Why Norway and the US are leading the way in this game-changing technology | Transforming Business
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июн 2024
- Carbon capture and storage is a hot topic right now - including in Germany, where the technology is still banned. The U.S. and Norway, by contrast, have been using CCS for decades. The oil and gas industries there have amassed a great deal of know-how regarding the capture and storage of CO2. Both countries are now looking to ramp up the technology with tax incentives and subsidies, in the U.S. by way of the Inflation Reduction Act and in Norway by way of the prestigious Longship project. And now Germany is also set to change course, announcing plans to implement the technology in ‘hard to abate’ sectors. Those include the cement, chemicals and steel industries, for which there is no technological solution to achieve climate neutrality. So how does CCS actually work? Is it an effective technology at reducing emissions? What are the U.S. and Norway doing to incentivize the technology? And did Germany make a mistake with its more hesitant strategy?
Chapters
0:00 Intro
0:57 How does Carbon Capture and Storage work?
1:43 CCS for ‘hard-to-abate’ industries
2:47 Banned in Germany
3:41 The Norwegian example
4:50 The Northern Lights project
6:30 Carbon Capture and Storage in the U.S.
7;33 The role of oil and gas companies
8:27 What do Europeans think?
9:38 What’s changing in Germany?
10:57 What are the risks of CCS?
11:52 Outro
#TransformingBusiness #CCS #carboncapture
Subscribe: ruclips.net/user/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
►Twitch: / dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
Carbon capture and storage is not game changing. It is in fact, allowing the current game of the oil and gas sector to continue. They continue to take subsidies from governments and the population, preventing subsidies from going toward actual solutions while continuing to profit privately. If "successful" with storage, the oil companies use a bunch more unsustainable energy to capture the CO2 and then defer the problem into the future with wells that must be continually managed and could leak as a result of many different geological events or the inevitable neglect that comes from loss of attention.
This
Nevermind that it's vaporware from 20 years ago...
yep, it's a red herring, a bit like saying you're solving gambling by creating gambling anonymous.
CCS is technically viable, but it isn't economically viable for electricity production.
CCS is game changing for cement, concrete and steel, which comprised 15% of CO2 emissions in 2017. Net zero electricity is the low hanging fruit in the race to net zero. Green cement and green steel is extremely difficult to achieve, and so CCS makes sense technically and economically in those industries.
@@naomieyles210 Carbon capture may make sense in those industries, but storage is not a solution. If you are producing CO2, you need to find some way to permanently keep it out of the atmosphere. If you can sequester the CO2 in the cement you make, use it to make carbon fiber, use hydrogen based reduction for steel production, recycle the clinker in steel production as Cambridge University is proposing, etc. then that is a solution. Otherwise, it is simply deferral with future citizens picking up the tab.
Stop the subsidies. They make enough money to pay for it themselves. They don't like the taxes? Tough luck. Tax payers shouldn't be fronting the cost
Big facts
its an incentive. corporations aren't human beings and only move based on the profit motive, not morality.
Or at least create a government fund for the people with the profits. But you know, the American government won't ever do anything positive for everyday people.
@@Anthony-db7cs the profits of what? and who is creating it? I need answers anthony!
In 🇬🇧 they get subsidies and we still pay massive taxes on our fossil fuels. Getting stung all the time, yet the companies make billions with little investment in other industries or cleaning the mess they have made
This is the same concept as putting a windmill generator in front of a fan to "save energy"
I sort of understand what you're saying but most of CCS has to do with capturing ancillary CO2 releases at the point source of their release, not at the point of combustion. For instance, CO2 is released in the extraction of natural gas in the north sea. It's not the combustion of the gas, just previously geologically stored CO2 getting out with the CH4.
Cheap, easy and efficient way to reduce the CO2 contributions from natural gas.
so after the CO2 has been 'captured & stored', it then needs to be liquified for transport / export by land and sea, both of which require energy produced from fossil fuels, producing more emissions. 🤷🏻♂
Yes but it's total net emissions of the system as a whole is significantly less!
And we need steel and cement.
