Carbon Capture and Storage. Inconvenient new data.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 янв 2024
- So, Carbon Capture and Storage then. Climate change cure-all or delusional diversion by our friends over at Fossil Fuel HQ? Well, some people much smarter than me have been investigating, so I thought we should take at look at their findings
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoffee.com/justhave...
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveathink.com
NEVER FORGET : EXXON KNEW..!
insideclimatenews.org/news/22...
Research Links
Oil Change report on 1.5C
priceofoil.org/content/upload...
Main Oxford School report
www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/site...
US Tax break 45Q
crsreports.congress.gov/produ...
Carbon Brief analysis of IPCC AR6
www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-...
Check out other RUclips Climate Communicators
zentouro: / zentouro
Climate Adam: / climateadam
Kurtis Baute: / scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand: / the100lh
Simon Clark: / simonoxfphys
Sarah Karvner: / @sarahkarver
Rollie Williams / ClimateTown: / @climatetown
Jack Harries: / jacksgap
Beckisphere: / @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate : / @ourchangingclimate
Engineering With Rosie / engineeringwithrosie
Ella Gilbert / drgilbz
Planet Proof / @planetproofofficial
Our Eden / @oureden
From what I've seen of the amount of CO2 humanity produces and the piddling amount captured by the few actual functioning systems, CCS stands for Complete Con Story.
it's impressive how fast we destroyed Earth
it is rather alarming than impressive, I reckon... and look what the so-called homo "sapiens" keeps on doing to each other (slaughtering, mass murdering, politically supported and legitimated genociding etc.)@@President_NotSure
Yes and no. Yes, because it prevents us from switching fast enough. No, because the IPCC says we could never reach the 1.5 goal without CSS, BECS or any other (expensive) removal technology.
the developing world is only just getting started
it's truly incredible and taking scale into account, actually even impressive when put into perspective. 36.8 billion tonnes of co2 emissions in 2022 alone. CCS captures a whopping 0.1% of global carbon emissions. we're not just being played. these people are practically peeing on our heads. the push for CCS can't be taken as anything but deliberate disrespect and disdain for mankind
Carbon Capture and Storage is like frantically cleaning up at a never-ending house party. To make any progress, the party needs to stop.
...where the party guests are the cleaning personell, or vice versa
Yeah, I think Westerners need to have a lot less children. Unfortunately, phonies insist otherwise. SMFH
#ZenAndTheArtOfSavingLifeOnEarth
I have never thought that CCS was a realistic solution, for two reasons: First, forever is a very long time, and as Dave pointed out, accidents and leaks happen. Second, it's almost always better/cheaper/more effective to avoid a problem than to create a work-around to deal with the aftereffects.
Solution to what problem exactly? I checked the records, there are no trends in extreme weather. Oh and if you're curious about those weird heat domes over the Pacific Northwest or destabilized polar jet stream, look at the correlation with solar activity and these events. There's enough coincidence to investigate a causal link. Huge solar flares means weird weather on earth.
@@kayakMike1000 Pack it up boys, Mikey here checked the records and guess what, it was the solar freaking flares all along! What a relief, thanks a lot mike, you made my day.
@@kayakMike1000 you forgot to add your trump hashtag
@@kayakMike1000you know the scientists who track solar weather are also factoring them into environmental conditions, right? The only reason folks like you know about effects caused by solar flares, or wobble in the Earth’s axis, are because they’ve been measured to compensate for them in our measured climate impact.
@@pedrofgmartinsWho knew it was that simple. Alright boys burn everything it was just the sun the whole time.
The best carbon capture technology we have is still photosynthesis.
I was about to mention this.
I agree. it seems futile to me to chase "technology" in this regard when we already have efficient carbon capture systems in nature. Now, if we could only get our agricultural system to behave in a way to optimize this natural "technology."
OK if you let algae do the work.
Trees, not so much.
As you can see in the Amazon, large tree stands represent enormous amounts of value; sooner (fat cats after easy money) or later (global heating survivors who need something to burn to cook and stay warm and a bit more to rebuild houses).
With humans around, Trees rarely stand until their natural life ends.
Besides, photosynthesis on the scale needed is a rather slow process .
@@reuireuiop0 Trees are an important part, but quick-growing plants like grasses can sequester more carbon more quickly. And soil-building practices can increase carbon in the soil. Many farmers do it and it isn't rocket science. It just takes commitment.
it can NOT catch up with the CO2 produced. You would need 5..100(00) times the earth surface for that path. why? Because oil and coal is compressed vegetation, compressed in time and space, over 100'000s to millions of years. Photosynthesis is nly viable if we just but existing wood. Doing that, after 10d every wooden stick would be burnt
I worked at an oil company that did a study on CCS. The big cost was in compression. Even shallow reservoirs are at many hundred x surface pressures. This is great for lifting hc to the surface but terrible for trying to inject gas below ground. That is why enhanced weathering makes so much sense. The energy required to inject gases in depleted reservoirs is more than the energy created in combustion. Many shallow saline reservoirs are possible but depleted reservoirs don't make a lot of sense
Thanks for that insight. Very interesting, but wait... the true engineering geniuses will just put a bunch of turbines and solar up to generate energy to do that compression, and then show us how green they are! Much more efficient to use 8x the energy so long as we can keep on pumping, right? Just like using turbines to make hydrogen instead of just using the electricity. What a strange world we have created.
Thanks .you can't beat engineering science
@@bernardcharlesworth9860
And you can't beat thermodynamics!
What's strange about prioritizing, over everything else, the profits of the fossil fuel industry?@@johnway9853
@@englishcitystone1663 yes still remember that basics general energy equation.
