Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part IX 10

Canada's politicians may be catching on pandering...

Click to expand...

Fixed it for ya!

Carbon capture is projected to be 25% of global energy consumption by 2100.


What kind of expert would think this is a viable route?

You need to reduce the carbon, too... not just capture it.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

We aren't doing carbon capture now. If it becomes 25% of our energy consumption that will be entirely additional consumption. That's a lot of extra heating.

TugboatEng said:

Carbon capture is projected to be 25% of global energy consumption by 2100.

Click to expand...

You must have a doctorate in cherry picking. I am continually amazed at your ability to neglect everything in a document except for what you actually want the news to be.

For everyone else, here is what that study actually says, via direct quotes from the author of the study:

"Although DAC will use less resources such as water and land than other NETs [such as BECCS], a proper full life-cycle assessment needs to be carried out to understand all resource implications"

"Inappropriate interpretations [of our findings] would be that DAC is a panacea"

"Policymakers should not make the mistake to believe that carbon removals could ever neutralise all future emissions"

"Even under pessimistic assumptions about fossil fuel availability, carbon removal cannot and will not fix the problem."

TugboatEng said:

What kind of expert would think this is a viable route?

Click to expand...

Not even the author of the study thinks this solution is an 'instant' fix to the system. So, as usual, no one is saying the things you're arguing against.

The Article said:

a proper full life-cycle assessment needs to be carried out to understand all resource implications

Click to expand...

This is the part that will never be done.

None of those points address my comment.

dik said:

You need to reduce the carbon, too... not just capture it.

Click to expand...

Not sure that's true. If you can capture it at the production point and don't release it into the atmosphere, and find a way to store it long term (a lot of ifs). Then, by it's very nature, this carbon capture would be a reduction in emissions.

That being said, I'm not sure the technology is truly there yet. Maybe it is and I don't know about it.

For what it's worth, the CONCEPT of carbo swaps (where you can emit more carbon if you plant trees or such to offset it) is a valid one. That being said, I am highly skeptical. To me, the way it's been proposed is just a way for certain politically connected uber-environmentalists to profit off of the guilt / regulations that the illuminati are imposing on the rest of us.

I'm not onboard with the bio offsets. They turn the CO2 into CH4 which is 300x worse.

"Yet, previous hopes that CCUS was about to fulfil its potential have petered out. The past decade saw high-profile project cancellations and government funding programmes that failed to deliver. On average, capture capacity of less than 3 million tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) has been added worldwide each year since 2010, with annual capture capacity now reaching over 40 MtCO2. This needs to increase to 1.6 billion tonnes (GtCO2) in 2030 to align with a pathway to net zero by 2050."


I hope more of them come on line soon... there's not much increase in those operating, it would seem.





-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

You hope more come online? Is there any real reduction in CO2 by running these units considering they are primarily fueled by fossil fuel? Will we even be able to build anymore with the refrigerant bans moving forward?

Breaking news:

"Scientists are predicting that global warming will pass 1.5C between now and 2027. This threshold, they suggest, will see more extreme temperatures and weather conditions around the world.

The unprecedented rise in relation to a long-term average is put down in part to human activity such as the burning of fossil fuel, but scientists say that if temperatures do breach the 1.5c threshold it is only likely to be temporary.

The rises are also partly due to changing global weather patterns but scientists have noticed a clear change between pre-and-post heavy fossil-fuel consumption."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65602293

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-...ttest-year-yet-climate-change-united-nations/

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

I have a prediction.... We won't see any real "call to action" until valuable coastal regions start flooding frequently due to sea rise. At that point, there will be real money lost / at IMMEDIATE risk due to climate change.

The problem is that this is not an immediate crisis. Yeah, there are all sorts of theoretical "dangers" out there. But, none of those are really all that scary. At least not compared to the immediate dangers that face all of us every day.... Not being able to pay our bills, worry about our children's education, or their getting into drugs or such. Being able to afford our retirement and such. These are all more real and immediate compared to the dangers of global warming.

I concur... and by that time, who knows where this will go.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

dik said:

Breaking news:

"Scientists are predicting that global warming will pass 1.5C between now and 2027.

Click to expand...

That's not news, it's a prediction, the same kind we've been hearing for several decades, other than the time frame is shorter. Either they're desperate to get their agenda enacted quickly, or they think the public's collective attention span is getting shorter, and we'll forget about the prediction by then.

It's just a matter of hanging on, and see what happens, and hope it's for the best. No magic globe... we don't know what the future brings, but based on past information, we may be able to make an educated guess.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

... but based on past information, we may be able to make an educated guess.

Click to expand...

You'd think so, but up to this point, the so-called 'educated' guesses made in the past about the present, by the same supposed experts, have all been way off, always on the high side (except for the few that have been around long enough to have made predictions warning about global cooling).

Yup, the media has gleefully repeated all kinds of wild predictions that have not even come close to being true. This has been going on for at least 50 years. Maybe closer to 100 years. These predictions are almost never correct. What's more is that many of them predict true doomsday scenarios that have never materialized.

Heck, the left has done this with nuclear apocalypse (that's when I was a kid in the 1980s). Before that it was in the 60s and 70s it was that the world economy would collapse because of the rapid increase in population and we wouldn't have sufficient food resources to avoid mass starvation. There was all the Y2k panic as well. Every one of these had a pretty big political aspect of it. Trying to influence global politics and change government policy. Heck, the company I worked for spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to update engineering software that were

The religious right is susceptible to these sorts of doomsdays as well. I'm thinking of a small group of religious folks who believe that 2nd coming of has arrived. Not sure that there is very much negative consequences from these predictions for anyone outside of the people who wasted their time believing.

However, you can argue that threat of fascism in the 1930s and communism in the 1950/60s were right-leaning doomsday scenarios as well. These, of course, were genuine existential crises. There were immediate threats that materialized in continuing and ongoing problems in the world.

The part about mass starvation is happening in some parts of the world. Not due to production, but due to distribution, and apathy.

Meanwhile
and of course
Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376