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

101–110 of 221 posts

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

#101

Post by strainer »

ci5er wrote: post #99

I want to applaud you for making the most vanilla contribution in 114 years. It turns out that everyone who appears to care doesn't give a shit, and CCD doesn't matter, and neither does natural gas. I personally think it is a huge global warming scam - but if I am wrong - go to nukes. They waiting and safe (recently)

Even without CCS fossil can be switched to carbon neutral biomass and syn-gas for that occasional demand which is not economic to meet with oversupplied renewables, hydro and battery storage.

Nuclear promotion desperately ignores that there will be plenty of energy generated most of the time by far more economic solar, wind, hydro and storage. There will be no point to staff and run nuclear's thermal plants most of the time, its simply not a solution for occasional supply deficits.

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

#102

Post by pale-hands »

chrisco255 wrote: post #86
inciampati wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We're at historically normal levels of warming.

Misleading. You have to appeal to pre-history to find temperature levels similar to current.

> Eventually we'll plunge into another glacial period, and no amount of CO2 will stop it.

Eventually, i.e. 10's or 100's of thousands of years, if CO2 levels revert to preindustrial.

You are appealing to timescales of thousands of years, but the timescale relevant to the problem and our response is years and decades. Is your comment intended to minimise the problem of current warming? If so why?

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

#104

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by hedora »

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/

Project Vesta seems too good to be true (planet-scale CO2 removal at $10/ton that also de-acidifies the oceans, and it is already scaling up(?)).

Have any reputable third parties validated their claims?

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

#107

Post by hedora »

blueadept111 wrote: post #79
inciampati wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No viable way? All it takes is a single generation to have 50% less children to cut the world population (and therefore carbon emissions) in half. Not only is it viable, it the solution that will be forced upon humanity if humanity doesn't embrace it on its own terms.

A 50% reduction in CO2 isn’t enough, and even if it were, over half the earth’s population would need to die by ~2030 for that plan to work on time.

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

#108

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

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.

This is the aluminum issue. Creation of new requires a ridiculous amount of electrify.

So... Aluminum ore is shipped from all around the world to Iceland where electrify is super cheap. There it’s smelted and processed.

Then it’s shipped mostly back around the world to China where its processed alloy and sponge, then around the world again if it isn’t rolled, extruded, forged, etc.

So... forgive me, but any process that revolves around adding electricity to a process like this, makes me think “another aluminum”. Where everything side looks over the true costs of shipping things around the world a couple times before they end up in a landfill.

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

#109

Post by hannob »

daxfohl wrote: post #87
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?

The problem is if they create the illusion of not destroying the world while continuing to do so. Which is really a key issue in the CCS debate.

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

#110

Post by hedora »

DenisM wrote: post #74
ianstormtaylor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you’re joking or not, but that is not how it works at all. https://ensia.com/features/methane-landfills/

I’m not joking and my observation does not square with your link. A close friend has taken a tour of a local landfill in WA state and was shown a perfectly preserved months-old banana that was dug out by the presenter from the landfill. Apparently the landfills, at least here, are completely sealed. If a banana stays “fresh” for months a sheet of paper will stay fresh for a century. And be that as it may, suppose we…

Modern landfills have pumps to push oxygen into the garbage to accelerate decomposition.

Without them, newspaper takes >> 50 years to decompose.

Diverting waste paper to a sealed dump would definitely sequester carbon. (But you need to make sure the production of new paper is carbon neutral vs recycling for this to work out).

Post reply on HN