The best sort of CCS system is a tree, the irony is the proponents of individual CCS are the same people pulling down the forests.
Don't matter who does it, when the need or the greed arises, trees will _always_ be cut long before they get old. Forests are simply not safe as a stowaway for excess carbon.
this does not help. It would help only if we would burn existing wood. Oil and col however is wood etc compressed in time and space.
Problem with storage is that every year you need to add more reservoirs for the next year of producing energy. While when you have enough renewable plants, there is nothing more needed.
It is even worse, as C02 takes more space than any fossil resource. Sooner or later, you just have to dig out new holes only for the C02 to place in.
Thanks for sharing the truth, no matter how depressing.
I don't get depressed, I get going on action , put in my own Solar and Greenhouse, everyone should too. I don't get depressed I get real about what will happen and prepare. We are not going to slow down or stop in time with fossil fuel burning and we will suffer major collapse of many systems including AI, War, Economic monopoly game capitalist game over by 2-040 according to MIT study Limits to Growth , one shouild watch and get ready. " When the Levee breaks , you have to move " LED Zeppelin
As one climatologist put it, "abandon hope and pick up courage!" I agree and feel that's what called for.
Thank you for wading through the details in such documents to give us your excellent summaries. 🙏
Cheers Mike. I appreciate your kind feedback :-)
Regenerative Agriculture Update: I just re-watched your excellent Regenerative Agriculture Part 1 and 2 videos that you based in Walter Jehne's work in Australia. A great deal has happened in Regenerative Agriculture, both in the science and the practice, since those videos were released. It would be very useful to your viewers to have an update on this topic, especially, as it is steadily getting easier for a wide range of your viewers to get involved directly or indirectly in Regenerative Farming or Ranching. I recommend that you start your research with the Soil Health Institute, Savory Institute, Understanding Ag, Kiss the Ground (and ever so much more). Please keep up your very helpful and inspiring work.
The Terraton Initiative would also be worth having a look at.
CCS is equivalent to vaping cigarettes in the tobacco industry!! Just a diversion from stopping fossil fuel use as mass adoption of wind/solar and battery storage are the cheapest and healthiest way to get to zero carbon!!
Vaping actually has or at least used to have some benefits compared to outright smoking.
Burning fossil fuels to generate energy to store CO2 is nonsense on stilts.
I would argue that wind turbines are far from carbon neutral. Before they've 'paid' for themselves, environmentally speaking, they have to be scrapped. Mmm all that fibreglass and steel in landfills
Sabine needs to watch this video
Why? She has been very thoughtful, honest and fair on these issues, even though she is a proponent of the AGW hysteria.
@joemccarthy7120
An interesting perspective, especially after watching Dave and Sabine.
You don't have any niggling doubts that they know something you don't?
@@englishcitystone1663 I watch them both, amongst others, and I have done quite a lot of reading from both sides of the issue. Of course I don’t understand everything. Neither do you. My opinions are likely at least as well informed as yours.
@joemccarthy7120
The thing is, have you ever come across any plausible commentator that is not convinced of the reality of AGW?
@@englishcitystone1663 My guess is that there is no commentator on the non-emergency side of the AGW issue that you would consider credible.
Love your presentations, and it shows quite clearly that CCS is not viable on a cost basis and so far no CCS has actually met the needs on a technical basis. We just need the acceptance that we need to decarbonise our energy and transport systems rapidly as CCS will NOT be our saviour.
You first. Decarbonize your life and set a good example for those of us who are merely trying to get by with a warm home, food, and an old car.
Done so... @@joemccarthy7120 : small house w/ 9KWp solar, battery, EV, house insulation all round, no air travel for years, ... you?
@@joemccarthy7120Just bought my first new car. Big upfront cost for EV will yield its fruit over a few years. That bit done with, it's pleasurable to drive by fuel stations watching price go up and up. First service in two years time costs $300. Live in South Oz which leads the way with renewable energy supply. I don't understand why governments should continue to subsidise very profitable fossil fuels, and offer meagre limited subsidies for EV purchases.
@@joemccarthy7120I should add it costs me roughly one sixth the cost to travel same distance than it used to.
@@chrisking7603 If your EV is such a winner, why do you feel like you should receive an even bigger subsidy for the already heavily subsidized EV’s? P.S. fossil fuels aren’t really subsidized on balance.
The $7 TRILLION spent annually on fossil fuel subsidies would pay for 350 over-priced (due to NRC mis-management) Vogtle nuclear reactors ANNUALLY. Reactors that run for 80 years, are carbon zero after construction, and cost almost zero for fuel, operation, etc., compared to fossil fuel plants. In 3-4 years you'd produce all the energy needed in the U.S. Japan built a recent reactor in 39 months. A similar approach works globally, when not subverted by petro-states such as the U.S., Russia, much of the Middle East, and important countries in S. America and Africa. Fossil fuel businesses are fighting for their lives, and our DEATHS.
There is no $7 trillion subsidy for fossil fuels. We wouldn't be using them if that were the case. Fossil fuels are very economically efficient and that is why we use them. Contrast that with wind/solar.
why do you think the US invaded Iraq?@@joemccarthy7120
@@joemccarthy7120the latest numbers might well be close to that. The subsidies consist of direct subsidies, tax reductions and unpaid externalities, ie all the damage caused by burning fossil fuels, which is until now primarily related to the health effects (>3.5 million premature deaths per year, many more millions with chronic respiratory diseases). The $7 Trillion has been calculated by the IMF.
