The alternative to stopping climate change is untested carbon capture tech
- Reference: 1695834907
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/09/27/climate_change_carbon_capture/
- Source link:
The [1]research was a follow-up to the same "Net Zero Roadmap" that the IEA released in 2021, which the agency said was necessary after significant changes to the energy landscape in the past two years, driven in part by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
A global ramp-up in the production of renewables, particularly solar, and increased purchases of electric cars are moving the world toward some climate goals. Implementation of solar and EVs since 2021, for example, puts those two technologies on track to meet 2050 net zero goals outlined by the IEA in 2021.
[2]
All in all, things appear to be getting better, at least from the technological standpoint, the IEA said. "In the IEA's original Roadmap in 2021, technologies not yet available on the market delivered nearly half of the emissions reductions needed for net zero in 2050. That number has now fallen to around 35% in this year's update," the organization [3]reported .
[4]
[5]
That doesn't mean we're doing everything we need to be doing to meet those goals. The IEA said [6]previously that use of fossil fuels and their associated carbon emissions will peak this decade, but their replacement with renewables is "not nearly enough" to meet 1.5°C goals.
Were we to ramp up renewable deployment, improve energy efficiency, cut methane emissions, and increase electrification with tech available today, the world could deliver more than 80 percent of the emissions reductions needed by 2030, the IEA said.
[7]
Great – we have most of the tech we need, but we still aren't moving quite fast enough.
If humans are going to actually meet net zero goals, they need "large new, smarter and repurposed infrastructure networks; large quantities of low-emissions fuels; technologies to capture CO 2 from smokestacks and the atmosphere; more nuclear power; and large land areas for renewables," the IEA said.
But again, we're not moving fast enough. Clean energy investment is set to reach a record $1.8 trillion this year, the IEA said, but that needs to climb to around $4.5 trillion a year by the 2030s – a move that will require stronger domestic policies in countries around the world, as well as improved international support.
We're not ready to fail at this
If huamity fails to rein in emissions, a scenario which the IEA modeled, "nearly 5 Gt CO 2 would have to be removed from the atmosphere every year during the second half of this century." Whether that can be achieved is uncertain.
"If carbon removal technologies fail to deliver at such a scale, returning the temperature to 1.5°C would not be possible," the IEA said. As to whether it has faith in carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies, that's another story altogether: "So far, the history of CCUS has largely been one of unmet expectations."
[8]Car industry pleads for delay to post-Brexit tariffs on EVs
[9]Aspiration to deploy new UK nuclear reactor every year a 'wish', not a plan
[10]Telecom giants dial up the heat on suppliers: It's not you, it's your CO 2
[11]Methane-spotting satellite that gives true readings of industry emissions hits skies in 2024
Carbon capture technology comes in several forms, all of which are designed to capture carbon emissions at the source, contain it, and sequester it beneath the ground – or [12]reuse it .
While the global volume of planned CCUS projects would increase carbon capture capacity by eight times its current levels, it's still just around one third of the amount needed to meet 2030 carbon capture goals. Whether such development would even happen is questionable, for that matter. A look at carbon capture capacity since 2017 shows that operational capacity is all but unchanged despite considerable increases in planned carbon capture projects.
[13]
Planned vs operational carbon capture capacity since 2017
Limited early adoption of CCUS technologies, coupled with absence of plans for long-term carbon storage liability, high operating costs and funding vulnerability have all been factors for why many carbon capture projects have stalled. This, says ICS, raises questions of its ability to scale – even at the industry's current level, project lead times average around six years, which the IEA said is simply too long.
Not only that, but most CCUS projects are happening in the wrong place – countries like China produce more than half the world's coal-fired power, steel, and cement (all three major sources of carbon emissions), but less than 5 percent of the world's CCUS projects, the IEA said. The same goes for other emerging markets.
[14]
If the world is to get on track in emerging markets and developing economies, 130 metric tons of CO 2 carbon capture capacity – per year – would need to be in the planning stages between now and 2026.
Whether scaling carbon capture technology will even be efficient in unanswered. Researchers from the US National Energy Technology Laboratory have run simulations on Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Frontier supercomputer, and discovered it takes a lot of compute power to scale carbon capture models.
While Frontier derives its energy from hydro power, that's not the case with all high-performance computers – especially in countries like China where much of the future CCUS development needs to take place. If we can't step up global coordination for a simple task like carbon capture, we may just be burning excess carbon to figure out how to prevent such a thing.