@@fuze59 Yep this is what the far left eco folks don't get. There are many things that can be decarbonized easily, but the few that can't economically be done or the tech is too far off from the laboratory, like heavy industry, carbon capture is the key. Think of all the concrete and steel needed for those thousands of hectares of solar panels and wind turbines, the amount of concrete and steel produced via "green" sources for them is nearly zero, carbon capture tech will turn that around, not to mention the other tech out there to capture the CO2 already in the air that's causing havoc as it is.
If this works, as soon as it shows a profit, someone will start building pipelines to move this to the storage points. It may even be possible to pipe it in "packets" (discrete masses) in existing pipelines, making it even more attractive. And so far, the path the German chemists and Norwegians are on has gotten further than others to use at scale. And pipelines will improve an already impressive net emission numbers.
So they are subsidizing companies who are investing most of their annual budget in oil?
Yes that is correct. It is a way to funnel tax dollars from Healthcare to the oil companies
I would have liked to see some numbers. Cause everything I have seen until now indicates that they capture less CO2 than expected and it takes more energy resulting in new emissions.
When it comes to concrete, you can add the CO2 doing the hardening process. This binds the CO2 chemically as part of the stone. This could be useful in brick and stone production.
But in general it looks like people are way too optimistic when it comes to CCS.
I was unaware of the CO2/concrete bonding technology. Articles say it makes the concrete stronger, so at least that's a good thing. But concrete itself is problematic, as it is water intensive to produce. I assert that based on my limited reading, not from expertise.
I know a carbon capture machine that is powered by the sun
@@jozews The NASA thing?
@@urkiddingme6254 the tree
@@jozews 🤣 of course. Been planting a bunch of those since the wildfire here.
Feels like a scam for oil companies to keep making profit at the cost of the environment.
what part of it "feels" like a scam?
@@davidroulliermall of it
@@minnigmanmad it's not a complete scam, it's real technology but sadly it's being used as an excuse to continue using fossil fuels. It could be used in other industries, like the livestock industry while we work on cutting down CO2 emissions.
Making a profit providing us with the most important resource on the planet you mean.
Fracking is banned in New Zealand and we have almost no enviromental standards
Carbon capture needs to either be outlawed is de-subsidized.
From my perspective, CCS should be used in conjunction to reducing fossil fuel dependance and transitioning to renewable energy since CCS doesn't have the capacity to keep up with the emissions put out. For industries where it is currently unavoidable to release CO2, it seems right to prioritize CCS for that. But elsewhere like the energy sector, transitions still need to occur and large oil companies don't seem to support that. CCS does have a place in the transition to net zero, though it seems to get a lot of greenwashing and investment from the big oil companies to make us think it might have the capacity to prevent the greenhouse gas effect even though it doesn't.
Does the transportation of this CO2 create more CO2? Asking for a friend…
U fix one link in the chain at a time. And in the end u get there.
@@FFL3001sounds like great way to spend another 100 years chasing our tails
If I remember right, the science of Norway also produces the worst and likely the largest and dirtiest Bad Tech. fish farms on the planet. Parts of the US have banned them as in shutting them down(Wa. and Oregon States) as well as in Canada's West Coast has started the legal process to do the same.
Their farm raised salmon is highly carcinogenic you're right don't eat it!
the largest and dirtiest bad tech? Maybe make a coherent statement here? you are just speaking nonsense. The fish industry is not good, thats correct, but what has that to do with tech?
@@shmiga02 Fish Farm Tech.
@@ethimself5064 It's still unclear what you're really trying to get across
At this point we have to try everything if we want a functional economy over the next century or two.
I don't rate this solution as that strong, the numbers in general are not that incredible, but it can certainly be put in the basket called "better than nothing"
There are natural solar powered CO2 capturing machines you know
To the Norwegian Ministries; Norway, from Ekofisk to the present, Norway has been in the van seeking better ways forward on the issues surrounding our energy sources. Thank you and may your words and actions give leadership to the rest of the world as Ekofisk did in it's time- Norway took up the challenge and found solutions that improved oil field security on those issues as nothing before had. And then, having paid the price for them, shared things like the Barriers Rules and others, that helped all.
