there are a lot of people arguing strongly for one xor the other. reduction in harm and reduction in use are both good things. neither need to be prioritised more than the other. however, one is easier to legislate for
And again, carbon capture is simply not a viable technology. It's almost like using a shovel to take water from a leaking pipe and move it to a nearby puddle: lots of effort for little gain, and there's no guarantee that the puddle won't connect back to the leak.
Not to mention, most of those who peddle it are outright dishonest. Most have 0 plans for storage, and instead plan to "re-use the captured carbon", for example to grow plants mute efficiently in green houses, which is to say, to release it back at a slightly lower rate.
And finally, even if by some magic the effort was somewhat successful, and we built up huge deposits of sequestered carbon, the most likely next step is for some idiot politician to start advocating for burning it as soon as the trend became slightly positive.
I assumes that was the entire point of carbon capture?
i.e. instead of introducing more carbon into the atmosphere from oil/etc. you just reuse what’s already in it?
In some cases e.g. airplane there simply seem to be no other options (unless there is a massive breakthrough in battery tech and possibly out understanding of physics). So ‘clean’ burning synthetic fuels don’t seem like a terrible idea.
Of course it all comes down to energy efficiency, but if solar/wind continue growing and carbon capture somehow becomes cost-efficient (assuming free solar/wind energy) it seems like a much better option than continuing oil extraction or even biofuels (which of course is also technically “carbon capture” just not very land/water efficient).
> we are not even a bit ahead.
Of course. But how does it make it different from every other option? Moving to 100% renewables won’t reverse climate change either .
It is impossible for human civilization as we know it to thrive longer term if we keep the current amount of CO2 (and thus carbon) in any way that is circulating.
Of course, capture can and should be the goal after we do the much much easier thing, which is not releasing even 1kg more of the already trapped carbon from the ground.
I’m not sure that true. Han civilizations “thrived” under much worse conditions than we can reasonably expect (by that I mean that technological/economical/social progress historically outweighed environmental factors and I don’t why this won’t be the case in the future)
Also, the Earth has never been as inhospitable to human life as it's expected to be since any known civilization started, so there's no historical precedent to compare to in terms of speed or effects of adaptation.
Sorry. I’m not sure how did I manage to write that, it was supposed to be “civilizations have [thrived]”.
> Earth has never been as inhospitable to human life as it's expected to be since any known civilization started,
That debatable and very hard to quantify. Also it really depends on the region, e.g. Europe was probably quite worse than now during the “little ice age” or the 600s (coincidentally the Arabian peninsula seems to have thrived during that period due to higher humidity).
Climate change was the reason many ancient civilizations collapsed, it seems to have been a pretty regular occurrence and we were only be to break out of that circle in the late middle ages/1500s.
The maximum theoretical efficiency for a combustion engine is about 50%. We'll probably struggle to hit 40%, and that too only after a fair bit of further investment (in particular, materials science investments, and the production of most engineered materials itself requires a fair bit of energy, which generally increases based on the non-standardness/"information-content" of the material (very roughly: "how likely is it that we find a naturally occurring deposit of it on Earth").
So, you cannot really "re-use what's already in it [the atmosphere]". Not sustainably, not while also accommodating growth.
Why would you say that? lol.
If we have a large surplus of cheap solar/wind energy during certain periods (which is unavoidable if they share will continue increasing significantly in the future). Of course yeah, that only works if this process becomes relatively cheap and efficient.
I'm not entirely sure if you do have a misunderstanding, which is why I asked the question. I'm trying to figure out why you think "carbon capturing" is equivalent to "being able to re-mine hydrocarbons"?
Assuming for the moment that the rest of the process is perfect (that is: ignoring that it costs energy to perform carbon capture, ignoring that it costs energy to convert from captured carbon back into some sort of usable hydrocarbon, etc.):
it is already very challenging to get to even 50% efficiency in the engines involved in converting a fuel into electricity; whether that engine is an ICE, or a steam engine often used to convert certain renewable sources of energy into other forms.
Most of that lost efficiency is due to fundamental constraints of thermodynamics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine
(Essentially, useful engines that produce mechanical work from difference in average energy between two bodies operate in cycles. Suppose we start at time 0, and it takes k time ticks for a cycle to start from its initial state X(0), go through its processes, and return back to the initial state: X(k). The fact is that X(0) and X(k) must be different, they cannot be exactly the same, because then that would mean that it is impossible to distinguish between X(0) and X(k), and your engine is not just an engine, but a time machine. (This is why entropy is closely related to the fact that time is an "arrow": always moving in a particular direction.))
All this to say: it is not possible to use a finite source of energy for a "long time", unless the finite source dwarfs by "many orders of magnitudes" (how large the magnitude, determines how much time before it runs out) the energy drained from it per time tick.
