OT Earth

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Ujap3L0.png
 
Greenslide: Climate Crisis Spurs Green-Labor Win in Australian Election Over Pro-Coal, Right-Wing PM

 
Phatguysrule said:
Is it carbon capture?
Click to expand...
Yes. We have the capability to build one of these in every major city in the entire world.
We could be done building them inside of 20 years. As soon as we had 30-35% of them built we would start to actually see their effects.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Yes. We have the capability to build one of these in every major city in the entire world.
We could be done building them inside of 20 years. As soon as we had 30-35% of them built we would start to actually see their effects.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Do we've have better technology than this?

The world's biggest carbon-removal plant just opened. In a year, it'll negate just 3 seconds' worth of global emissions.
https://archive.ph/dpXld

Awesome, if so. Carbon tax with dividend and build those suckers out. As well as nukes.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
Are you sure? Do we've have better technology than this?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/carbon-capture-storage-expensive-climate-change-2021-9?amp

Awesome, if so. Carbon tax with dividend and build those suckera out. As well as nukes.
Click to expand...
You're link didn't complete?

Not only do we have the technology but it can be expanded easily.
It's not just that we CAN do this? It's more that now we HAVE to do this or we won't stop the process in time.
"The number of things that would have to happen without direct air capture are so stretching and multiple it's highly unlikely we can meet the Paris Agreements without it" – Ajay Gambhir
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210310-the-trillion-dollar-plan-to-capture-co2
 
Fairly-Hard said:
You're link didn't complete?

Not only do we have the technology but it can be expanded easily.
It's not just that we CAN do this? It's more that now we HAVE to do this or we won't stop the process in time.
"The number of things that would have to happen without direct air capture are so stretching and multiple it's highly unlikely we can meet the Paris Agreements without it" – Ajay Gambhir
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210310-the-trillion-dollar-plan-to-capture-co2
Click to expand...
Sorry, the link was working for me. I attached an archived copy which removed some formatting so it should load better, and I also included a heading.

I'm all for carbon capture as much as possible, we'll have to do something to make gains once we can cut enough carbon emissions.

But as far as I know, we don't make enough carbon free electricity to make a difference by powering carbon capture plants and the carbon capture technology we currently have has to run 3 years to remove about 3 seconds worth of current carbon emissions.

So we need to make a LOT more carbon free power, and drastically improve our carbon capture technology.

Which yes, absolutely needs to happen. Frankly, with the war in Ukraine, and China imploding as a world power, we'll probably see huge spikes in carbon emissions for the next 5-10 years while we move manufacturing back to the Americas.

We need to get moving on nuclear ASAP.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Sorry, the link was working for me. I attached an archived copy which removed some formatting so it should load better, and I also included a heading.

I'm all for carbon capture as much as possible, we'll have to do something to make gains once we can cut enough carbon emissions.

But as far as I know, we don't make enough carbon free electricity to make a difference by powering carbon capture plants and the carbon capture technology we currently have has to run 3 years to remove about 3 seconds worth of current carbon emissions.

So we need to make a LOT more carbon free power, and drastically improve our carbon capture technology.

Which yes, absolutely needs to happen. Frankly, with the war in Ukraine, and China imploding as a world power, we'll probably see huge spikes in carbon emissions for the next 5-10 years while we move manufacturing back to the Americas.

We need to get moving on nuclear ASAP.
Click to expand...
Agree on Nuclear Power. We have to work on a number of issues.
The article you posted says pretty much exactly what my point is.

"According to the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), carbon capture and storage is a necessary part of our best-case climate scenarios. But currently, facilities like Orca only negate a sliver of global emissions."

"Two other plants are in planning phases: The Canadian company Carbon Engineering, which is backed by Bill Gates, started designing a similar facility in northeastern Scotland three months ago. It also plans to start construction on a a plant in Texas next year. Each of those facilities could remove up to 250 times more carbon per year than Orca."

"Friedmann thinks a drop to below $200 is likely by 2030, and a drop to $100 two decades after that. By that point, he said, the market for carbon removal market — companies paying to abate their emissions — will have grown significantly.
But even at that $100 price, removing all of humanity's annual carbon emissions would cost more than $5 trillion per year, according to Gates' book, "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster." That would require 50,000 Orca plants."

"The Orca facility does the work of 200,000 trees in 1,000 times less space," Friedmann said.
What's more, once a facility like this stores its carbon, it's locked away. If trees burn, the carbon they've absorbed gets released.

Obviously it's not the only solution. Carbon Removal is going to have to get better to be effective. They still need to plant trees and create more clean energy. They also need better Carbon capture technology. Reducing emissions is still very important as well.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Agree on Nuclear Power. We have to work on a number of issues.
The article you posted says pretty much exactly what my point is.

"According to the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), carbon capture and storage is a necessary part of our best-case climate scenarios. But currently, facilities like Orca only negate a sliver of global emissions."

"Two other plants are in planning phases: The Canadian company Carbon Engineering, which is backed by Bill Gates, started designing a similar facility in northeastern Scotland three months ago. It also plans to start construction on a a plant in Texas next year. Each of those facilities could remove up to 250 times more carbon per year than Orca."

"Friedmann thinks a drop to below $200 is likely by 2030, and a drop to $100 two decades after that. By that point, he said, the market for carbon removal market — companies paying to abate their emissions — will have grown significantly.
But even at that $100 price, removing all of humanity's annual carbon emissions would cost more than $5 trillion per year, according to Gates' book, "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster." That would require 50,000 Orca plants."

"The Orca facility does the work of 200,000 trees in 1,000 times less space," Friedmann said.
What's more, once a facility like this stores its carbon, it's locked away. If trees burn, the carbon they've absorbed gets released.

Obviously it's not the only solution. Carbon Removal is going to have to get better to be effective. They still need to plant trees and create more clean energy. They also need better Carbon capture technology. Reducing emissions is still very important as well.
Click to expand...
We also need to generate a ton more carbon free energy though, and cut carbon emissions. Because if we're using the normal grid we're not solving anything.

Great technology, but it's kind of putting the cart before the horse. Especially if you have big polluters using them to "offset" their current carbon emissions.

First and foremost we have to cut emissions to zero. And we'll likely be going the wrong direction for the next 5-10 years.

Again, really great and valuable technology, but the danger is that it is mostly supported by large polluters who have financial incentive to keep polluting.
 
US CO2 emissions rose steadily from a recession trough of 4.4 billion metric tons in 1983 to 6.0 Bmt in 2007. Since, they have steadily fallen, bottoming in 2020, due to Covid-19, at 4.6 Bmt, the same level as 1984. In 2021, as the economy recovered, emissions rose to 4.9 Bmt. Ignoring 2020, 4.9 Bmt is the lowest CO2 level since 1988. Meanwhile, Chinese emissions are double ours and rising.
Click to expand...
 
Biden to Crush Climate Change Lawsuit



Obama, as well as Trump fought against this lawsuit. None of them believe that we have a right to a livable planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top