Bloomberg once wrote that there is love affection between US politics and its business people. It said that every time US democrat party won the US president election, ExxonMobil would always hit a new world record in net profit, thanks to Petrodollar. The fact is in 1970, there were only 200 million cars in the world. Now there are 1.4 billion cars. If each passenger will have 197 gram CO2 from ICE car, how much people in the word affected by CO2 made by 1.4 billion cars in the world?
Those numbers exclude the other needs of oil such as plastics, Commercial jets, etc.
Average car puts 100 gr. of CO2 per km . 1 kg of CO2 = 10 km . 25 kg wich is average tree consumption of CO2 per year is 250 km . Is it 10 000 km anual travel average car , you need 40 trees to consume your CO2 from car . In my weekend hous I have 50 cheery treees , 20 apples , 10 apricosts 10 peachs ,vineyard , lots of decorative foiliages . So I am not net zero , I am net minus .
I will plant 50 more trees for you so you you can feel safe with CO2 emmision
I feel direct carbon capture is the trick, you capture directly at the plants, industries and emitting factories while continuously making things greener and improving other solutions.
Good point - to a point, gotta do something now thing. I don't quite trust the system myself. Someday enough may escape to do serious harm. Major earth quakes as an example.
Agree. However, the trick here is to jump start a "new" technology (CSS has been around for decades practiced by Norwegian and US companies as noted). It's common for Germans to debate a problem to death and pile on the bureaucratic redtapes but this prototype initiative using subsidies are just cover for a reluctant German government that is concerned primarily about how this green technology will burden German businesses like Heidelberg Materials and other German industrial giants in auto, chemical and other engery-instensive fields.
7:50 “the crude oil becomes more viscous and can be pumped more easily to the surface”
Tells me that we need to also invest more to improve the science and technology knowledge of the general populace.
Carbon capture is obvious scam. If you transport it 300 KM by ship, you are obviously doing more harm than good.
depends. Also ships can be made elctric.
@@ArpanMukhopadhyay93ya cause that has no cost at all on the environment much less$
Lot of Norway local ship traffic is moving to electric.
do your math and come back
They will use the CO2 captured to Inject into existing oil wells to push up the oil to make it easier to pump.
CCS for enhanced oil and gas extraction should be banned and off the table, it's inefficient and just produces more emissions. Only when then solution is without extra oil and gas production, can we start asking questions about efficacy and all the other issues around it.
It's unclear from the report if northern lights will be used to promote north sea O&G production but if it is, then this is a terrible project.
"Carbon capture & storage" or CCS is just some fancy gimmick term for oil companies to deflect criticism.
The tech is relatively new so it is questionable. On top of that, it is way more expensive than to just planting more forests.
Nothing beats plain old trees.
A long time ago, I watched a cartoon in which a cat bathes in a drink of bubbles (champagne). I hope I won't be alive when a man bathes in a sea of bubbles.
One thing not talked about in this video is how many wells need to be dug up to store all of the CO2 that is pumped every year. Will the ground end up looking like Swiss cheese? I understand you can store CO2 underground in a limited basis, but can that actually be done for every oil, gas, and concrete factory? Can it be stored year in and year out continuously through the lifespan of that fossil fuel factory?
That CO2 is less than the oil&gas that used to occupy the ground. That's why subsidence occurs over old wells
Got to think these ventures through.
Thanks to China oil and gas will be history soon. Everything uses gas or oil will be replaced by clean energy particularly from Solar, Hydro and wind. Clean energy technology is the number one direction and investment China is getting busy with everyday. All engines, cockings and everything will use only clean energy knowing China is investing hugely keeping in mind more than 7 billion global south consumers will need this always.
Rather than pumping CO2 into the ground, and all the issues with that, I think what we need is a different chemical process for carbon capture that leaves us with carbon and oxygen separately. Carbon is a very useful thing, and Oxygen, well, we need it to breathe, so... Hmm. I'm not a chemist, but I think a solution, or at least a hint, may be found in nature.
