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

161–170 of 221 posts

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

#161

Post by Gatsky »

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…

I don’t think this is a relevant point. It is after all used for photosynthesis despite the low concentration. The low concentration is an advantage in one way, because you have to remove a relatively small amount.

The low concentration means CCS will be slow. However, we can’t drop CO2 to pre-industrial levels in a week, that would probably cause significant climate instability. The logical thing to do would be to drop the levels at around the same rate as we have increased them. That may be too slow to prevent significant climate change in the meantime. Perhaps the rate could be adapted to how bad things seem.

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

#162

Post by NeedMoreTea »

johnmorrison wrote: post #132
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> blame the western world or "corporations" - no, it is your (our) fault as individuals.

Hmm, here I diverge. I can demand a long lasting, repairable, sustainable appliance (and most products) until I am blue in the face, no corporation is willing to make and sell me one. In fact they're going the opposite way and products are less sustainable, shorter lasting, and subject to far more "fashion" replacement than ever. As companies have become global, and got ever larger the sole focus on profit, particularly that going to the execs has pushed out everything else -- fair pay and working conditions, pensions, long term jobs, environment, local community, etc.

We can all do our bit, and should, as far as we're able, but it requires government to regulate to get corporations to all do their bit. Without strong regulation and suitably targeted taxation you get a select few, and an awful lot of greenwashing.

Lets also not forget that the vast majority of the current consumer boom and demand for far too much stuff is pushed, via advertising, not pulled, from need. To get you unhappy with your looks, weight, fitness, kitchen, lifestyle, status, status compared to your neighbour, all in the name of selling you an expensive solution, that rarely improves anything, and frequently makes you feel worse.

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

#163

Post by phaemon »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #147
phaemon wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Actually boomers are quite anti-nuclear as a generation. Millennial and younger are far more into it largely driven by the seriousness of climate change. The fact I stated is true.

I'm sure it is and apologies to the fellow HNers who didn't find my comment funny.

If you prefer a more serious answer, Nuclear is overpriced garbage. Sure, the industry keeps promising cheap and plentiful energy but what they deliver is Hinckley C.

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

#164

Post by ZeroGravitas »

DenisM wrote: post #151
hedora wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

How can production be not carbon neutral? When trees are cut new trees grow in their place, unless the place is used as a construction site or something. https://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/mass-t...

Energy is used to make fresh products. This is the main reason recycling is better from a climate change point of view. As long as we're burning fossil fuels to produce new paper, the energy savings of recycling are going to translate into lower carbon emissions.

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

#165

Post by strainer »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #156
strainer wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This term "astronomical" applies no more to the scale of renewables needing built than it would nuclear. The existence of a somewhat related pdf doesn't make the prophecy realistic, that big challenges are more likely to show up for future renewable builds than for nuclear builds. The actual situation is nuclear can hardly get built currently due to "economic, regulatory, or environmental challenges" while renewables…

Nuclear went through its economic, regulatory, and environmental challenges as its fleet sizes grew (at 20 GWe low-carbon generation/year for 12 years at its peak), and is still struggling. Intermittent renewables may have their own set of parallel issues. Exhibit A, of course, is [1]. As renewables scale today, we're scaling high-carbon fracked natural gas backup with them. That chicken probably will come home to ro…

The nuclear fleets peak was decades ago when environmental and safety regulation was more permissive than it was today, and the long term problems and threats were not as well known.

Even a handful of articles about planning applications being declined is not evidence of your prophecy of significant price increases for solar and wind bound to show up, or just "big challenges" as you put it as indistinctly as it is unlikely.

Renewables are competing against nuclear power for finance and resources and nuclear is competing against renewables. Nuclear is never economically dispatchable, it does not compete for demand only while renewables are low, and renewables do not want to split supply with nuclear. They are competitors. So taking about astronomicals shouldn't fool anyone otherwise, but at this time its all the idea of cheap clean safe nuclear future has to run on.

Nuclear plants need sited away from population centers and on top of significant water sources and in regions where their local heat output will not excarbate problems of heat waves. They also require permanent protection in periods of national unrest since the costs of accident and sabotage can be astronomical

Solar panels and windpower will continue to get cheaper to buy and install, batteries too. Oceanic wind, solar and syn-gas rigs are a far more desirable and attainable long term development goal than a further generation of hundreds or thousands of water boiling top security nuclear plants for the fuel and power needs of the developing world.

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

#167

Post by opportune »

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...

It might make sense as a way to spend excess energy from renewables on days where they produce more than we need due to weather (very sunny or windy). You could incentivize it via credits that only work when utilities’ dynamic pricing dips to very low $/MWh

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

#168

Post by buzzkillington »

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 find it fascinating. Now I know why the Easter Islanders were building statutes burning up all the trees.

The world has gone insane and I'm along for a ride I don't want to be on.

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

#169

Post by MuffinFlavored »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #128
MChristopherson wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nitpicking, but it's 0.04%, sadly.

dumb question but like, 100 years, was it 0.03% and little by little it has crept up to 0.04% due to "humanity" lately?

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

#170

Post by buzzkillington »

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 past the point of last resort by about 20 years.

It's just that no one noticed.

Post reply on HN