Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

semafor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#71

Post by Dylan16807 »

throw0101a wrote: post #2

Current refrigerants (e.g., R-410) have large global warming potentials (GWP) when they inevitably leak into the atmosphere, so there's a move to other chemicals. On of the leading contenders (at least in the commercial/industrial space) is actually CO2 (R-744): * https://www.hpacmag.com/features/co2-as-a-refrigerant-yesco2... * https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/Applied/Chapt.7_11/Ch... * https://blog.isa.org/wh…

Don't forget propane, a historically common refrigerant with a GWP less than 1.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#72

Post by Dylan16807 »

wizofaus wrote: post #70
Dylan16807 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea of Exxon becoming “net zero” is a howler and we can’t let them get away with it. Get away with what, a talking point? > We need to price the carbon emissions at the source. If they want to pass on the external carbon costs to their customers, so be it. What if a power company buys a bunch of natural gas, with emissions already paid, then captures the burned carbon instead of emitting it?

> then captures the burned carbon instead of emitting it? Presumably the only reason they would is if they could get paid carbon credits for doing so.

They'd better be able to get credits for it! It would be pretty awful to charge for emissions whether they emit or not, because then they have no incentive to decrease emissions.

But giving them credits seems pointlessly complicated to me, compared to just saying "no emissions, no charge".

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#73

Post by throwawaymobule »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #71
throw0101a wrote: post #2

Current refrigerants (e.g., R-410) have large global warming potentials (GWP) when they inevitably leak into the atmosphere, so there's a move to other chemicals. On of the leading contenders (at least in the commercial/industrial space) is actually CO2 (R-744): * https://www.hpacmag.com/features/co2-as-a-refrigerant-yesco2... * https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/Applied/Chapt.7_11/Ch... * https://blog.isa.org/wh…

Don't forget propane, a historically common refrigerant with a GWP less than 1.

It's a shame it's flammable, or it'd be a no-brainer to use it everywhere.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#74

Post by throwawaymobule »

ckrapu wrote: post #19

When I think about carbon extraction and storage, I get the same feeling as when I read about the ancients discovering oil seeps and surface deposits of hydrocarbons. They knew that they could be harnessed for keeping fires lit and even sometimes associated them with the supernatural. They just lacked the tech and industrial background to use them. We know that carbon is essential for life and if we ever engineer use…

At least it could be unburied if it's needed in the future. Same with many landfills, when the value of non-recycled junk in there is higher than reprocessing it.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#75

Post by bboygravity »

PaulHoule wrote: post #21
throwaway33381 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds more like an excuse to continue to output oil while doing absolutely nothing to stop the further degradation of out environment.

Funny but Exxon could become a ‘net zero’ company without fundamentally changing its business. You see, companies get charged for the carbon they emit, not the carbon that their customers emit. An oil refinery is an ideal place to implement carbon capture because it is a concentrated source of emissions and is already using technology such as amine strippers that one would use for carbon capture. Refineries burn a lo…

I find it interesting that people seem to think that storing CO2 under ground under high pressure for an unlimited amount of time is totally fine. "What could possibly go wrong?"

But at the same time somehow storing nuclear waste in specially designed containers sitting inside granite mountains is somehow extremely irresponsible and not an option?

Do most people actually realize what happens when that stored CO2 comes back up for whatever reason in x amount of years (all the way up to 100's of millions of years). I mean both the short term (everything in a certain radius that doesn't fly dies) as well as long term effects.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#76

Post by mjbeswick »

bboygravity wrote: post #75
PaulHoule wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny but Exxon could become a ‘net zero’ company without fundamentally changing its business. You see, companies get charged for the carbon they emit, not the carbon that their customers emit. An oil refinery is an ideal place to implement carbon capture because it is a concentrated source of emissions and is already using technology such as amine strippers that one would use for carbon capture. Refineries burn a lo…

I find it interesting that people seem to think that storing CO2 under ground under high pressure for an unlimited amount of time is totally fine. "What could possibly go wrong?" But at the same time somehow storing nuclear waste in specially designed containers sitting inside granite mountains is somehow extremely irresponsible and not an option? Do most people actually realize what happens when that stored CO2 come…

The irony is that people are forgetting where all that carbon came from in the first place, before plants captured it from the atmosphere!