So even if we got carbon capture working as a way to "recycle fuel" (totally, totally ignoring the fact that it will cost more energy to do the carbon capture and store said captured carbon, than the mechanical work we get out of it (the nuclear fusion problem, except not even technically solvable)) it would not last us for more than a few seconds.
(Existing hydrocarbon reservoirs do dwarf our current energy use per time tick, but not by that much, and not if we also want to accommodate material growth, because of the energy cost of also "safely managing" the byproducts of the hydrocarbon->mechanical work process.
The sun in particular, massively, massively dwarfs our current use per time tick. This is what makes "renewables" renewable: they have a massive bank of energy banking them. We have an awe-inspiring fusion reactor just throwing energy at us for a while. How do we convert it into usable work?)
https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-e...
Putting all that together as the context then, my question to you would be: how can one still use captured carbon as a sort of battery in any meaningful way? Is there a misunderstanding of thermodynamics involved on your part, or could you help me understand where my misunderstanding around thermodynamics lies (I am not an expert, just a novice)?
> totally, totally ignoring the fact that it will cost more energy to do the carbon capture and store said captured carbon, than the mechanical work we get out of it
Which is fine if you essentially have free energy during those periods.
Don’t get me wrong, it would only make any sense if carbon capture processes improve significantly but I don’t see how the laws of thermodynamics are an issue if you have an excess of energy you can’t use for anything else (of course other forms of storage might still much cheaper, you can make more aluminum during those times do even less sensible things that carbon capture like mining bitcoin etc.)
for CO2 to be captured, you need some equivalent of the energy from sunlight in photosynthesis. so build these carbon capture facilities in places with powerful natural energy sources, and build them to last eternity
In what way does it solve anything? At that point we built a huge Rube Goldberg machine that burns coal for X energy, spends 2X energy on getting back the carbon (it’s simple entropy), producing that offset from nuclear and renewables.. it may be fun as an art installation somewhere, but to play with this bullshit at the scale of our planet is just ridiculous.
Also, in and of itself life is 100% carbon neutral, or actually carbon decreasing as it is not 100% efficient - that small inefficiency is basically how we got many of our current oil/coal reserves. Biology did fix a big “mistake” of it, and since a few million years ago even trees can be properly “burnt” by fungi, so only some carbon is actually lost due to some extreme conditions (like it fall into whatever that embalmed it for a long time).
The problem is that we reintroduce all these lost efficiency buffers in a few years that is such a fast paced change that it has dire consequences.
Also, the reason for carbon in case of life is energy and a fundamental temporary constituent of the very thing. We do use carbon for many things, but the energy part can be entirely replaced by more efficient generation into electricity which is much more readily applicable than ATP is.
A stated opinion maybe useful as an axiom for you, but most don’t believe this.
Some people believe life has a reason/meaning and is therefore worth protecting through a many faceted approach (one of which is being discussed here).
20,000-25,000 years ago CO2 levels were down to 180-190 ppm.
If CO2 levels had dropped to 150 ppm it would've been a catastrophe. Most plants need at least 150 ppm CO2 concentration for photosynthesis. Life could've just wiped out most of life by accident relatively recently.
The chance of that happening now is impossible because of us, but it goes to show that life is not as in balance with the world as we like to think.
As I wrote, life is not an intelligent design, it has no way of knowing better and thinking of the future: that leftover banana will rot as fast as it can and afterwords leave everything dead in its wake. It just so happened that some form of equilibrium is always met and that Earth has many kind of buffers to change. But it can’t outcompete us in burning coal, we are the new microorganism that almost killed everything by inventing photosynthesis.
We have yet to find another world that has the right combination of googly eyes and string and tape to sustain relatively stable complex life. We struggle to understand the far reaching effects that even simple changes have on our planets systems and ecosystems. We have evidence of the system throwing itself so far out of whack that huge portions of life have died off.
There's approximately three trillion trees on the planet, plus as many more shrubs, bushes blades of grass. The amount of surface area of all their leaves combined is not capturing enough CO2 to help. So to solve carbon capture we would need machines which touch more air than all the leaves on Earth, pumping through a nontrivial amount of the planet's atmosphere, and finding the dispersed 400 CO2 needles in every million haystack molecules of atmosphere.
On the other hand the UK (which raises sheep) imports lamb from New Zealand some 11,000 miles away, by boat or plane.
It's unthinkable that we can solve carbon capture at all, but compared to the ease of stoping the emissions of those flights/ships is fantasy.
You're advocating for degrowth policies.
Degrowth is an evil, destructive, murderous mentality, and if you support it, you're evil.