In the Netherlands, the government was required to put a number to the tax reductions in 2018. They came back with a number like €4.5 billion, but said they couldn't calculate everything. So independent researchers went to work and figured out that it was at least €21 billion. That was pre-pandemic and pre-Ukraine invasion. So this year, the government finally came back with a more complete number of €45 billion in 1 year, or 10x what they initially reported.
And this isn't counting for the externalities. Fact is that industrial and transportation emissions are a big part of the nitrogen problem, which is now a hand-brake on our economic development. How do we account for that? 1% less GDP growth is another cost of €8 billion right there.
Fossil processing is only 'efficient' in the way that they use every distillate from the refining process, without scrupules. Making petrol, but might as well sell the dirtiest residues to the shipping industry. But the economics of scale will turn around now that oil demand is decreasing and some uses are being restricted.
If the fossil fuel industry paid normal taxes and was forced to compensate for all the externalities, fossil fuels would become economically unfeasible right away.
Look, i also believe that nuclear will be part of the solution but they are not net zero at all, just to make a point the amount of concrete required to build and maintain a nuclear power plant, a traditional one, is an issue. There is also the highly skilled workforce required to maintain a nuclear power plant and the waist, the nuclear kind, that need to be stored and managed for generations, not years, generations. A German friend of mine try to explain to me all the reasons why they, the Germans, give up on nuclear, and this ones, the maintenance cost, high skilled work force and the risk and the consequences of an accident was the points that made more sense to me. Anyway I do think that nuclear need to be in the equation, but we need more renewables for sure and can't rely on nuclear alone.
Every dollar put into nuclear instead of renewables is downright wasted. Nuclear capacity simply cannot be increased quickly and cheaply enough to replace the requisite fossil capacity, not to mention the terrible roi metrics due to which investors don’t want to touch the stuff, and a myriad of other issues. The capital needed for nuclear is locked up for decades before any new nuclear even becomes energy positive while the energy put in would need to come from a mix of mostly fossils. It should be obvious why renewables are the better investment.
Current CCUS technology is largely greenwashing from the fossil fuel industry in the hope that they can keep on burning stuff. There are few projects which truly show some promise, particularly when you look at the economics. Higher capture rates will take more energy and cost even more. Unfortunately, we need to remove some carbon from the atmosphere regardless of how much green energy we deploy, so we need more research to figure out how to make this feasible and less expensive. Thanks for another great video!
The $3B Gorgon CCS project in NW Australia has consistently failed to meet set targets, and has achieved it's goal of storing 80% of the CO2 it produces, only by buying carbon credits for 5.2 Mt CO2. As you say greenwashing.
The current CCUS technology is high cost but electric vehicles are very expensive to the point that few people will be able to have one and the CO2 emissions data in the EV manufacturing processes are hidden and the pollution data that they cause are also hidden. It is produced by extracting the materials... all this apart from the fact that in order to charge the EVs that must replace current vehicles, the entire electrical network must be reconstructed to support the enormous demand for energy that will be created and this reconstruction will require more metals and generate more emissions. of CO2… despite the great cost, the generation of more emissions and more pollution, EVs are forced as the solution to “climate change”
@@carlosjfb1979 The data on EVs is not hidden if you know about it.
@@carlosjfb1979 If your gas car had to pay a dollar a litre to get the carbon burned out back in the the ground? Taking the train or an EV is suddenly a great idea and very affordable.
@@tristanridley1601 Use even a little comprehensive reading, if the extraction of the metals used to manufacture EVs generates a lot of pollution and consumes a lot of energy which at the same time generates a lot of emissions (remember we are talking about replacing hundreds of millions of vehicles) and they are not cheap either. Furthermore, all electrical networks must be upgraded (put in more lines and put in thicker lines) and upgrade generation to support consumption peaks, which is very expensive and generates more pollution and emissions... who do you think is going to end up paying for everything?
Thanks. We conducted a local CCS assessment for Israel 5 years ago and reached a similar conclusion.
Hello Dave. Those drillers should be used in geothermal projects instead. In my point of view, oil drilling and CCS end up creating a vicious cycle and redundancy in the process of carbon capture. Geothermal avoids all the redundancy and gives immediate profit from all the drilling processes.
“A cynic might suggest” - love the dry British humour and also yet another great episode Dave! The Cool Worlds YT channel has also crunched the numbers on the energy costs of CCS and unsurprisingly also concluded that it is both uneconomical and also completely impractical to reduce the amount of carbon we have pumped into the atmosphere. At best, current technologies will nibble at the edges of the problem.
I only understand a third of what Dave says, but that's good enough for me. It's just nice to know there are experts out there who have a grasp on this complicated issue and are getting things moving in the right direction. If ya can't be expert something, learning how to identify those who are is the next best thing.
Words to live by!
It's easy to understand - to pack the carbon from fossil fuels back into Earth, we have to spend about the same amount of energy that we got from burning those fossil fuels. So every single bit of energy we got from oil we have to take from somewhere else to pack it back, which is a fundamentally unrealistic plan in a capitalist system.
Well said!
But remember to only vote for politicians who are acknowledging this.
@@madshorn5826sadly, the lesser of two evils is the way to go. The conditions for the destruction of the two party system are growing, and must be nurtured.
3:40 : It's very interesting where the subsidies go for "CCS" : the oil and gas industry, to enhance production....
“Drop coal like a hot stone.”
I got a chuckle out of that line. 😆
May be.
Rather, it made me think of an old Snoop Dogg hiphop hit.
_Drop it like it's ..._
00:52 "The answer we get from the fossil fuel industry is that doing what I've just described would result in the disintegration of civilization as we know it." I mean, civilization as we know it created this problem, so, one way or another it's going to disintegrate. The question is if civilization changes or if civilization ends.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this educational and entertaining video. Great job.