"Keeping alive the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires the world to come together quickly. The good news is we know what we need to do – and how to do it," said IEA executive director Fatih Birol. "Strong international cooperation is crucial to success. Governments need to separate climate from geopolitics, given the scale of the challenge at hand." ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the-15-0c-goal-in-reach
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZRSmBQmalkVaCnux@IWRMwAAAA8&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.iea.org/news/the-path-to-limiting-global-warming-to-1-5-c-has-narrowed-but-clean-energy-growth-is-keeping-it-open
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZRSmBQmalkVaCnux@IWRMwAAAA8&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZRSmBQmalkVaCnux@IWRMwAAAA8&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/07/renewables_will_become_largest_energy/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZRSmBQmalkVaCnux@IWRMwAAAA8&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/25/car_industry_brexit_tariff/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/01/aspiration_to_deploy_new_uk/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/04/jac_emissions_best_practices/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/12/methanesat_set_to_monitor_methane/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/04/solar_hydrocarbon_production/
[13] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/09/27/carbon-capture-capacity-vs-planned.jpg
[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZRSmBQmalkVaCnux@IWRMwAAAA8&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Carbon sinks
Those sinks are only temporary. Trees die for various reasons and the carbon is released back into the environment. Planting new forest is useful initially but existing forest somewhat less so.
Re: Carbon sinks
"Those sinks are only temporary. Trees die for various reasons and the carbon is released back into the environment. "
Go on then, explain to me what magic created coal and oil then?
Re: Carbon sinks
The carbon fossilised at any one time was a small proportion of the total amount in circulation. You're looking at deposits which formed over periods of millions of years.
If you want to quickly remove a small amount of carbon but ensure it stays out of circulation for a long period you could cultivate some quick-growing woody plant, say willow of bamboo, harvest it, char it thoroughly and bury the charcoal. As any archaeologist will tell you elemental carbon in the form of charcoal is extremely persistent in the ground. You still won't take out much that way and everyone will complain about the smoke from the charring process.
Re: Carbon sinks
Why char it? How about just burying it? In the absence of Oxygen, there's nothing to turn it into CO2..? Where's the Paris icon when you need her..
Could we not ban drax, and tell them to just stop burning trees? Let's bury them instead?
Re: Carbon sinks
Planting new trees and plants only works as a carbon store if they are allowed to grow and mature and don't die or burn in the meantime. It means you also need extensive land and water resources. So reforestation has to be done with a sensible planned program.
Turning plants and trees into housing, furniture, textiles etc can be useful in this regard, especially with fast-growing plants. Eg hemp is super fast growing, can be used for food, fodder, textiles, and woody part can be compressed into building bricks. Some people also find some use for the buds :)
Re: Carbon sinks
Food and fodder gets returned really quickly, textiles less so. Structural stuff should last a good while. There are limits to the rate at which photosynthesis will remove carbon, however. it would be trying to replicate a process which took millions of years to create the fossil fuel in a few decades. That's not going to happen.
Re: Carbon sinks
Only helps up to a point. Then you have carbon getting back into the atmosphere via organic matter decaying and forest fires.
Re: Carbon sinks
Right. But decaying organic matter can hardly be considered a controllable man-made problem. And while forest fires are devastating, I submit they were far more widespread than before humans started mitigating them.
Bottom line is forests are a carbon sink, extracting more carbon from the air than they emit through their life cycle and eventual decay.
Re: Carbon sinks
Good thing there are no massive record setting ongoing forest fires that get worse each year.
Should we plant more trees? Damn right we should. But that's only PART of the solution.
Re: Carbon sinks
I wonder how much charcoal the fires leave behind. Unless someone comes along and gathers that for burning it will stay out of circulation for longer than it would have done as timber although obviously it's a small part of what had been the standing crop.
> 130 metric tons of CO2 carbon capture capacity – per year – would need to be in the planning stages between now and 2026
That doesn't sound like much. I'm pretty sure I could do that by myself just by planting trees, if I really put my mind to it. Are you sure you're not missing a zero or six?
That doesn't sound like much. I'm pretty sure I could do that by myself just by planting trees, if I really put my mind to it. Are you sure you're not missing a zero or six?
Probably not. There's lots of money to be made from CCS, providing people don't look at the numbers too closely. Given natural CO2 flux is many gigatonnes, 130t is basically a fart in a jar. But with enough billions thrown at the 'problem', a fart can be captured. It'll have no effect on the climate, but then neither does man-made CO2 given it's a teeny fraction of the natural CO2 sources and sinks.
But the world has been slowly warming since the depths of the last Ice Age, and this is an absolute crisis! And just as with any artificial crisis, promising a solution is worth at least $100bn a year to the UN, and billions more to assorted other climate scammers.
