![]() If you see a carbon capture scheme on the news, you should imagine it as the equivalent of a tiktok influencer bailing out the titanic with a thimble and getting lots of likes from gullible followers The effort involved in locking up all that CO2 again is inconceivably large. The other issue is the sheer quantity of CO2 we have recklessly put into the atmosphere:- In a century we have burned an amount of fossil fuels that took millions and millions of years to form naturally. Industrial carbon capture needs vast amounts of electricity. Trees and plants do it by getting energy from the sun. Turning CO2 into something that does not cause climate change needs a way to put back a lot of energy into the molecules. After burning, the remains are CO2 and water molecules, which have much less internal energy. We use the energy to make us warm and move our vehicles. The reason we burn fossil fuels is because they have lots of energy locked up inside their molecules. 2019), makes it particularly prone to obstructionism by entrenched interests. The existential politics of the post-carbon transition (Colgan, Green and Hale 2020), notably the $10 trillion worth of assets at risk of stranding (Mercure et al. This will inevitably create winners and losers, even if it society as a whole is better off. Is the bold strictly referring to only fossil-fuel assets?Įnergy systems built around hydrocarbons will have to transition to a zero-carbon paradigm which will entail large shifts in the composition of firms and economic activity. “That means copying and pasting this basic design over and over.”Įdit: I just have an extra question. “We want to get to millions of tons per year,” said Shashank Samala, the company’s chief executive. Obviously if we're unsure about when it will be cheap and safe then we have to ask whether it's an insane gamble to bet the farm on this technology if we bet on this technology and we're wrong then we just destroyed civilization.quite a reckless and irresponsible gamble to make. If you turn the gas into rock or whatever then that sounds (though I'm not sure) quite safe. If you pump the gas underground, that sounds risky it could escape. I guess that one super obvious point is that hydrocarbons are dirty in various ways in terms of local environmental harm and air pollution and whatever else carbon capture doesn't deal with those forms of harm, does it?Īnd then there's the issue that the capture has to be safe. I assume that it could get a lot cheaper over time the issue is when we project that it will be cheaper (per ton) to capture CO2 than to just not emit it in the first place.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |