burning oil not so bad - no need to make rules limiting oil extraction, we can simply start some CCS projects. 2. Injecting CO2 into deep oil wells actually helps get more oil out of them. Get the government to pay for CCS, while the oil company profits off increased yields.

If they can run their industry without destroying the world in the process, then is there still a reason for antagonism?

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

#88

Post by falcolas »

mdorazio wrote: post #48

Plug for Project Vesta [1], which I donate to. It's the only energy-practical proposal I've seen so far for real carbon capture aside from replanting a million acres of trees and hoping people don't burn them... again. [1] https://projectvesta.org/

It doesn’t take a person. Forests burn, it’s part of their natural lifecycle. Lightning is one of the biggest starters (once you pull out mankind).

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

#89

Post by rjsw »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #42
londons_explore wrote: post #16

People are missing the fact that the oil and gas industry is strongly in favour of CCS for 2 main reasons: 1. It makes extracting and burning oil not so bad - no need to make rules limiting oil extraction, we can simply start some CCS projects. 2. Injecting CO2 into deep oil wells actually helps get more oil out of them. Get the government to pay for CCS, while the oil company profits off increased yields.

3. The oil and gas industry is well placed to provide CCS services from an engineering perspective. Even without your second point it would be a commercial opportunity for them.

And the oil is still useful as chemical feedstock even if we stopped burning it.

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

#90

Post by paulsutter »

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...

Boston Metal has a new steel process without the carbon emissions, molten oxide electrolysis which uses electricity for energy input. Steel generates about 7 to 9% of carbon globally.

https://www.bostonmetal.com/

Post reply on HN