Impact of CCS

[dan_b]

https://ricochet.media/en/3928/carbon-c ... ate-crisis

Worth a read.

Carbon capture is a fairytale solution to the climate crisis. Internal documents reveal oil+gas companies know this-and see the tech as a way to get social license to continue producing fossil fuels for decades to come"

Popular carbon capture methods have actually put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they have removed."

[Stinsy]

What we knew all along. CCS and Hydrogen are just smoke and mirrors that enable FF companies to continue doing what they’ve always done.

[nowty]

Quite a good Engineering with Rosie video here about carbon capture. It seems the only place it is effectively used by the FF industry is to remove small concentrations of CO2 from natural gas before its turned into LNG. The reason being to stop any CO2 in the natural gas freezing and clogging up the pipes, but hey, were doing CCS, right.

When it comes to cleaning up flue gasses it seems too expensive.



Or you can watch the satire version which is at least good for a laugh.

[AE-NMidlands]

I have always been suspicious of CCS from flue gas, as there will be loads of other rubbish to filter out and dispose of before the CO₂ can be liquified, not to mention the heat, but I guess that could be recovered on an "integrated" site.

We used to see tanker lorries labelled "Distillers CO2" and it seemed to me that the whole of the brewing industry should be a shoo-in for supplying feedstock for CCS, especially as they now seem to have concentrated on mega-breweries. Yeasts produce almost pure CO₂ that should be ideal for capturing - after drying it - seeing as it is generated in sterile enclosed vessels.

Apparently there are yeasts being used to produce all sorts of other chemicals too (although I have no idea whether they produce CO₂ as well.)
A

[spread-tee]

I guess the best that be said at present is it is still an immature technology that might see a breakthrough. Looking at our progress so far we are almost certainly going to need some kind of geo-engineering to keep the temperature stable.

Desp

[nowty]

From what I take from the Engineering with Rosie video (not the jokey one) is that the technology exists, its not likely to get any better and the cost renders FF unviable.

So there is a perpetual, "its coming" mantra, similar to Green H2 is coming but in the meantime we will use Blue H2 with the same perpetual "CCS is coming for that too".

[spread-tee]

I'd bet more than a few quid you're right, I was giving it the benefit of the doubt. Having said that I would still support some ongoing research.

Desp

[Moxi]

I thought the best carbon capture was what mamma nature did ? You know trees and kelp forests etc ?

There’s lots of other benefits of this method too but obviously there’s no “profit” in it other than the obvious one of ensuring a continuation of humans on the planet

Moxi

[Mart]

The target of keeping the temp rise below 1.5C (which is now highly unlikely, but just sticking with the theory), is that this will be achieved with CCS. Basically, the best we could have done (and have now probably failed), was to reach CO2(e) net zero emissions, with an amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that would lead to +2C. But then stage 2 kicks in, with CCS in the second half of this century, to bring the atmospheric levels of CO2 down, before the temperature rise (with lag) can exceed +1.5C.

That's the theory, and it's based, as I understand it, on technology and costs that do not currently exist, certainly at even a tiny scale.

Sadly, I think the 2050(ish) net zero target includes reforestation etc.. Basically we're all screwed without future CCS, which is not a promising thought.

DAC (direcet air capture) is far more expensive, but ironically, the cheaper way to capture carbon from CO2 rich hydrocarbon burning flues is counterproductive.

That's why I've wondered if BECCS (bio-energy with CCS) is needed, with of course sustainable local supply, but I appreciate the idea is so full of holes that it too may be a nonsense.

So there we go, looks like the current monumental task of getting to net zero emissions, may be the easy bit?

[openspaceman]

I thought the best carbon capture was what mamma nature did ? You know trees and kelp forests etc ?

There’s lots of other benefits of this method too but obviously there’s no “profit” in it other than the obvious one of ensuring a continuation of humans on the planet

Moxi

Me too along with a bit of help to make a small part of the carbon initially fixed by photosynthesis into a recalcitrant form.