Realized CCS recovery is like 25% lower than expected, and highly variable.
Remind me again why we pour billions into this? It's definitely not just so we can continue what we are doing, without actually doing anything, is it?
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
41 points (93.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5243 readers
469 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
It's mostly being funded as a means of creating social permission to keep on extracting and burning without actually doing CCS
No, its so that more people become awfully rich or the people who are already awfully rich are awfully richer. Public money is the easiest to steal
Muh TaX WrItE OfFs
To put a realistic price on carbon emmissions, now we know exactly what a tonne of CO2 costs so we can impose that as a tax.
Yet, how do you do that? Cost to produce said tonne? Societal cost of damage? Ecological cost, estimated in terms of reduced biodiversity? All of these costs change with time too. It's a tough one for sure.
Use the cost for removing it so that you can pay someone to clean up.
Carbon capture is hands down the worst plan we have. At the rate this carbon capture plant operates it would take 100,000 of them just to offset the emission from cars alone. 100,000 plants . Imagine how much metal had to be mined for those. How much product needs to be shipped and produced and built. How much ecological damage and emissions would just building them some create? Then you realize that they use lots of power to run them. Most of the world’s electricity still comes from fossil fuels. So to offset those emissions you now need even more plants. Where are you going to put 100,000 plus plants like this? Do you know how hard it is to get these kinds of things approved? Whose land is this going on?
That’s not even the stupidest part. The idea is that these plants will suck out the carbon and use a - I can’t believe I’m about to say this- a pipeline. A PIPELINE! To pump carbon dioxide underground. I mean who has ever heard of a pipeline leaking, right? And putting it underground? Do we have even the foggiest idea of the potential effect of that? What if it just seeps out through the ground and back into the atmosphere, choking out all the life along the way?
Now if that’s the stupidest part, the evil part is this: carbon capture is an excuse to continue fossil fuel. Why should anyone stop if we are capturing it? That means the reason these fuckjng things are going to get approved is because the goddamn oil companies are backing them! It’s worse than those worthless carbon offsets since this can actually cause so much harm to the world.
I’m so pissed off about carbon capture.
You have to start taking it out of the atmosphere somehow, tho...reducing what we make is simply not enough.
Even if we cut emissions to zero the planet is fucked unless we can recapture carbon
Good luck cutting emissions to zero with the amount of energy required for carbon capture to work.
If it gets used in any meaningful way, it'll be for cleaning up what we can after we stop using fossil fuels
"Stubborn emissions"
You mean source pollution?
As is tradition