Carbon Capture: Are They Hiding Something?

[Delaney]

I came across a video several years ago that explained how carbon capture, is a really good way to extract shale gas.
This naturally set eyebrows to ‘raised’.

Does this new found passion for ‘carbon capture’, have more to it than meets the eye?

“how dare you”



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2949908924001134

 

[paulrbarnard]

The carbon?

 

[Delaney]

The carbon?

Intentions

 

[Sideways]

Respondants :
If this goes political or conspiracy theorist, it goes straight into OT2.

 

[Jacob]

Carbon capture is technically possible but only on a very small scale compared to the size of the climate change issue.
<deleted - I said leave the politics out of this. Sideways.>
Re-foresting and other plant based ways make much more sense. It's probably going to happen that way naturally but we won't be getting the benefit - it's too late for us.
https://ieefa.org/resources/carbon-capture-remains-risky-investment-achieving-decarbonisation

 

[Delaney]

Carbon capture is technically possible but only on a very small scale compared to the size of the climate change issue.

Re-foresting and other plant based ways make much more sense.

Jacob we might agree 🎉

 

[Spectric]

Now we are told that using incinerators to burn our waste to avoid landfill is just as bad as burning coal, surprise, surprise as at least coal did not contain all the plastics that when burnt produce all sorts of byproducts. As for carbon capture is that just half the story, once captured you need to securely contain it in the cavities where oil and gas once was and so being a gas it might just seep through faults in the rocks.

 

[Sideways]

I'll just add for those that don't bother to watch it that the video in the first post is all about putting CO2 into the American shale fields after they take out the methane.
It didn't seem to be trying to justify taking out the gas, that wasn't debated at all, it was more about the economics of trying to use the space left behind for CO2 sequestration. The verdict was that the whole idea is less attractive than it first appears because wells "fill up" quite quickly and you'd continually have to move on to filling new ones. Also, the biggest sources of pollution in that part of the world - the power stations - are a long way from the shale field with the biggest storage capacity making logistics difficult.

My take is that someone did some research, found that the whole idea is a lot less attractive than people hoped and shared their results without much spin.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There is an energy penalty in carbon capture systems - estimates seem to range between 10% and 35% - probably depends on the method used and the way it is stored.

It increases the cost of usable energy by adding a significant inefficiency to energy production. It seems likely that it can only be fitted to a limited number of carbon fuel uses - mainly fossil fuelled power stations. Planes, cars, ships, etc are a more difficult moving target.

Rather than spending money retrofitting existing power station which will likely be decommissioned over the next 20-30 years, it would make far more sense to accelerate their replacement with greener technologies - solar, wind, nuclear.

As a proposition carbon capture is flawed - an expensive partial short term fix. There are fundamentally better ways to reduce emissions through accelerating non-polluting generation and reducing consumption through investment in efficiencies and reduced consumption.

Without wishing to politicise the issue, I note Labour plans to spend £22bn over the next 25 years on carbon capture. IMHO daft!

 

[TRITON]

Alternatively ...

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Half an hour, but scary.

 

[BC'er]

Out in these parts it was long ago discovered by a retired teacher doing some quiet research of her own that most of the so-called environmental groups obstructing the construction of a pipeline to the West Coast were funded by American billionaires and various US-based "funds". It turned out to be all about preventing Canada from exporting oil to the Pacific Rim which the men from Uncle would profit from if it was kept for their exclusive use.

Of course being a simpleton, or at least pretending to be, does save one a good deal of mental effort and discomfiture.

 

[Jacob]

Carbon capture is technically possible but only on a very small scale compared to the size of the climate change issue.
<deleted - I said leave the politics out of this. Sideways.>

But it is now a deeply political issue, otherwise of little interest at all.

Re-foresting and other plant based ways make much more sense. It's probably going to happen that way naturally but we won't be getting the benefit - it's too late for us.
https://ieefa.org/resources/carbon-capture-remains-risky-investment-achieving-decarbonisation

 

[Jacob]

There is an energy penalty in carbon capture systems - estimates seem to range between 10% and 35% - probably depends on the method used and the way it is stored.

In terms of climate change it is utterly irrelevant. Slightly reduced emissions yes, but we need zero and in any case the actual storage reliability is doubtful.
To be effective in terms of the atmosphere we would have to capture an amount of CO2 equivalent to all of the CO2 released since the start of the industrial revolution 200 or more years ago. The sheer mass would be along the lines of the weight of all the deforested material and all the extracted coal and oil of 200+ years.

....cies and reduced consumption.

Without wishing to politicise the issue, I note Labour plans to spend £22bn over the next 25 years on carbon capture. IMHO daft!

Daft, and an excuse for continued fossil fuel use.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Alternatively ...
View attachment 190279

Planting trees is but a short term fix.

After 50-200 years they mostly die, rot and release all the carbon back into the atmosphere.

The other minor problem - when the landscape is covered as far as the eye can see with leafy boughs, there will be no room to plant more.

They do look nice!

 

[Jacob]

Planting trees is but a short term fix.

Actually it seems to be the only fix available. There is nothing else on offer. Prerequisite would be zero emissions, which is not likely to happen until climate change has put a stop to us
It's also the planet's natural way of fixing things, once we are cleared off the land and stopped poisoning the environment.

After 50-200 years they mostly die, rot and release all the carbon back into the atmosphere.

They all die, but whilst living they sequestrate carbon, and when dead some carry on doing this as peat deposits etc. Peat is a big issue on the carbon capture front and is a prelude to renewed coal/oil deposits, but on a geological time scale, no use to us.

The other minor problem - when the landscape is covered as far as the eye can see with leafy boughs, there will be no room to plant more.

They do look nice!