"But the world has been slowly warming since the depths of the last Ice Age, and this is an absolute crisis! And just as with any artificial crisis, promising a solution is worth at least $100bn a year to the UN, and billions more to assorted other climate scammers."
The relatively rapid warming of the past few hundred years has been seen before, and in all previous instances it heralds a new ice age. Scientists would do better thinking how we might deal with that, or the energy afforadbility crisis we'll see if the madcap CCS dreams become the norm, or when (and not if) the easily available gas and oil resources start to run out.
The unfortunate thing is that there's probably pretty universal agreement that we need to move away from fossil fuels, however most policy is being dictated by short term panicky Chicken Little thinking that it's all about CO2, linked to ludicrous and artificial target dates, and thus the solution is a few wind turbines, a bit of solar, eating insects, and catching the bus.
Re: Climate Change Denial
Jellied Eel said, "...but then neither does man-made CO2 given it's a teeny fraction of the natural CO2 sources and sinks..."
For the eleventy-billionth time, XKCD explains it succinctly:
[1]Earth Temperature Timeline >
Be sure to scroll to the bottom for 20-21 century effects.
[1] https://xkcd.com/1732/
I expect better from the Register than anti-scientific misinformation.
The statement that "the world has been slowly warming since the depths of the last Ice Age" is unequivocally untrue. The planet warmed and cooled multiple times during the (multiple) ice ages of the Quaternary period. Starting around 17,000 years ago there was a prolonged warming trend that melted the northern hemisphere glaciers, finishing around 10,800 years ago (it varies depending exactly where you were).
The rate of warming was very gradual from 10800 BP to the late 1800s/early 1900s, although there were some variations in the Younger Dryas, Mediaeval Warm Period, and Little Ice Age. These tracked with atmospheric CO2 stabilizing at ~280 ppm from 10800 BP to 1880. For reference, glacial atmospheric CO2 was ~200. Starting around 1880 atmospheric CO2 began to rise - it hit 300 in the early 1900s, 350 in the late 1980s, 400 in the mid 2010s and is currently 420ppm.
Think about that - there was a difference of 80ppm between full glacial and full interglacial conditions, and we have added 140ppm in 150 years. Most of the effects of that enormous change have yet to be seen.
Anyone who doesn't think we are in a crisis is uninformed about the scientific processes at work or the history of the planet over the past 2 millions years (or longer). Just because *you* don't understand radiative physics, heat transfer, carbon budgets, and atmospheric processes doesn't mean there aren't many thousand of people who do - and they are the ones who have been raising the alarm on this topic for the past 40 years, with negligible impact
Yes indeed, measurements indicate CO2 concentration has risen 140 ppm in 150 years, but keep in mind that natural emissions are 21 times larger than human caused emissions, so we caused a whopping 6.6 ppm of that increase, i.e. less than 5%. Going to net zero, even if China, India and the US would fully achieve this too would not make a measurable difference.
Sorry to disagree but humans are actually responsible for most, if not all, of the 140ppm CO2 rise. You are right that our CO2 emissions are low compared to nature, but we are adding ancient carbon on top of the natural cycle. Over 150 years it adds up to the extra 140ppm we see today.
If you have a bath where you fill it at 10 litres per minute and have water draining out at 10 litres per minute then the level won't change. If you then add even a tiny drip from another source the bath will eventually overflow. That's what humans are doing with CO2. We are digging up ancient sequestered carbon and adding it on top of the natural production/absorbtion cycle.
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
It is all rubbish and the height of hubris. This planet has gone through, and will continue to go through, cycles of heating and cooling. There is not a damn thing we can do about it, and it is arrogant to think we can.
The real issue here is save the humans from their own destruction. Humans are a minor surface disorder in the scope of this planet's history. A couple strong tectonic shifts in the right spots, pop off a few super volcanos, toss in a random giant meteor, and the humans are gone. Wait an eon or two and this planet will have erased every trace of our existence. And it will heat & cool many times in the process.
Who are we to think we can control the future of this planet? We can only control our existence on it.
This is bonkers
Climate policy is many times worse than anything climate change has in store for us. The basis for CO2 being the bogeyman and humans causing irreversible damage through emissions is severely lacking. The costs for climate policies are crippling to our economy and therefore our wellbeing, and for what? A temperature difference that we cannot even reliably measure and to achieve a goal of 1.5°C that was arbitrarily chosen.
