Live data from Hacker News

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

cicero.oslo.no

181–190 of 221 posts

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

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nuclear is extremely low-carbon baseload energy with very low land, waste, death, and raw material footprints. In a world of increasing carbon-related challenges, it's very challenging to write off. We're currently building high-carbon fracked gas plants like crazy because they're cheap. Put some kind of price on carbon emissions and instantly fracked gas is expensive and nuclear is cheap. Nuclear's low-carbon nature…

In the US, CO2 taxes would have to exceed $300/ton for new nuclear plants to pencil out, vs. new gas combined cycle plants. This means nuclear is an extremely poor way of reducing CO2 emission here. There's a vast array of alternatives that become viable at much lower CO2 taxes.

It's not climate friendly to be choosing uneconomical approaches. It's almost as if you're using climate as a rationalization for a position you reached by other means.

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

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is extremely low-carbon baseload energy with very low land, waste, death, and raw material footprints. In a world of increasing carbon-related challenges, it's very challenging to write off. We're currently building high-carbon fracked gas plants like crazy because they're cheap. Put some kind of price on carbon emissions and instantly fracked gas is expensive and nuclear is cheap. Nuclear's low-carbon nature…

In the US, CO2 taxes would have to exceed $300/ton for new nuclear plants to pencil out, vs. new gas combined cycle plants. This means nuclear is an extremely poor way of reducing CO2 emission here. There's a vast array of alternatives that become viable at much lower CO2 taxes. It's not climate friendly to be choosing uneconomical approaches. It's almost as if you're using climate as a rationalization for a position…

That feeling when you work to improve deployment of a 24/7 low-footprint energy source that previously scaled at 20 GWe/yr and emits a mere 12 gCO2eq/kg and someone tells you that you're delusional. :o

Just FYI I got into nuclear specifically for climate reasons. Climate has been the goal from before I knew what nuclear reactors really were.

The assumption that all new nuclear plants in the US will be as bad as the most recent two is wild, especially when one understands the details of what went wrong in those projects.

I don't think the current build process in the West is acceptable. I want to improve serialization and standardization of nuclear deployments to help with climate change quickly. A la Offshore Power Systems.

$30/tonne is expected to be fine. See e.g. Table 2.1 in MIT's report [1]

[1] http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-...

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

#183
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…

Laminated timber can replace a lot of the uses of cement and steel in buildings.

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

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prob…

The early Holocene does predate the alphabet, but it's only 6,000 years ago, a blink of an eye geologically speaking. There were also several cooling and warming episodes in the interim since then, with the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm periods all exceeding modern temperatures. Historically, warm climate has correlated with boom times for civilization and cold periods have brought famine. See research below:

(Note: CO2 was at least 100 ppm lower than today yet the Arctic hit much higher temps and had to lose much of its ice as a result)

"Peak warmth occurred ~10 ka BP, with temperatures 7 °C warmer than today due to high radiative forcing and intensified inflow of warm Atlantic waters."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201...

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

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 un…

> 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.

That doesn't stand to evidence. The Browns Ferry fire in 1975 was the real tipping point for regulations. After 1979, the regulations and QA requirements were very serious. The improved quality cost the plants more up front but they benefited dramatically from the extra quality by increasing capacity factors from 60% all the way to 90%, becoming cash cows in the early 2000s before fracked gas pulled the rug out on electricity prices.

By your same argument, I can just as easily dismiss your prophecy that inherently intermittent energy sources will scale to world scale with no serious environmental, regulatory, or economic challenges.

I might also point you to Energy Return On Investment studies with high penetrations of energy storage. Have you looked into that? I recommend it. You might also want to look into economic analysis from NREL on intermittent energy sources at high degrees of penetration.

We need at least 10x more wind and solar. I also think it's appropriate to engage the only 24/7 low-footprint low-carbon tool we know of: nuclear fission. No point in tying our hands because some people feel that they don't like nuclear. Nuclear data is in. It's super low carbon. It's very expandable. And it's very low-impact.

EROI is the biggest argument against what you're saying. [1]

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1...!

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

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not a dumb question. You're right. It was just below 300ppm a century ago, and it's a bit over 410ppm now. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-... is a good overview.

The NOAA has a station on Mauna Loa in Hawaii. It has been continuously collecting CO2 data since 1958 and CO2 has gone from just over 300ppm to the current 414ppm.

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

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

If the rise of Trump, Sanders and Warren is any indication the USA does want to implement policy to retain manufacturing, even if it doesn't have a good plan to do so right now. Given the rising cost of labor in the developing world, increased automation and moves toward protectionism on both sides of the aisle, not to mention the cultural/geopolitical headaches in dealing with authoritarian dictatorships, it's plausible that super-cheap energy could be a deciding factor.

Germany figured it out, and their energy costs are roughly double ours.

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

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> 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. I can't tell if this is ideology or a mistake, but this is not true. Firstly, if you demand something that can be reasonably built, somebody will sell it to you for the right price. Remember: corporations are just regular folk trying to make money, like e…

> I can't tell if this is ideology or a mistake, but this is not true.