Why not investing in a chain system where ciment companies are obligated to cooperate with plastic and chemical companiees in the same location in order to use the co2 as an alement
CCS has only limited applicability to mitigate pollution. It should be used alongside cement production at least as an option. CCS is not applicable at the well head or mine where fossil fuels are extracted. In Alberta, bitumin production is only possible with the use of natural gas condensate to make the viscous tar like substance flow within a pipeline. A third of the so called dilbit consists of natural gas condensate (naptha). The carbon emissions of dilbit eventually are 1.3 times greater than burning coal.
8:00 Claus Balman needs better audio. Even with captions on I'm having difficulty figuring out what he's saying.
Sorry, actually crude oil becomes less viscous(easier to flow) when mixed with CO2 during enhanced oil recovery.
Capture the CO2, separate and bottle the oxygen, squash the carbon into diamond.
Yes, it's probably not realistic. It was just a thought.
Love this short docu series, keep up with great work ❤❤❤
The map with Øygarden is not pointing correctly:)
CCS is a must have to decarbonise steel and cement
I think the wave of the future is illusory because of Jevon's Paradox. By the way, Heidelberg has always been a climate villan; I know because i worked there.
Carbon capture was invented in Texas in the 50s. Although not widespread, Its been in use ever since.
Sweeping it under the carpet only works for so long.
The key here is "carbon tax", and doing something to reduce co2. The tax is quite high, so polluting companies really try hard to become "green". Even our ships are getting electrified now with hydroelectric power, so they don't pullute as well.
So it's quiet simple: Just tax it, and companies will find a way to not pollute anymore 😊
Carbon tax is also the reason why 80% of all new cars in Norway are electric, as they don't have any taxes 😊
Development goes really fast, so in maybe 20 years gas stations are history, and extinct in Norway, incredible as it sounds, all because of high CO2 taxes 😊
Going to be an obsolete process when the thunderstorm generator comes online being retrofitted to exhaust stacks
BigOil = BigDestruction
This carbon capture sounds like a time bomb - it is gaming the system by claiming lower carbon footprint of the "green" concrete thus making it look more sustainable solution compared to other options like engineered wood and whatever that might be far better way to go... There is a reason why they don't convert captured CO2 to for example aviation fuel...
Lol, the painful truth is that as long as we continue to depend on fossil fuels to power our daily lives, oil companies will always take advantage and paint the picture of using massive earnings to fulfil their social responsibilities by investing in initiatives like carbon capture, which will in the medium-long term have a negligible impact on reducing global emissions due to costs associated with outsourcing, raw materials, technical know how and the magnitude of the infrastructure required.
Also carbon capture is location dependent which adds to the cost especially for oil producers that may want to offset their own local emissions but have unfavorable underground locations for capture.
More progress will be made by producing synthetic alternatives to many of the biproducts of crude refinement, making nuclear energy safer by finding a solution to the age-long conundrum of radioactive material with long half lives, and completely eliminating the use of coal for power generation. Carbon capture has the potential to bring about new problems for us in the seas or other underground locations proposed as potential storage points.
So energy is spent, caputring, liquifying, transporting and pumping CO2. Some how all of that processing is going to be 100% carbon free? There's these carbon sequestering devices called trees. They're 100% solar powered. Maybe the Norwegians never heard of them.
Dear Lord.Please allow this brainstorm to fail.Amen🙏
Old wells may be pathways for CO2 but also oil and gas carried away with it.
I am a little confused, it also feels a little like smoke and mirrors.
I was always made to believe it isn’t the co2 that is so bad but the hazardous materials within burning the fuel. I don’t know how hiding it the ground anyway better, will it not naturally filter through ground and then be contaminating food and water we drink at the source.
Could we not replant forests and allow sea grass to grow etc. while looking at ways to get rid of the hazardous ⚠️ materials in fossil fuel and reducing the need of them.
Canada is number two but you mention Norway much further down the list.
🤣🤣🤣 Good point
Canada? don't know where that is
@@davidroullierm Are you an expert in Geo Politics by chance?
@@ethimself5064 not in Geo Politics. But I do know my geopolitics. (;
@@davidroullierm Haha, got me as well as Mr. Google
Once people realize that carbon is a harmless threat, the neurotic hysteria can begin to subside. Anybody with a basic understanding of Organic Chemistry knows this.
Plus water vapor is far more abundant in the atmosphere to trap heat than CO2 and it traps it far more effectively.