Humans are contributing to climate change, but the climate had constantly changed throughout history. During the peak to the Roman empire, parts of the Mediterranean are estimated to have been 2°C hotter than today. The climate cooling is one of the likely contributing factors behind the collapse of the Roman empire, as agricultural output fell as a result.

Climate change is bad for current human settlement and farming, as what is currently primar land for living and farming will change. Such a charge would have dangerous global economic and political consequences.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#77

Post by defrost »

mjbeswick wrote: post #76
bboygravity wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting that people seem to think that storing CO2 under ground under high pressure for an unlimited amount of time is totally fine. "What could possibly go wrong?" But at the same time somehow storing nuclear waste in specially designed containers sitting inside granite mountains is somehow extremely irresponsible and not an option? Do most people actually realize what happens when that stored CO2 come…

The irony is that people are forgetting where all that carbon came from in the first place, before plants captured it from the atmosphere! Humans are contributing to climate change, but the climate had constantly changed throughout history. During the peak to the Roman empire, parts of the Mediterranean are estimated to have been 2°C hotter than today. The climate cooling is one of the likely contributing factors beh…

> parts of the Mediterranean are estimated to have been 2°C hotter than today.

That's not a change in global average tempreture though, that's a local variation.

> but the climate had constantly changed throughout history.

'History' is written history, and no, global climatic parameters haven't changed in written history.

I believe you might be thinking of geological time - and yes, on long time scales climate has changed - and changed with cause just as a stone moves subject to force.

In this particular moment of time climate has started to change within the past century after remaining stable for tens of thousands of years and the root cause of that change is human activity changing the insulation properties of the atmosphere.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#78

Post by mjbeswick »

defrost wrote: post #77
mjbeswick wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that people are forgetting where all that carbon came from in the first place, before plants captured it from the atmosphere! Humans are contributing to climate change, but the climate had constantly changed throughout history. During the peak to the Roman empire, parts of the Mediterranean are estimated to have been 2°C hotter than today. The climate cooling is one of the likely contributing factors beh…

> parts of the Mediterranean are estimated to have been 2°C hotter than today. That's not a change in global average tempreture though, that's a local variation. > but the climate had constantly changed throughout history. 'History' is written history, and no, global climatic parameters haven't changed in written history. I believe you might be thinking of geological time - and yes, on long time scales climate has ch…

There is historical data which suggests that there has been two ice ages in the time of modern humans. The climate only appears to be stable when observed over a short timespan.

I don't think there is any doubt that human activity is contributing to climate change.

It's ironic that modern civilization and population numbers aren't possible without fossil fuels, but their use will ultimately cause it's demise.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#79

Post by PaulHoule »

wizofaus wrote: post #70
Dylan16807 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea of Exxon becoming “net zero” is a howler and we can’t let them get away with it. Get away with what, a talking point? > We need to price the carbon emissions at the source. If they want to pass on the external carbon costs to their customers, so be it. What if a power company buys a bunch of natural gas, with emissions already paid, then captures the burned carbon instead of emitting it?

> then captures the burned carbon instead of emitting it? Presumably the only reason they would is if they could get paid carbon credits for doing so.

Or alternately get charged carbon taxes if they don’t.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#80

Post by cutemonster »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #68
cutemonster wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting (I think I've seen here at HN before?) And replace this: > while doing absolutely nothing to stop the further degradation of out environment with: > doing something to profit from the further degradation of our environment Eat the cake and have it too

> Eat the cake and have it too I don't understand how you're using this metaphor here. What's the cake? WRT the environment, they're just eating it.

The environment yes, and after they've eaten it they can continue making money from it, by partly reversing a bit of the damage they did.
Post reply on HN