It was designed to capture approximately 4,000 metric tons of carbon from the air per year, which, as one climate scientist, David Ho, put it, is the equivalent of rolling back the clock on just 3 seconds of global emissions.
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
50 points (98.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5243 readers
413 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
first-of-its-kind demonstration plant
The article goes on to say that this plant isn't really intended to have any serious climate impact itself, it's more a small scale testbed to see how the technology works out in real world conditions and to try to improve and develop it further. So while it might be the world's largest plant of the type currently, that's only because nobody has actually built one on a useful scale yet.
Yep. For CDR to make a meaningful difference we need to both scale it up, and get down to near zero fossil fuel use
indeed. this tech is best thought of as being in the R&D stage. we're gonna need enough clean energy to power ourselves and it too before it really makes a difference. we can throw excess renewables at it now, though.
Better 3 seconds than 0. We need everything we can to fight climate change if we are even going to have a chance of mitigating the damage.
Probably not. This sort of project is used by bad-faith actors, and naive policymakers, to justify not taking urgent action to curtail emissions. There's a good case for saying it would be better if this sort of piffling demonstration didn't exist, because then it would be harder to delay action on emissions
Unfortunately the reality is that if we do not figure out how to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, we are 100% going to breach a tipping point for CO2. We crossed the line of being able to stop this with CO2 reductions decades ago.
This sort of project is used by bad-faith actors, and naive policymakers, to justify not taking urgent action to curtail emissions.
this doesn't mean anything. they did the same with a snowball once.
Net negative likely. How much CO2 was emitted to create this plant?
Per the article, building the plant generated about 15% of the CO2 it will remove. Operating it and downtime consume another 20% or so. It's still a net benefit...but a tiny one.
I have a way to do this but it would require people to plant trees.
https://ecotree.green/en/how-much-co2-does-a-tree-absorb
25kg per year, per tree. Let's plant these "trees" everywhere.
If every one of the 20 some million adult Canadians planted a tree once a week for say 10 weeks a year, just imagine. 20 million x 10 x 25kg sequestered a year later and you get additional benefits. No need to change your lifestyle, just plant on on the fringe of grass by the Walmart parking spot, drop on in by your workplace, etc. Golf courses: sorry we need trees, your lifestyle will change sooner rather than later anyway golf course user.
Edit: 5 million metric tonnes, I think.
And, hey, why not pay young people to do this? You get a tray of trees in the morning. Sign into your app, document each tree. In addition to planting the app sends you to previous locations others planted trees at to verify the tree is there.
5 million tonnes.
But then if 4000 tonnes is equal to reversing 3s worth of emissions, 5 million tonnes would still only be 3750s, or just over 1 hour.
How many seconds of emissions did it take to make this machine?
Edit: I see the other conversation about this. A tiny net benefit is good, but this technology feels like a bandage on a cracked dam. It kinda helps, but people might think it's fixed and there's no more obligation to keep thinking of it.
JUST PLANT TREES
Also yes - but frankly we're not in the position to just try one thing at a time, we're very much at the point where we need to do anything and everything we can - trees are practical for areas with lots of space, but for areas where space is a premium tech like this could work better once it matures
The problem is that we have very limited time to reduce emissions. At least so far it is dermaticaly cheaper and easier to stop most emissions at the source than to use carbon capture later, and as the plants are being developed and built largely with funds that would have explicitly otherwise have gone to reducing emissions at the source, we are seeing more damage than we would have had we foucused on emissions first and only began throwing billions these sorts of projects once most of the low hanging fruit was accomplished.
The other problem is that plants like this explicitly why companies like BP and Shell are massively scaling up oil production, because don’t worry about it. We can sell more and more oil indefinitely because the taxpayer will be able to clean up the emissions later useing only far more taxpayer money than the oil that produced those emissions was ever worth.
Best we can do is WW3, sorry 😬