Shall we begin to ban water next?
Hopefully the transport of the carbon won't cause more emissions than the amount of the carried carbon, otherwise will make even less sense. But the whole idea is a minor evil for sectors that won't be able to decarbonize completely
Anything but ordering big oil to cut down emissions
Stop them 🌋 eruptions.Figure that out!!
All targets and pathways for limiting heat rises to within manageable levels requires some level of CCS. This is the view of all non governmental and governmental organisations who've published peer reviewed science based responses.
Could you explain this as I don't understand it? You may be way ahead of me on terms/Thanks
@@ethimself5064 Which aspect specifically?
The idea is that we're not going to be able to stop all emissions, so the only way to meet net zero is to remove some of those emissions after you've made them.
You can either try to do that with a tree or a machine that acts like one taking CO2 directly from the air.
The other way is the way in the video where you capture it directly at the place you're making the CO2, like an oil refinery or a cement plant.
Does that help?
@@LudvigIndestrucable Yes, thanks. And thanks for getting back👍
Thought I would mention that I don't quite trust CCS as like anything we make it can and will fail someday. I suspect that major earthquakes would be one cause as well as mechanical failures.
@@ethimself5064 not all storage systems require perpetual physical integrity, there are several that inject the CO2 into carbonate rock formations that the CO2 bonds with chemically.
The people of norway are intellegent people, the US uhhhggggggg, lol.
🤣🤣🤣
As you watch on an American video product (RUclips) made by an American tech company (Alphabet)
It’s a sterotype that the US isn’t intelligent.
One propped up by cope based reality denying people fueled by pretentiousness & denialism.
There’s a reason why the US has the most advanced companies in various industries.
So unprofessional DW, at 0:15 u present us with a chart with some figures, then u decided the viewers wouldn't care what those figures meant, right?🙄
To get rid of pollution, we need to reduce the population of the planet . Invest money into education and technologies....
I thought they were going to add as much co2 to the cement by adding the co2 that was cooked out of the rock. Nope 😅. Just have more green spaces and parks in towns and cities it should help cool em and clean the air oh ya reduce co2 as well.
Ok some please help me. I like O2 and burying it is BAD. Can't we separate the Carbon (C6) from the Oxygen (O8) and bury just the carbon (C6). After all plants have be doing this for billons of years. Why can't we do it faster and more efficient? Some please tell where my logic has failed.
We can, but it costs lots of energy...defeating the whole idea.
❤️❤️❤️❤️
Send carbon to space
Zero point energy?
This is your CO2 future.
7:35 .
We don know 4 sure ,,how high humanity of Norwegian maale would grow ,,like his height ,,,like a polar bear with albino skin ,,,still wildly dangerous
7:34 - This system literally causes local earthquakes🤣
Question what is plant food?
Answer CO2
Resistiu el règim espanyol! Lluita contra l'ocupació espanyola, Catalunya!
CCS is useless.
I wonder how much carbon is used in the transportation and storage process. Also the amount of people involved in the project having to drive to work and back every day. How much of the carbon gets captured?
It’s just another project to try to act like these companies are progressive. False hope. We need to drastically reduce our extraction of oil, that’s the only thing that could make any meaningful difference (we’re too late anyway)
CCS is very important for long term climate protection
hi good night
Yeap anyone wanna ask help to Canadá 😂
CCS is the way forwarded if we are interested in co2 removal from the atmosphere using renewable energy sources, off course the technology needs to be refined farther to make it safe and efficient.
It is all "Bull"!
This is a scam funded by Big oil or what 😢
Yes
simply do not use cement! No cement no emissions.
People are craaaaaazy 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 how in 1 world you think like this
Germany 🇩🇪 lost NordStream pipeline.Meaning no more industrial 🏭 powerhouse in Europe 🤫
It’s all lies and misdirection
Greenwashing.
Germany, country who denies nuclear plants 🤣
.......
END GEOENGINEERING END GREENWASHING
No, avoid wasting money on this
New fi
CCS is a scam
The only way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to reduce the population and drastically reduce consumption. Unfortunately, this is not possible.