The Fossil Fuel lobby would like to make everyone believe that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is just a suggestion.
What did the fossil fuel lobby say about the conversion of energy from one form to another and the increasing entropy of the universe?
There's another issue worth looking at with CCS. Even at release rates of a tiny fraction of a percent there comes a point where the amount that escapes globally will be an issue and it will continue being an issue indefinitely.
A decade ago I worked on a CC pilot project on a coal fired power station. One of the electrical engineers told me that if it was scaled up, it would have consumed up to 20% of the site's electrical output. Add to that the energy demands for steam reformation of CH4, and blue hydrogen is for the birds.
20% in exchange for political permission to keep going isn't untenable in theory
Grumpy customers is all; they can turn off teley and feed the birds
In most movies about the future, it's not the garden of Eden with sustainable energy. It's overpopulation and pollution with elites living above the surface grime and poor people choking on the filth, which seems more likely than people actually bothering to change their ways. But the elites, the future, will have to live on Mars, or in a space station, because climate change's weather patterns won't allow tower cities.
People in Malaysia haven't changed their behavior one bit as far as I can tell. Plus, people look at me weird when I ride my bike to the market and bring my cloth bag and reusable containers (glass jars) for soy and coconut milk. Like I'm the one who is crazy😅. (I grow veggies and chickens to eat.) I think that people are so used to fast change that the relatively slow climate change makes them ignore it. I am very curious to see what happens in US politics. Will people let a dictator take over the country, or will they just let change happen and do nothing for democracy. People seem awfully sheep-like in this era. My parents who are very old and even I think, well I'll probably be dead when it really gets bad. The youngest generation also has the view of "why should I do anything at all, even save or work, because these other people screwed up the world already." I guess the world has to be destroyed before people will try to pick up the pieces and make it better. I know there are lots of scientists trying to invent new things/gadgets but what we need to do is stop creating and just be. The Earth can give us everything for life without us creating a gadget to somehow make it better. We should look at every piece of machinery and ask do we really need this for life? Stop the rat race.
The outlook isn't as bleak as you think.
As matter of fact you point out the obvious solution at the end: let's slow down 🙂
We are told that people want more and more stuff, but I don't believe it is true.
People simply want a better life - and at the moment the best option is buying comfort.
It should be easy to sell the idea of a fair society with a much shorter workweek with food, shelter, healthcare and education for all.
I believe the only reason we don't have this already is that we are constantly being sold a false narrative by the advertising industry hired by the very rich to keep us in the hamster wheel.
If we legislate and reverse the message from the advertising industry for a while before shutting it down, we could sway the public in no time.
I recommend listening to Jason Hickel here on RUclips or reading his latest book for details.
@@madshorn5826 ONE issue is that people are scared of anything hinting at socialism, against their own interests. the human mind is a funny thing
Thank you for scrambling my little brain this Sunday afternoon! :) Thumbs up for your wonderful work!
The people of the world are still told (from media and big corporations) that carbon fuel is un-replaceable and that alternatives are to costly.
The opposite is true: Continuing to use carbon fuel lead to much higher costs -- costs that might be impossible to pay for future generations.
Thanks for your consistently great content! You’re filling the information void 🙏
I appreciate that!
If only these decisions were made rationally.
When capitalism is involved expect only mostly selfish choices that benefit only and mostly the decision maker (maybe even only in short term to benefit them) and no what is actual rational decision that helps almost everyone or in other words majority.
Absolutely love your way of explaining these complicated things! Thank you!
Glad you like them!
This is the most American approach to climate awareness. Don't focus on leverage or opportunity, just name and shame until we lose the will to care. Used to be a good channel.
Nurse - "Doctor, this patient is an addict and his body is full of a variety of drugs. I doubt he'll last the week without serious and immediate treatment. What are our options?"
Doctor - "Our team is already hard at work evaluating an ungodly number of very clever pharmaceuticals to mix together into a cocktail that will render the patient semi functional for as long as is monetarily beneficial to the hospital's board members."
Nurse - "Couldn't we just give him small doses of a drug his body is already familiar with, slowly decreasing the dose to wean him off of drugs entirely as his body adapts to a healthier state, supplemented with essential and natural vitamins and nutrients?"
Doctor - "Who are you and how did you get in here? Security!"
This all sounds very logical, Dave, but what about...
Thanks again for another well put, data backed summary of the facts that we need to continue to transition away from burning stuff as much as possible as soon as possible.
Your work on this topic is exceptional.
Thanks Glenn! :-)
Great video as usual. Balanced and covered the issues succinctly. Thank you
Cheers David. Much appreciated :-)
Thx Dave, great video as usual. Have you looked at any analysis of the rash of waste-burning plants being built by councils to avoid the cost of burying or recycling waste? Feels like the reverse of carbon capture.
Keep up the great work 😀👍
Yet a necessary alternative to massive trash heaps . This would be one of the hard to avoid industries where CCS makes sense .
@@johndododoe1411 ... what ‘industry’ ? .. waste-to-power is a fresh self-inflicted wound. Converting it all into combustion products and then trying to snatch some of the CO2 genie back into some underground bottle makes no sense if we look at all the massive efforts being put into minimising such releases. Maybe I’d feel differently if these new plants were exploiting well established CCS 99.9% effective tech and the whole thing was self-contained and couldn’t just vent it - but we are nowhere near that, but the councils don’t care.
I would love to see a video about what exactly is required to achieve the green transition. For example, increase in mining, expanding the power grid, costs of doing so…
I’ve read a couple of fellow greenies reports talk about how some resources would need a 10x expansion in mining over the next 10 years where as we haven’t been able to do more than 2x of any resources in a 10 year period ever.
