Agree, carbon capture process is quite efficient now. I’m working on (pretty big) company doing Carbon Capture and Sequestration. The idea is to use empty oil&gaz reservoir to inject back carbon where it comes from. So there are several advantage:
The land is already messed up by former drilling platerform. No need to shave another forest to create a facility
No waste to handle, as the captured carbon is injected in the underground. We also study the possibility to inject other kind of waste, like domestic ones.
Simplified process as we can keep Co2 in gaz state to inject back in former natural gaz reservoir. Not even needed to extract carbon to solodify it.
Yes, trees are much more efficient and eco-friendly, but sometime we cannot just plant billions of trees. Whereas a CCS facility is relatively small compared to a whole forest.
I think as long as they throw a 10 lb bag of sugar down the hole before they start pumping then you don’t have to worry about it accidentally becoming a diet Coke.
Geological reservoirs are thousands metter depth and several dozen of km wide. Pressure is
a few MPa, and temperature hundreds of °C. Condition are so extrem that filling them with gaz barely change anything. Especially if they were already filled with gaz dozen years ago.
Furthemore, they are not big vacum like most people imagine. It’s more like giant spongy rock, like sand. It’s not a baloon you inflate or deflate.
CCS facilities are not in competition with forest. It’s a complementatry solution. If you manage to capture carbon next to poluting factories, you don’t spread Co2 on the atmosphere, waiting it to be captured by a forest the other side of the globe. And they can be powered by solar panels.
First, because these forests has to stay in place, or used as building material but cannot be burn to for heating. So we still have to plant extra forest for heating.
Second, we still have all the Co2 we have put in atmosphere since a century. So the goal is not to be equilibrium, but to be net negative.
There is not a unique solution “Plant Trees and go electric” to global warming. There are lots of solutions, with pros and cons. CCS is just a small part of the equation. Use renewable energy, use storage (litthium batteries, Hydrogen, …), Nuclear, change habit to consume less, plant trees and develop carbon capture solution.
The problem won’t be solved with a unique solution, but by finding the good balance between all the possibilities. And those who know it won’t work are please to let those who doesn’t know try.
You doesn’t seems to be the kind of person with whom can have constructive argument. I gave you facts and number. Sorry I cannot take my time machine and go back 200 years back telling Great Britain to stop burning coal.
Also, my company has as objective to becomes neutral by 2030 and 20% carbon negative by 2050.
Locally, we have decreased our electricity consumption by 20% since 2022 and put in place mobility actions to push people taking bike or bus. Nearly half of employees use soft transport (public, bikes, onewheel, etc…)
We cannot rewrite the past or snap finger to change habits of 8billions peoples.
We will be juge on our current actions and futur results. As of today, we are trying something which we hope is going to the right direction. But its always easier to criticize and not doing anything.
The facts are it takes 1.5x powerplants to scrub the carbon from 1x powerplants, using CCS.
So, it’s just better to NOT use dirty electricity, and convert it to a renewable, like solar, wind, or hydro.
Also, my company has as objective to becomes neutral by 2030 and 20% carbon negative by 2050.
So, your company will be paying the full cost of the carbon produced by your company? Doubtful. Nobody pays full environment price at the pumps. Or, their electric bills. Or their nat gas bill.
Agree, carbon capture process is quite efficient now. I’m working on (pretty big) company doing Carbon Capture and Sequestration. The idea is to use empty oil&gaz reservoir to inject back carbon where it comes from. So there are several advantage:
That seems like a disaster waiting to (re) happen, what’s your thoughts on that?
What do you mean ?
Carbonating a void underground seems like a bad plan. God help us if Mentos get down there.
And OP was talking about trees.
I think as long as they throw a 10 lb bag of sugar down the hole before they start pumping then you don’t have to worry about it accidentally becoming a diet Coke.
Geological reservoirs are thousands metter depth and several dozen of km wide. Pressure is a few MPa, and temperature hundreds of °C. Condition are so extrem that filling them with gaz barely change anything. Especially if they were already filled with gaz dozen years ago. Furthemore, they are not big vacum like most people imagine. It’s more like giant spongy rock, like sand. It’s not a baloon you inflate or deflate.
CCS facilities are not in competition with forest. It’s a complementatry solution. If you manage to capture carbon next to poluting factories, you don’t spread Co2 on the atmosphere, waiting it to be captured by a forest the other side of the globe. And they can be powered by solar panels.
Why?
Keyboard wear levelinq
How much carbon gets released building this technomarvel?
How long before it hits carbon neutral, if even carbon negative?
Now imagine if instead of playing technowizard… your company spent that money on planting trees?
Global Co2 production of human activities is about 35Gt per year (https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions). Forests absorb around 7.5Gt per year (https://www.wri.org/insights/forests-absorb-twice-much-carbon-they-emit-each-year). Let say we double the total amount of forest in the whole planet, and we cut Co2 production by half. We are very roughly 15Gt produce VS 15Gt absorb. Is the problem solved ? Nope.
First, because these forests has to stay in place, or used as building material but cannot be burn to for heating. So we still have to plant extra forest for heating. Second, we still have all the Co2 we have put in atmosphere since a century. So the goal is not to be equilibrium, but to be net negative.
Worldwide CCS capacity has been estimated between 8,000 and 55,000 gigatonnes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage). And, yes, it is already carbon negative, and already in production in several countries with currently a net result of ~50Mt Co2 per year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/726634/large-scale-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects-worldwide-capacity/)
There is not a unique solution “Plant Trees and go electric” to global warming. There are lots of solutions, with pros and cons. CCS is just a small part of the equation. Use renewable energy, use storage (litthium batteries, Hydrogen, …), Nuclear, change habit to consume less, plant trees and develop carbon capture solution.
The problem won’t be solved with a unique solution, but by finding the good balance between all the possibilities. And those who know it won’t work are please to let those who doesn’t know try.
How are CCS carbon positive, when it requires more electricity to sequester, than it would to just not produce the carbon output, to begin with?
You doesn’t seems to be the kind of person with whom can have constructive argument. I gave you facts and number. Sorry I cannot take my time machine and go back 200 years back telling Great Britain to stop burning coal.
Also, my company has as objective to becomes neutral by 2030 and 20% carbon negative by 2050. Locally, we have decreased our electricity consumption by 20% since 2022 and put in place mobility actions to push people taking bike or bus. Nearly half of employees use soft transport (public, bikes, onewheel, etc…)
We cannot rewrite the past or snap finger to change habits of 8billions peoples.
We will be juge on our current actions and futur results. As of today, we are trying something which we hope is going to the right direction. But its always easier to criticize and not doing anything.
The facts are it takes 1.5x powerplants to scrub the carbon from 1x powerplants, using CCS.
So, it’s just better to NOT use dirty electricity, and convert it to a renewable, like solar, wind, or hydro.
So, your company will be paying the full cost of the carbon produced by your company? Doubtful. Nobody pays full environment price at the pumps. Or, their electric bills. Or their nat gas bill.
Fossil fuels are subsidized.