Billions of dollars and decades went into climate research, and still the IPCC cannot state with any certainty whether climate sensitivity is 2.1°C or 7.7°C or anything in between per doubling of the CO2 concentration, all the while admitting that their climate models run too hot. Speaking of which, why are there so many climate models? Because they cannot select a single one that has proven predictive skill. The climate scare is absolute bollocks.
Re: This is bonkers
I look forward to your next post where you explain why weather forecasting is shit, because sometimes they say it's going to rain and it doesn't
Re: This is bonkers
The thing is that weather forecast is only a couple of days out. Climate models try to predict over 70 years ahead, and during each iteration the errors in the starting conditions and calculations compound and make the results utterly useless. Have you ever examined the calculation methods used in climate models or the outputs of those models? They have programmed hard limits to ensure the outputs don't fly off the rails, like producing temperatures below absolute zero. And then they turn up the heat by using maximum emission scenarios, originally designed to test the limits of the models, and present that as the business as usual scenario. They do this because the actual business as usual scenario does not yield results that are scary enough.
To put it differently, take away the models and there is nothing much left. Look at Table 12.2 in IPCC AR6 where they state:
" low scientific confidence in the existence of any visible “global warming” effects in the form of weather extremes:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions)
Aridity
Avalanche (snow)
Average rain
Average Wind Speed
Coastal Flood
Drought Affecting Crops (agricultural drought)
Drought From Lack Of Rain (hydrological drought)
Erosion of Coastlines
Fire Weather (hot and windy)
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods)
Frost
Hail
Heavy Rain
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms
Landslides
Marine Heatwaves
Ocean Alkalinity
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface
River/Lake Floods
Sand and Dust Storms
Sea Level
Severe Wind Storms
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets
Tropical Cyclones"
Re: This is bonkers
Bwahahahahhahhaha!
Oh wait, you're serious?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Re: This is bonkers
Billions might have gone into research but you may have noticed (if you've been following the news) that billions of dollars have been spent by energy companies to spread FUD about fossil fuels so that conservation would not interfere with their business. We have known since the early 70s that there was a problem and what was likely causing it. Fixing it required people to change their ways; all we got was "Morning in America" as the can got kicked down the road.
We're running out of road now. I'm skeptical of carbon capture myself because it feels like another attempt to kick that can. (Anyway, I want my oxygen back.) The simplest way to sequester carbon is to grow trees and bury them -- that is, put the coal back into the ground.
Untested? If only
I thought the whole problem with CCS is that it has been tested and doesn't work? See for example [1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/21/emissions-wa-gas-project-chevron-carbon-capture-system-pilbara-coast
Incidentally I couldn't recall the details so googled "Australia CCS project". The first page of links is mostly sponsored by Aramco, Chevron et al - firms with deep pockets and bad image problems. If they could make CCS work, we'd have already heard about it.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/21/emissions-wa-gas-project-chevron-carbon-capture-system-pilbara-coast
Carbon capture at home?
Is there a way that individuals can do their bit, by capturing CO2?
Obviously, planting trees, shrubs, etc (and/or not cutting down existing greenery) is one way.
But surely there must be an energy efficient way (ie where the total energy used to capture the CO2, does not in itself create more CO2 in the first place).
Lithium Hydroxide can capture CO2, but is it worth buying this...
Re: Carbon capture at home?
If the lithium hydroxide was made from lithium carbonate you only get back to where you started apart from any extra CO2 from the extraction of the carbonate and the generation of the enrgy to convert it to the hydroxide.
Utter Grift
Stopping emissions is the ONLY way we are going to accomplish anything.
Should we, say, plant trees? Hell yes! Waste less? Hell yes again! But it's all literally pissing in the ocean (of gas) if we don't stop emissions at scale. Not capture. Not reduce. Stop.
Anything less is just an astroturfing money grab. Grift.
Oh course, we will do none of that until too late.
Energy cost
We release energy when we put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - kinda the point really. Putting that CO2 back into a stable form means (a) a huge mass of carbon-based substance (remember we're ultimately trying to store Gigatons) and (b) pretty much as much energy as we got out in the first place.
I've no doubt Carbon capture schemes can be shown to capture carbon - but if we are essentially proposing to at least double our energy costs, and require several orders of magnitude more scale than even the most optimistic current scheme, there has to be a question as to whether this is a viable solution or a bit of a grift for "green entrepeneurs" to run pet projects.
Carbon sinks
Trees & plants pull carbon dioxide out of the air. The carbon becomes part of the plant and oxygen is emitted. That is how photosynthesis works.
Given that countries like Russia & Canada have extensive forests, wouldn't that serve to balance their carbon equation? Making them a net importer of carbon?