I rarely hear anyone explain this honestly in real depth and believe i can trust you’re the right person for the job.
It's frightening how little attention this gets. It seems like such an obvious thing to explore in much greater depth.
Converting entire national energy grids to 'renewables' with massive battery storage, replacing 1 to 2 billion internal combustion vehicles with EVs, replacing all of our domestic gas appliances with electrical appliances, etc. All of this requires massive amounts of material inputs, while producing massive amounts of waste outputs. This obviously has enormous environmental impacts, not to mention all the exploitation & stuff.
Why aren't more people & institutions talking about what's actually required for the transition? Probably because the best way to _really_ address this dilemma is by rethinking our current economic model's imperative for infinite exponential growth. In other words, money rules the world... until there is no world left for us.
The solution must include using _significantly less energy_
You are right and wrong at the same time. It would be true if we stay only with Lithium-Cobalt-Batteries for all kind of energy storage. Lithium would have to 10x and Cobalt 2x. However there is already 1 Lithium free battery on the market. And many other power or heat storage solutions are close to market release. I think increased Lithium prices will sooner or later push some technologies towards Lithium free and therefore avoid the 10x scenario. You could even avoid the storage amount needed by demand shift programs (like flexible power tariffs) or by having an overcapacity of solar and wind farms. As well as heat storage solution contrary to power storage solutions.
@@mrdeanvincent Theoretical yes and i appreciate any motion towards this, e.g. European fuel comsuption limits or eg. European vacuum cleaner power consumption limits. Hoewever pratically no, if applied broadband. To really reduce energy consumption you have to say "you are not allowed to use (that much) energy" instead of "you can use any energy besides fossil resources". The public and industry backlash would be unthinkable harsher than towards to C02 emmission reduction.
Reckon the only measure that really works is a hefty carbon tax, as it will make people and busyness aware of the environment price.
However, with the right wing / populist swing we see in Europe and N America, the chances of that policy taking hold are small ; if we do get a carbon tax, the resulting rise in goods prices will be such, that it will still cause / reinforce that swing to the right & populist, which will then result in lowering the climate taxation, and a return to fossil.
@@reuireuiop0 Yes, sadly you are correct. A carbon tax would be the best (cost effective and technology open) measurement to achieve C02 emission reduction. However I already had many discussions with "normal" people that argue, they have a endless right to use untaxed carbon technologies, as they are cheaper then. I guess a lot of them will vote right wing/pupulist next time.
“Dropping coal like a hot stone”, nice one!
Love your work Dave 👍
_HUMAN ATTITUDE since technology:_
"We can do exactly what we are doing, technology (someone else invents) will solve everthing".
_HUMAN ATTITUDE pre-technology:_
"Walking off that cliff was unpleasent, let's go the other way next time."
We've made such "progress".
For a given value of technology (ie anything after the industrial revolution), yeah.
Technically though, fire and pointy sticks are both technologies ;) and they were invented by pre-sapiens hominids! So modern-brained humanity has literally never known a time before them.
@@kaitlyn__L That's true, humans had fire before sapiens. Sapiens had a good run of it until they figured out extreme financial greed coupled with rotting biological algae (ie oil barons and fossil fuels).
I find that this attitude is stronger in those who don't understand science & engineering.
@@alanmulcahy7749 especially with semiconductors conditioning them for 2-5 year lead times, versus 20-50 years for many other technological breakthroughs
Increasing vegetation to help nature do the job is better value. Nice work presenting it. Thanks.
you're clueless
According to NASA, the earth is already a lot greener because we have added so much CO2. We are making this world more habitable by accident.
Only temporarily, @@joemccarthy7120. Many reports exist suggesting that as CO2 concentrations continue to rise, plant growth falls away again. And "greener" does not equate in any way to "remaining habitable for humans". I have no doubt life on earth will persist for millenia to come. The doubt I have is that humans will remain on it.
@@joemccarthy7120Earth's plan ☯️
Excellent analysis as usual, thank you! Industry keep trying to steer us away from actual change, when that's what's needed.
Thanks for your work!
Thank you. You are great as always. There is an ongoing debate against solar panels for years by now. As we "should not cover crop field with solar panels". But it is very ironic, there is no issue to cover crop field with crop to be harvest to make bioethanol. 10% of all fuel in EU is bioethanol. That is about 160 million tonnes of crops year by year.
I thought the French solution was good: all (new?) french car parks must have a solar-electric roof over (at least) the parking spaces. Cool cars + more energy + EV charging from local source. Win-win!
well, yea.. because you can circulate plants on farm land and gain the entire lands worth of multiple crops every few years. Solar panels are a terrible technology too, massively out-dated and with their own down sides.
@@GallumArtemi I don 't really get the point plant rotation how solve the problem with taking up the space. Also, do you know we are using fertilizer for yield. And we burn fossil fuel to produce fertilizer, so basically when you zoom out end see the full cycle, it is very obvious bioethanol basically made from crude oil so it is nothing more just illusion.
@@rivimeyI'm pleased to see some of that happening locally for existing shopping centre parking.
Arable land is better suited to coexist with wind turbines. Brings some predictable income to farmers too.
The cheapest carbon storage is the stuff we never dig up. Car-free cities need zoni;g laws to make them possible. It’s the cheapest transition we can pursue and we have every reason to do it.
We need to make passenger vehicles (including two-wheel ones) lighter, slower, and smaller. And incentivise people to cover shorter distances with them. This is a huge area of carbon use that we have the technology now to address. Even that will take time to produce results.
@@keacoq All that would be a consequence of a city shaped around foot and bike traffic. Holland leads the way here. Those zoning laws gate keep urban planning, that’s why they are such low hanging fruit.