Neither I hope, just hard won experience of 40 years of buying stuff, getting things repaired (or not) and talking to the repair people, trying to buy sustainable products, trying to prefer locally made where possible, comparing the product or appliance I bought 35 years ago with its modern equivalent etc. Thankfully for much of that time I've not needed to care too much about price in what I choose, so I tend to prefer the best end of the market -- in search of better quality, which is an increasingly futile expectation as even most premium brands now cut costs to barely better than mid-market.

> Corporations have achieved incredibly affordable production ... Claiming that corporations won't make you ...

Wrong on both a) and b) as it goes. Some searches have been particularly extensive.. :)

This rather comes across as ideology actually, or you're over playing the counterpoint just a little :) There's some very significant downsides to globalisation and the resulting changes in companies. Especially of the huge globalised corporations today who hold portfolios of well known brands, that have no connection at all to their original founders, unique selling points, quality or aspiration. Very different to when those 20 brands were 15 or 20 companies, all competing, most retaining a sense of place, and customer needs were far higher up the priority lists.

I can think of lots of examples, but I'll offer just two that I hope give a representative idea. Obviously there's some generalising here. First something really simple: A kettle.

In 1980 there wasn't as much choice "only" 10 or 20 to choose from in most shops -- no LEDs or internet connections and other pointless gimmicks. Yet at the same time that was a benefit. A company would change the kettle when they had something new -- a better filter, a longer lasting element, etc and only rarely updating for style with new colour or shape options. The shop you bought it from would have the exact same models potentially for years, so they were happy to always carry spare filters, elements (these were usually changeable, even most of the flat base ones -- though that type was still uncommon), and seals at tiny prices. Very good chance most would be made in your home country and only one or two super-cheap imports.

In 2020 there's loads of choice -- every single one of them a short life model, probably changed every year for no reason other than making it look a bit different, and changing the shape of all parts. No shop will carry spares, none still give the option of replacing element, a replacement filter will be offered online or direct from manufacturer for 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the new kettle. The water boils no faster, it pours no better, but it has no chance of lasting a decade or two. When the element goes, throw it away, it's your only option.

Something complex: A fridge and ignoring the switch from CFCs, which was regulated.

The 1970 or 1980 fridge-freezer probably made more noise when running, was unlikely to be frost free. If it was a decent one almost certainly had more insulation than now, so it would warm up far slower, and need to run the less efficient cooler much less often. Overall using the same, or less electric than today, it would no doubt get a terrible rating on the modern efficiency sticker though! Components were discrete so could be replaced individually, and usually quite general to apply to multiple models. Few repairs would need a re-gas, which generally wasn't ever worth it. On the few frost free models, the heater and fan were discrete, and replacing a defrost element was a simple 30 minute repair job and a £5 part. They were apparently built to last forever, including interior drawers and storage, gaining only a mid-life rattle or three.

The 2020 fridge has less insulation, warms faster in the event of fault or power cut, has lots of electronics, but usually with more precise temperature controls. The interiors are better laid out, with a better selection of drawers and storage reflecting our changed habits, but mostly using much more fragile plastics. The compressor will be quieter. BUT... Led particularly by Samsung (who the repair fellow seemed to think the absolute worst for this) are aiming to be entirely un-repairable. As the most extreme example of this, Samsung and others have combined the defrost element (a consumable) into a non-separable unit with the cooling coils. To replace the defrost element, once £5 and 30 min or an hour labour and dead easy to do yourself, is now a £400+ part, several hours of labour, and a re-gas. On a £1,500 fridge-freezer.

Even the once better thought of AEG, Liebherr, Miele, Neff, Stoves etc have cut their products from premium and well made, to mid market or even low end quality -- they just have more features for the premium prices. Maybe, if you're really lucky, they'll last a little longer. They'll not be any more repairable. They'll undoubtedly be playing the same "let's make it a single unit and unrepairable" game. Fair chance they'll also be in a portfolio of dozen brands unconnected with the original factories and retained knowledge. Several decades of reliable use with slim chance of a simple repair visit or two? Pretty much forget it.

Similar applies to just about every category of stuff. Some are worse than others, but the direction is clear, and near universal. The exceptions are becoming very rare, but seem to be those who didn't get the memo to consolidate, globalise, offshore and hold a portfolio of dozens of brands, but just stick to making their core products well. Just as they always did. Maybe adding a few offshored relative cheapies to fill in the gap below their usual high end.

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

#190

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…

As a handwavy intuition pump, water expands 1,000 times when it boils and turns to steam. Boil 1 litre of water, get 1,000 litres of steam. To go backwards here means sucking in 1,000 litres of pure steam and paying the cost of chilling it to condense it and get 1 litre of water back out. After that, air is not pure steam, it's about 4% water vapour, or 25x less concentrated. To go from air to water means sucking in 25,000 litres of air, and paying the cost of chilling it, to have enough air going through to contain 1,000 litres of water vapour, to get 1 litre of liquid water back out.

Carbon is not 4% of the air, it's 0.04%, a thousand times less concentrated again. To get "1 litre of carbon solid"[1] out means sucking in and paying the cost of processing 2,500,000 litres of air.

[1] as if that means anything sensible here, lol.

Post reply on HN