Use whatever tech fits the situation and works. Don't shoot yourself in the foot making good the enemy of perfect. CCS is the only way to reduce emissions from some industries (concrete ect), so you either pump it into the ground or the air. Put it back in the ground please.
It may also be a good thing to push in places that will for whatever reason, be using fossil fuel for a long time. Again, it's better to put the carbon back in the ground than releasing it into the air.
There is a line to be drawn. It's better to use tech that doesn't generate the carbon to begin with. If you have to generate carbon though, put it back in the ground please :)
I thought you didn't like oil, gas, and nuclear energy.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I feel direct carbon capture is the trick, you capture directly at the plants, industries and emitting factories while continuously making things greener and improving other solutions. Also for Nuclear, the Chernobyl accident led to fear of nuclear. Which I think has been a disservice to the world because it was the engineer design for emergencies that was to drastic. They were doing an emergency shutdown to test the system and there was a design flaw in the procedure. The world might have benefited if not for the fear Chernobyl really introduced. Which was human error/ incompetence.
Carbon capture is useless
I feel direct carbon capture is the trick, you capture directly at the plants, industries and emitting factories while continuously making things greener and improving other solutions.
It's used in Texas to re-pressure hydrocarbon basins.
Volcanoes find it useful
Good to see your positive about capturing and reducing CO2 emissions.
This tech actually works, so why not use it?
It's a good way to improve the tech too.
It's useless in the interim but in the future it will be crucial for carbon neutrality to be possible, because some essential technologies will never not produce CO2.
See the video by Hank Green about carbon capture with the title "My favourite climate graph".
PAID VIDEO 😂
I am from India, can I get a job in Germany, what do I have to do for this, what is the rule of Germany, can you tell me? According to us, German people are very honest, we have seen in the news.🇩🇪
If you want a job in germany and live there, try to start learn german even before you get there. The language is not as easy at first for many than say english and we see it as a custom curtesy when people coming here make the effort.
Otherwise i would advise to go to a german embassy and ask what is needed. When all that is done, again ahead of times and maybe not in this order, you may want to apply for a job at several companies and hand over your CV and only when you have been invited for interviews i would go buy tickets :)
You may want to consider having lined up a bunch of interviews before waisting the money on a ticket. There are also i guess internet job markets that can help with that. Important part is not to waste money for a plane ticket if you are not really sure you will have a job in the end.
@@kinngrimm Is there no hope without learning German language, but many people from India go there for jobs and they are sent through agents.
@@kinngrimm There must be some solution, many children also go to study and have a lot of money.
Stay in India to help your country to be a better country, there are a lot of jobs in India like cleaning your streets.
Go to Canada instead
US is leading, where??😂😂😂
1:15 this tec doesnt work. Simply said the amount u need to capture and transport is simply so big that u would produce more while capturing it and transporting it then u store.
It is a scam
complete nonsense
Plant a billion trees
Stop playing games and stealing money
I LOVE ALLAH
What a waste.
What is it ??? a complete waste of time and effort.
why?
I feel direct carbon capture is the trick, you capture directly at the plants, industries and emitting factories while continuously making things greener and improving other solutions.
Fossil fuels are bad EV is better.. This is ftom experience
How?
CCS is great - i don‘t get why some can‘t understand that^^
Hopefully we find a way without it in the longterm, than we‘re golden!
CO2 is not poison, it's a naturally occurring fertilizer -- plants love it so much commercial growers pump extra into their greenhouses.
Too much is too much - Did you know that it only takes 1 extra tablespoon of water to drown? Dig deeper with an open mind for reliable sources of information, perhaps?
It's true that plants benefit from CO2, but the increased rate of growth is minuscule compared to the damaging effects that climate change can have.
@mountainview35 Historically increased temperatures have been times of thriving civilization. The facts show no "damaging effects" from increased temperatures, quite the opposite. On the contrary, times when climate temperatures cycle down have been bad times indeed for mankind: famines & plagues, times of reduced temperature have even contributed to fall of entire civilizations. Look to history & be informed, the modern climate computer models have erred time & time again.
@@ajknaup3530 If you are young enough, wait and see for yourself.
Cc is a scam