@@GhostOnTheHalfShell For me that is the place to start. First change the allowed vehicles, then allow the infrastructure to change acccordingly.
I really enjoy your show. Thanks for doing this.
@Tap__Profile__Send__Sms672 Lay it on me, Tap
Thanks again Dave.
I demand a RECOUNT !!!
Wasn't last year closer to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels than expected. Wouldn't take mean leaving much more discovered hydrocarbons in the ground than ~60% ?
By the way of those near half a hundred CC&S facilities, how much CO₂ in thousands of tons do they sequester ? Or what % of emissions is that ?
Interesting that CC only max out near a stated % of CO₂ potentially captureable is extremely similar to the % of hydrocarbons which must be left in the ground !
2023 was already 1.5 degrees above pre industrial levels. We're already fricked
No it wasn't.
It's reached 1.5 degrees a few times recently but those periods were very brief.
So the question is...how fricked can we get?
@@joemccarthy7120 yes it was. Lol
@@Dorian803 You really need that to be true, so I won’t bother arguing that point.
Thanks. I have had many dicussions and many argue that all we have to do is capture carbon and store it.
Thanks for the great video, as usual. My Sunday (or Monday if I don't get to it till Monday) won't be the same with out ya!
Just became your supporter on Patreon. Keep up the excellent work. I hope you get more promotion and a greater audience.
Thank you. I really appreciate your support :-)
I mentioned the crisis on the Atlantic Coast to an Evangelical today and he said: Jesus will save the Christians! So you can forget about anything stopping Humankind until civilization collapse arrives.
Thanks for diving into this.
Have you looked into the Carbon Removal XPrize?
The words 'delusional diversion' are an apt description for CCS. We are rightly worried about storing nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years, yet CCS requires storing CO2 for EVER. Inside the earth's crust, which is constantly being flexed by the gravity of the sun & moon (earth tides) and being moved around by mantle convective forces.
Fossil Fuel Inc. has been talking about CCS and 'clean coal' for nearly 3 decades and have done almost nothing. They don't want to have to pay; they want others (governments) to pick up the cost, AND they don't want the liability of a CCS facility leaking or failing catastrophically.
A well timed report. I'm sure Rishi won't be studying it.
Thanks Peter. I suspect you are right! Then again, Rishi will be back in California this time next year, making even more millions than the hundreds of millions he's already got. Good riddance to bad rubbish!!
The sanest and most sensible picture of carbon capture and storage I've heard yet.
Thank you :-)
It’s clear to me that we need to do some amount of CO2 removal from the atmosphere, even if we stopped producing more today. I expect that regenerative agriculture is probably the most effective way to do it. All those drillers and pipe fitter folks should be transitioned to geothermal energy projects rather than hoping they can pump CO2 into the ground.
Great video as usual
One of your best clips. I think cities benefit from a VARIETY of housing types. Of course we don’t want universal towers, and we need more density in key areas.
And, frankly, some of us LIKE being up high. I still miss the 30th floor suite I had in the middle of downtown Calgary 30 years ago. Facing north right behind the Calgary Tower, my balcony looked out over the skyscrapers in the core and I loved that view.
It's funny your comment appeared under this video. The last video I was watching was an Oh The Urbanity effort arguing against the idea that 5 stories is the maximum desirable height for buildings in cities.
@@robertcartwright4374 same for me and was making my way over to read the comments under that video
Very weird.@@jasonriddell
I don't want more density or high rises to spoil my view.
@@camelcasee Great, but if this is the only standard we go by no new housing will get built at all unless it sprawls. That consumes more farmland/wilderness and leads to more traffic. That ultimately affects your quality of life, too.
Carbon capture is an INSANE waste of our valueable energy resources. At the same time as we are told change our light bulbs and buy a new car to save a few more percent they seem quite happy to waste half the available energy resources putting it back in the ground. Hypocrisy and stupidity don't come much better than this.
Thank you
Plant trees, plant entire forests rather than decimating them.
Who'd have thought that carbon capture is not viable? You'll be saying hydrogen can't be used in domestic boilers next! Keep up the debunking Dave, love your videos.
Whenever I hear these type of stories I always think about the nation states that are polluting our planet with oil and wonder what they'll be like in the future?
Oy, Liked and shared. I stand by my statement that it would take city sized systems all over the world and then they would have to be built to shut down once at a reasonable level. But then what do we do with all of those city sized systems once used up? This "burn till we die" ideal has to stop. It's cheaper, more efficient and smarter to just stop burning shit to make power and things. Also a side note: RUclips is not a sustainable model of income. At some point it will collapse as people run out of time and money.
Gracias
Thank you.
You're welcome!
Can't we just fill in the empty spots on off ramps with native plants and tree seeds and mybe water em 1 time a month or if in desert 1 time every 6 months.
This can reduce co2 air pollution and heavy and light metals in the air and ground and hold onto soil and reducing heat and noise.
I don't see a problem with it so long as we get maintenance out of are heads let it be wild but cut anything that grows to close to the road by cut I mean cut down and mulch it into the pache it was cut from so there's no nutrient loss in soil and it helps hold water too.
Sure, if you have 40 years for the plants to grow large enough to make a dent in the CO2 curve.
@@wolfgangpreier9160 doesn't take em that long to grow only takes 5 to 10 years before there big enough to well grow faster as they got enough leafs to explode with growth.
Also if it's a permanent thing it doesn't matter how long it's there also we have hundreds of thousands of off ramps I'm sure if they all had plant life air quality will go up co2 will probably be same though.
