Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by johnmorrison » Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #78

johnmorrison wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Indoor farms only work for greens and veggies, not for calorie crops. It's hard to beat free sunlight. Rooftops are not sufficient area, difficult to access and also compete for space with PV. > There isn't net deforestation globally, though. That would be news to me, afaik this is just a goal and hasn't been achieved yet. And as far as carbon footprint goes net zero deforestation still can release carbon overall sin…

> compete for space with PV

PV > That would be news to me

It's actually not news at all, we've been having net forest cover growth since we began recording it centuries ago. There's never been any long term deforestation trends on net.

(This is not to say that there haven't been awful local deforestation periods, and you're right about old forest vs. new forest, but globally it has always gone up since pre-industrial time)

> has anyone shown that this can be done with a lower GHG footprint?

It's a more physically efficient process. Why grow the whole cow and have it run around losing heat for months when you can just grow the meat you want in the end?

> Chicken doesn't release methane, has a lower overall land and carbon footprint. Still less efficient than staple crops of course.

This is all true but you can't really just replace red meat with white meat or vegetarian diet. Some try but it will never work globally.

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

#132

Post by johnmorrison » Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #71

johnmorrison wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Africa can get a pass. As an African I disagree w/ this. But you're right, global powers like the US/EU/China should and will likely contribute the most.

Having seen the effect of China and India getting a pass in the UN Climate summits -- because of where they were 30 years ago, no one should get a pass. Otherwise it'll be a source of much future regret.

I agree completely.

We are all responsible as consumers, in every country.

People like to blame the western world or "corporations" - no, it is your (our) fault as individuals. Corporations only emit when consumers demand their product/service.

We are all humans: anyone who can help make the future better, should.

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

#133

Post by dehrmann » Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #94

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.

So what? I thought the goal was to solve climate change, not to spite the oil companies.

You've struck on something, here. For a lot of people, those two are tied up together, to the point that there are people more concerned with punishing oil companies than solving climate change.

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

#134

Post by hedora » Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #103

The best and cheapest way to capture carbon is to plant trees. Lots of them.

That’s true for the next year or so, but it only will push the clock back a few years. At that point, we run out of land.

I’m not arguing against it — every bit helps. However, something better needs to come along, and we need to invest in that thing.

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

#135

Post by johnmorrison » Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

MChristopherson wrote: post #123

supernova87a wrote: post #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...

That is an important point that struck home with me when I came to realize just how minuscule the amount of carbon dioxide is in the air relative to other gases: it's nigh-on a rounding error. I think many of us just haven't internalized the percentages of gasses, and probably, like myself, often have it all backwards. An alien doing a fly-through of our solar system would describe our planet as a nitrogen atmosphere…

> and also gives one an appreciation of just how powerful of a greenhouse gas CO2 is

It should also be noted that the total atmosphere (dry + water) is about 3% water vapor by weight and H2O makes up the majority of the greenhouse effect.

CO2 isn't a problem because it's the biggest greenhouse gas, it's a problem because it's the one (the biggest anthroprogenic one) pushing us over the equilibrium where net warming is zero.

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

#136

Post by ComputerGuru » Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

scottLobster wrote: post #118

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.

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…

> Decades of cheap energy could help lead to a rebirth of the American manfacutring sector.

Energy is cheap in the USA (and has been for decades). Let’s not kid ourselves, energy costs aren’t the reason the USA exported ~all its manufacturing jobs.

(Remember to exclude subsidies in your comparisons, as that’s a matter of policy and, for example, the USA could choose to implement them today if it wanted.)

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

#137

Post by ComputerGuru » Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

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.

That’s not how CCS or net carbon works. CO2 is basically fungible. You can release it today in Australia and capture it yesterday or tomorrow in Canada to offset, it basically makes no appreciable difference.

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

#138

Post by daxfohl » Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

daxfohl wrote: post #114

hannob wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a stretch. There's still pipelines, oil spills, chemical processing, etc to deal with even beyond the CO2 cost. Oil isn't going to be the least env destructive option for quite some time.

Plus there's the political cost. Oil is in the ground. So wars are fought over it and rich nations exploit poor nations to their own advantage without considering the human toll. If alt energy makes nations more self-sufficient then that can only be a good thing.

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

#139

Post by kadoban » Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

daxfohl wrote: post #114

hannob wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes. Oil will continue to be harder to get over time, and makes some nations dependent on other nations they'd rather not be.

Wind isn't going anywhere, the sun isn't going anywhere.

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

#140

Post by dlet » Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

Title: "Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C" In the article: "There are at least some scenarios that can meet the Paris goals without CCS."

WTF ?!!