Live data from Hacker News

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

cicero.oslo.no

111–120 of 221 posts

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

#111

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.

Enhanced recovery isn't carbon sequestration. You're not actually sequestering that much carbon with a C02 flood. That's not why oil companies tend to support CCS.

CO2 is only useful for enhanced recovery in a few scenarios. It only works in non-water-wet reservoirs, which are fairly rare. You wouldn't use it in other cases even if someone was paying you to. (You'd lose vastly more money in lowered recovery factor compared to optimal methods for the reservoir than you'd get paid. Better to use the correct methods and inject C02 into something you're not producing from.)

Big oil companies are in favor of CCS because they're the ones who can do it most effectively and have invested the most R&D in carbon sequestration strategies.

Like it or not, big oil isn't some evil mustache twirling villain. Yes, Exxon has taken some dicey moves with lobbying, but most of the oil industry has been very aware of climate change for quite awhile now and has been heavily investing in ways of tackling it (or at least they were ten years ago when I worked in oil - I assume that's still the case). They're basically waiting on regulatory changes to make it profitable.

The technical challenge right now is efficient C02 capture. We've largely shown that long-term C02 sequestration should work. However, we still don't have a ton of ways to capture carbon at scale that don't involve significant energy expenditures. The whole system needs to be carbon negative to work, and the methods we currently have don't scale terribly well in that regard. (i.e. Carbon capture is most feasible right now during electricity generation and other industrial processes that produce high concentrations of C02. To have a global impact we need to get it to work at atmospheric concentrations.) That's something that actually is a fairly tractable problem, it just needs large scale focus. To get that in our current system, you need to make it economic to capture and sequester carbon.

We, as a society, are still dependent on hydrocarbons for lots of things. We really still can't easily replace them -- we're structured around cheap fuel with a very high energy density. Electric cars certainly help, but they can only replace some uses. We just don't have the technology to replace a large chunk of our current hydrocarbon uses. It's an energy density problem.

You want to change something, change the regulatory system. Regulate C02 as a pollutant, sure. You have to be careful how you implement that, though, or you'll most heavily impact the most venerable portion of the population with price increases. For that reason, cap and trade is also a good approach. So are many of the carbon market strategies. Yeah, some of those ideas come from the conservative side politically -- it doesn't make them ineffective.

Vilifying oil companies just demonstrates ignorance of both the problem and the solutions. Big oil is part of the solution as well.

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

#112
post #98
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nuclear is already viable in countries with sane regulatory environments (France, and hopefully China, given how fast they’re ramping up). The fact that the US market structure and regulators led to unsafe and unprofitable power plants has little to do with the underlying technology.

> Nuclear is already viable in countries with sane regulatory environments (France, and hopefully China, given how fast they’re ramping up).

France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... "A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2019 the project is three times over budget and years behind schedule."

China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China "Nuclear power contributed 4.2% of the total Chinese electricity production in 2018" "China was planning to have 58 GW of capacity by 2020.[3] However, few plants have commenced construction since 2015, and it is now unlikely that this target will be met."

It seems reality doesn't match your beliefs.

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

#113
post #80

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...

>cement, steel Beats me. I think we'll just have to just stop using so much of it. There is likely a decent amount of buildings being completely unused that could be turned into housing. Turn most office jobs into remote jobs. Turn most office buildings into apartments. >shipping, and aviation These options absolutely exist. For aviation, we could simply stop traveling so much and establish a network of electric cars…

[deleted]

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

#114
post #109
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a big "if" though. "If" our infrastructure is good enough that oil+CCS is more efficient and no more destructive than alt energy methods, then is there still a need for alt energy?

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

#115
CCS technology is uneconomic. Like incredibly uneconomic. Like, the last thing you would pay for after doing all other possible things. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/gillingham_sto... https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-will-it-cost-to-mitigate...

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

#116
post #111

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.

Enhanced recovery isn't carbon sequestration. You're not actually sequestering that much carbon with a C02 flood. That's not why oil companies tend to support CCS. CO2 is only useful for enhanced recovery in a few scenarios. It only works in non-water-wet reservoirs, which are fairly rare. You wouldn't use it in other cases even if someone was paying you to. (You'd lose vastly more money in lowered recovery factor co…

"The technical challenge right now is efficient C02 capture. We've largely shown that long-term C02 sequestration should work. However, we still don't have a ton of ways to capture carbon at scale that don't involve significant energy expenditures. The whole system needs to be carbon negative to work ..."

Thank you for this interesting contribution ... I agree that the full-lifecycle accounting of CO2 and the requirement that the entire cycle come out carbon negative is the really challenging part.

I would go a step further: I am skeptical of carbon sequestration in gaseous form. Call me timid, but I wouldn't want to make high stakes bets on gas staying in the places where we put it. Instead, I would like to see a reaction that converts the CO2 to a solid form (chalk ?) that is stable in physical form.

I believe that weird seed-the-oceans-with-iron-dust proposal accomplishes, roughly, the same thing - carbon sequestered in a solid, stable form.

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

#117

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/

I was quite curious about this project a while back. But I later talked to an academic, a friend who happens to be an expert in the kinds of reaction kinetics the project relies on. His view was that they are not using the correct reaction rates in their calculations. He said they were linearly extrapolating existing data, when in reality it is a non-linear relationship. So my understanding is that their reaction rates still need to be empirically validated. Disappointingly, my friend had no faith that this would ever work - although academics have of course been wrong before. Regardless, I'm very interested to see how this project plays out.

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

#118

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.

Not that I'm a fan of the oil/gas industry, but the beneficial effects of cheap energy (virtually free in the case of natural gas in the US) shouldn't be overlooked, particularly if we can offset their negative consequences.

Climate change must be addressed and I'm all for clean energy (as in a significant portion of my portfolio is in clean energy ETFs, and I'm actually shorting oil and natural gas producers for the moment) but let's not kill a potential golden goose on principle. Decades of cheap energy could help lead to a rebirth of the American manfacutring sector.

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

#119
post #93
post #91

I think carbon capture is the way, I will soon do a show hn of our little company called carbonHarvester, we have as per as I know the cheapest technology of capturing the CO2 out of thin air, our aim is to enable anyone using an air conditioner to harvest CO2 from thin air with a little additional energy bill, and we can regenerate the captured CO2 cheaply.

Nice! Add your company to AirMiners, the largest index of companies mining carbon fro the air: http://airminers.org We'll feature it on the top of the list.

Hey, thanks for putting this list together.

Is anyone actively curating it one level down: Current $/ton, predicted $/ton, total feasible scale, third party (preferably peer reviewed) vetting for scams, etc?

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

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that this simulator is very focused on status-quo. It's not even possible to simulate an exponential curve for solar or a methane catastrophe.

You can change the assumptions under top menu Simulation->Assumptions. Some of them determine how quickly can a technology come to market, how much it makes future improvements cheaper etc. Also here are more detailed explanations and examples of how the model works: https://docs.climateinteractive.org/projects/en-roads/en/lat...

Cool, I missed that menu at the time this as posted on HN. One can probably manage to get solar to behave exponentially with this. One can also use it to limit the availability of fossil fuels into more realistic numbers, and increase the effectivity of capture to something that reflects people at least trying.

That does allow one to fix the largest issues. But one still has to fix it.

Post reply on HN