Yes this isn't ment for co2 reducing but improving air quality by removing harmful pollution cars and trucks and most things we do cause so are health is better and less people die from air pollution every year.
@@DeathsGarden-oz9gg That would be correct if you could plant 1 trillion trees TODAY.
But that you can not.
If everyone on earth plants one tree a day it will take roughly 40 years until enough trees are planted in SW USA, Mexico, Gobi, Tobet and Sahara.
Why so long? Because so many have died, been cut down, replanted, have burned down, roads have been built, have been cut down again, have been replanted again.
We do not need more trees in Austria. We have too much wood already and must cut it down regularly.
Other parts of the world must first terraform their soil to be even capable of planting trees.
There once was a time when the Sahara, the US deserts and Gobi were full with trees. It was warmer and much more wetter at that time.
That prehistoric time is called the carbon age.
The oil and gas industry will teach the controversy about this until it's far too late. It may already be.😢
I think what is missed is that net zero is aimed very specifically at the “unwashed masses” as we used to be referred to. Those who are the primary “owners” of the worlds wealth are and will remain exempt from things like net zero regulations, V mandates, drug plans, CBDC and many other anti human and anti wealth directives. Net zero has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with forcing as many people into poverty as quickly as possible. Basically, the current generation of primary wealth owners want to see their plan come to fruition before they knock off.
The oil industry can't even be trusted to decommission old oilwells, even though companies keep promising to.
You and your team are doing a brilliant job. I hope you are all able to cope with all of this. Reality is painful. I salute your courage and tenacity. You deserve a medal and far more recognition.
Thanks Holly. Support from folks like you makes all the difference :-)
My guess is that none of this CCS infrastructure will ever be built outside of a few pilot, and experimental projects. It will be too expensive as all our resources will be shunted into stop-gap survival efforts. Our current global civilization capacity is already under strain from a multitude of crises, and we are already in the process of civilization collapse. We will not have the capacity to adapt at the scale required given our current size.
Thanks
Well said
Towards that 1 Trillion price difference in 2050 - well, the difference is WE will pay the penalty, while the benefits will be consumed by oil companies. And only one of those 2 have lobbyists with deep pockets. We have right to vote, but the amount of politicians that really stick to their word regarding this agenda is minuscule.
And the worst thing is - we will need CCS anyhow. Not to keep the oil-usage. But there is a lot of sectors where we simply do not have replacement for hydrocarbons and we simply cannot find replacement short-term. So we will need to suck back the carbon from the air somehow, otherwise the planet will go on, just we will parish...
That is not correct. 1: WE do not pay anything, we will have less. 2: WE will not pay anything its our children and grand kids that have the problems and will get less than we have. 3: Sucking back the carbon from the air produces more CO2 equivalent emissions that just doing nothing and putting all the effort into avoiding the production of poisonous gases altogether.
The number of unabateable sectors is shrinking all the time. People are working on techniques for making steel, cement and fertilizer that are very low carbon, and these are pretty far along. We have already demonstrated jet airplane travel using bio-derived jet fuel. Considering how long it will take to implement CCS that actually works, we might get to clean processes first.
@@incognitotorpedo42well said, agree!
Great video, Dave!
Thanks Martin :-)
it is down to all of us to consume less 'stuff' reducing the need for manufacture, transport of household items, clothing, transport, whatever. BUy quality, buy used if available, buy local, repair .
I have always had a soft spot for a scrubber
CCS really stands for Carbon Capture Scam.
Gonna need a lot of new Nuclear power plants!
Yes so we can directly warm the environment. Oh wait that is bad.
Just to separate the CO2 from flue gases about 80% nitrogen and 20% CO2 requires 30% more more fuel. This does not include the infrastrure, compressing piping and pumping under ground.
To me the only cost effective way to quickly reduce carbon, is to mandate working from home, for those folks who have jobs which do not require their physical presence. This will help if it could be done world wide. This would also give renewables and infrastructure time to catch up.
China isnt going to stop burning coal for power. Russia sure isnt going to stop using natural gas for heating. India isnt going to stop either of those.
Carbon capture storage has always been a lark. we cant capture nearly enough, and it costs way too much to do it. again, we cant tech our way out of this.
If that is really the case then please tell your grand kids you have tried all you can but it was for naught.
I think China is actually trying, at least much harder then the US trying to get pass oil. They just added so much renewable in 2023 that the grid became the bottleneck. With some luck China can help the non-western countries to decarbonize. That's my hope, at least.
China IS going to stop burning coal. They are more committed to clean energy than any other large country, based on the rate that they are building it. The coal plants they are building today are run at low duty cycles, only when necessary. They will eventually become unnecessary.
Why would they want to continue? China is running full speed ahead on renewables. India is somewhat behind but their geography is ideal for solar power. India also doesn't have very high emissions right now, so it's not that urgent.
China is already (one of the) largest users of solar, hydro and wind power sources, and has stated goals of removing coal power stations from the country in the near term (a decade?). I have been told that the only reason they are building more coal is it's the only way to address the massive population issues they have right now -- where something like half of the population have no access to electricity.
Another brilliant video Dave.
CCS is a con job as we have always suspected.
Just stop burning stuff eh?
Cheers Mick :-)
An article by Professor Maitland of Imperial College London was published in The Chemical Engineer September 2014. His study concluded that it would not be possible to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2050 and therefore it would be necessary to do 10 billion T per year of CO2 capture and storage which would be an enormous undertaking requiring, according to Maitland, 3500 large scale facilities. According to Maitland, in the short term at least, there is no shortage of potential storage sites. But this doesn't solve the problem of how to build all the equipment.
