the plant is designed to remove 36,000 metric tons of carbon each year, the equivalent of taking 8,600 cars off the road.

In short, for removal like this to make a meaningful difference, and not just function as a PR exercise, we’ll need to cut emissions to almost zero.

  • Track_Shovel
    link
    fedilink
    English
    136 months ago

    Realized CCS recovery is like 25% lower than expected, and highly variable.

    Remind me again why we pour billions into this? It’s definitely not just so we can continue what we are doing, without actually doing anything, is it?

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      176 months ago

      It’s mostly being funded as a means of creating social permission to keep on extracting and burning without actually doing CCS

    • @riodoro1
      link
      36 months ago

      No, its so that more people become awfully rich or the people who are already awfully rich are awfully richer. Public money is the easiest to steal

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      26 months ago

      To put a realistic price on carbon emmissions, now we know exactly what a tonne of CO2 costs so we can impose that as a tax.

      • Track_Shovel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        Yet, how do you do that? Cost to produce said tonne? Societal cost of damage? Ecological cost, estimated in terms of reduced biodiversity? All of these costs change with time too. It’s a tough one for sure.

  • NataliePortland
    link
    fedilink
    English
    86 months ago

    Carbon capture is hands down the worst plan we have. At the rate this carbon capture plant operates it would take 100,000 of them just to offset the emission from cars alone. 100,000 plants . Imagine how much metal had to be mined for those. How much product needs to be shipped and produced and built. How much ecological damage and emissions would just building them some create? Then you realize that they use lots of power to run them. Most of the world’s electricity still comes from fossil fuels. So to offset those emissions you now need even more plants. Where are you going to put 100,000 plus plants like this? Do you know how hard it is to get these kinds of things approved? Whose land is this going on?

    That’s not even the stupidest part. The idea is that these plants will suck out the carbon and use a - I can’t believe I’m about to say this- a pipeline. A PIPELINE! To pump carbon dioxide underground. I mean who has ever heard of a pipeline leaking, right? And putting it underground? Do we have even the foggiest idea of the potential effect of that? What if it just seeps out through the ground and back into the atmosphere, choking out all the life along the way?

    Now if that’s the stupidest part, the evil part is this: carbon capture is an excuse to continue fossil fuel. Why should anyone stop if we are capturing it? That means the reason these fuckjng things are going to get approved is because the goddamn oil companies are backing them! It’s worse than those worthless carbon offsets since this can actually cause so much harm to the world.

    I’m so pissed off about carbon capture.

    • @Dkarma
      link
      16 months ago

      You have to start taking it out of the atmosphere somehow, tho…reducing what we make is simply not enough.

      Even if we cut emissions to zero the planet is fucked unless we can recapture carbon

  • @Coreidan
    link
    English
    36 months ago

    Good luck cutting emissions to zero with the amount of energy required for carbon capture to work.

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      46 months ago

      If it gets used in any meaningful way, it’ll be for cleaning up what we can after we stop using fossil fuels

  • @RizzRustbolt
    link
    26 months ago

    “Stubborn emissions”

    You mean source pollution?