A recent post by RUclipsr Sabine Hossenfelder suggested that 5 billion T/y of direct air capture would be needed to reach net zero. Whether this is actually possible is another matter.
Our much celebrated CCUS plant in Canada converted a ~170MW generator into a ~135MW generator, captured something like half of the CO2 once they got it working, best day is 70 IIRC... but the CO2 is going into oil wells to improve extraction rates so... uh. Also it cost 1.5 Billion.
My prediction. The oil and gas companies will use separate companies to sequester co2 (similar to having separate companies drill). When any problems happen down the line these separate companies will have already been closed down or have gone bankrupt (similar to what has happened with the capping of old oil and gas wells). Problem solved.
Limited liability companies they will have entirely divested themselves of by the time such trouble arises and claim no involvement. There'll be insufficient cash reserves or assets remaining in the companies to settle claims and clean up costs and the state and taxpayers will no doubt end up picking up the bills.
@@marktownend8065 Corporate veil is not absolute, and only covers financial liabilities. Criminal liabilities always rest upon the individuals.
CCS is a Fossil Fuel Industry con job *and they know it.*
insa... get prepared... now... do NOT wait.... this is NOT an exercise!
I love the idea of carbon capture. It speaks to the nerdy, Popular Science reading part of me that has always had an optimistic faith in the power of technology and human potential. And removing CO2 from the environment is the simplest, most direct method of addressing climate change. Simple, direct solutions always have a powerful appeal.
But you're right. The scale of the problem is just too large for carbon capture to make an impact anytime soon. And the cost would be massive, far more massive than most people realize, as this video shows. We _could_ pay that cost. It's not impossible, we spend more on weapons and wars every year. But can we structure it so a global civilization full of competing nations will pay an enormous, ongoing fixed cost that generates no profit? (Since "not dying of heatstroke" isn't a thing you can quantify on a spreadsheet.) No. Everyone acts for the benefit of their faction, since if they don't someone else will. We could never get everyone to agree to that.
And as you said in the video, there are many questions about the safety and economic viability of underground carbon reservoirs, once they're established. I live near a geological formation that has been proposed to be one of those reservoirs, and to be honest it scares me. have you heard of the Lake Nyos disaster in Cameroon? An earthquake triggered the release of CO2 suspended in the lake, and nearly 2000 people died. If a reservoir leaked the first sign that something was wrong could be everyone choking to death.
But carbon capture is still a technology worth pursuing. Again as you said in the video, it will be necessary to balance the emissions of industries like steel making that can't be "decarbonized." Right now I think the most promising methods involve utilizing the sea, either by dumping rock dust into the ocean to increase its ability to absorb CO2, or by using electrochemical methods to remove C02 from the water more efficiently (and cheaply) than it can be removed from air. We might get a better handle on the scale of the problem by utilizing the scale of the ocean.
while CCS and CCUS technologies will be pivotal for some industrial processes, i believe the main "CCS" technology we should utilize is restoring natural ecosystems. restoring mangrove forests for sequestration, biodiversity, and shoreline protection; developing more agro-ecological farming techniques; and planting native trees, shrubs, grasses, etc., will provide far more benefits than the energy intensive CCS technologies being touted by fossil fuel businesses. you said it best, some CCS tech involves more deforestation which seems to be insane!
I appreciate your dedication to the exposure of technical reasoning. It is ludicrous for us the pump carbon from the earth only to use far greater energy to put it back.
In my humble opinion, the only sensible carbon capture is the non use of it.
Regenerative farming is making great strides by using less inputs and less fuel and recreating massive ecosystems underground.
Odd option:
Water hyacinths are excellent are filtering pollutants out of water.
Ponds filled with water hyacinths would be an option for carbon capture if the exhaust fumes were released into the ponds instead spewed into the air.
Routinely harvesting and replacing the hyacinths would trap the pollutants in the roots, allowing the plants to be desiccated, and then buried in Super Polluted ares and closed out mines.
An important part of this process is the desire for disposing of captured carbon should be a profit center. So the usual disposal of captured carbon is to force it into oil wells to boost production, thus negating any potential benefit.
Hey I have an idea and it might sound insane at first. What if we put a real world price on greenhouse gas emissions and leaks and while we are at it stop supporting the producers with tax monies. /s
We already do. You just don't think it is enough and that there are magic alternatives out there for fossil fuel use.
That's crazy talk!
really? What is the real world price that we already put on GHG emissions?@@joemccarthy7120
The problem becomes normalisation where if all the competitors in a market have the same amount of leaks then all you do is raise the average market price. It doesn't really drive efficiency in the industry with the problem unless the fines are highly punitive, it only drives efficiency improvements further in the customer side of the supply chain which will have a lag effect.
Stopping tax funded support of these industries is a good idea but it runs hard into national security concerns for most countries. There are nations whose entire existence and the quality of life of their citizens are entirely dependent on fossil fuels.
Telling your population that they are just going to have to live without hospitals, transport and possibly food seems like a career and life limiting choice of those.
@@SurmaSampo your last paragraph is a completely ridiculous framing of the issue. you should treat this like the hostage situation that it is.
Thanks Dave, impressive stuff. Soundbite summary for politicians: prevention is better than cure!
yup.
Politicians: "Sorry, we did not hear you clearly. Did you say that pretending is better than a cure? Noted!"
Getting a little late for prevention isn’t it?… like 50 years or more.
Prevention is better than cure as long as the cost of doing so is NOT greater than the damage you "think" may happen but don't really know.
The animation at 10:12 explains it all.
We would need CCS additional to cutting new oil, gas and coal extraction. That’s the sad truth. That said. We would need to produce the energy to use CCS too. And indeed. Storage is needed too.