The only thing we should be doing is building more energy production capacity. Primarily nuclear, and also some solar (to use for e.g. air conditioning and maybe some energy intensive industries that don't need constant power).
Carbon capture is a good way of supporting more energy production.
The litmus test for carbon capture is to see what kind of carbon tax would be needed to offset the costs and hit net zero. If you actually implemented it you wouldn’t see massive scale carbon capture programs and current emissions you would instead see a vast reduction in emissions.
God forbid we forego "business as usual" while the bodies start piling up from continued growth's side-effects that are not impacted at all by kludges and unfeasible patches like "sucking carbon dioxide", "electric cars", and other such not-even-half measures...
I'm a bit confused as to why you think nuclear power would result in a lower standard of living though.
Nuclear wasn’t the biggest issue with the suggestion rather than the carbon capture first approach. However the reason Nuclear is more expensive at scale than battery backed renewables is it takes a great deal of effort that could be used on other things. You can add whatever subsides you want, someone needs to actually do the work.
Obviously wind/solar power plants and batteries etc still need manpower and materials it’s just vastly less. We could run the world on nuclear power, but millions of extra people directly or indirectly supporting the nuclear industry are millions of people not building amusement parks, maintaining bridges, providing healthcare, etc etc.
PS: Risks also get factored into the above calculation at scale. Three mile island didn’t cause significant issues for public health but it did destroy valuable equipment and cleanup was expensive. As such even the cost of insurance represents an economic cost in the long term. 1 or even 500 reactors may have zero significant issues, build 10,000 of them around the world and someone will once again fuck something up.
How much storage you putting there? Because unless it's an hour then nuclear will be cheaper.
The 90% of the cost of 100% solar and wind comes from needing to store up to several weeks worth of electricity.
Also, the vast majority of the cost of nuclear comes from overregulation. Plants were 6x cheaper 40 years ago even adjusting for inflation. And we know how safe those are (safe enough to kill less people per kwh than solar and wind back in 2010!). People/politicians simply seem to calculate a death due to radiation as worth $2 billion to prevent, while a death from lung cancer isn't even worth $1 million (numbers very approximate).
Next both Nuclear and solar/wind want storage/dispatchable power to follow the daily, weekly, and yearly demand curve. Hydro can provide significant flexibility but scaling Nuclear means falling capacity factors and thus higher cost per kWh without storage.
As to battery backed solar, there’s several existing power plants that operate with the ability to store 40-50% of their daily generation capacity that are viable with current grid prices. Significant renewable storage is therefore already cost effective as long as the source electricity is cheap enough.
Finally regulations don’t really explain the price differences alone when you compare different countries and they all have similar issues you need to look deeper. One example of a root issues is modern skilled workers simply demand higher salaries. Most industries have offset this with higher levels of productivity and or outsourcing, but the Nuclear industry has completely failed here.
In theory many of these issues could be addressed, but current plans fail to do so in fundamental ways. Small modular reactors for example have gotten a lot of press but only address a small portion of overall costs. Not useless but you still need expensive workers, thick concrete walls for safety, fuel enrichment, heat exchangers, turbines, cooling towers and ponds, security guards, decommissioning, etc etc.
CANDU reactors attempted to address the need for enrichment but failed to be cost effective for other reasons. And so it goes through many promising concepts that never materialized.
Our society is overwhelmed with low-quality, throw-away products that don't do anything to improve health or well being.
If we want to live sustainably on this planet we need stop producing goods to keep the engines of consumerism running and start cutting back these lunatic outgrowth that are only possible by allowing companies to externalize the long-term costs their products cause. That includes disposal and recycling.
Note that while properly taxing those externalities is the theoretically perfect solution, in practice calculating the costs is so infeasible it would paralize our economy, particularly if we don't allow grandfathering in previous goods, practices, foods, etc.
Merely assessing a particular food type for long term health costs is a 20 year £500 million study.
When assessing a carbon tax for example you can try and come up with an exact figure or you can simple tax the amount of carbon extracted from the ground. That does account for methane leaks from natural gas pipelines, but it’s much better than nothing.
My suggestion is 5$/ton and increase it by 10% per year above inflation, but you don’t need to use round numbers.
Gasoline including manufacturing and transport would be ~2c/gallon right now and ~25c/gallon when cars manufactured todays cars get taken off the road. Which isn’t enough to crush ICE cars today but would rapidly scale demand as additional manufacturing comes online. Similarly aviation wouldn’t instantly be killed off but alternatives would see a significant boost where possible.
Starting higher isn’t a bad idea, but politically I think starting slow and scaling exponentially is reasonably viable.
- bigger increase in R&D and
- bigger reduction in long term projects that emit carbon
Decisions are made on a decades long timeframe. An immediate high tax would penalize old decisions, a gradual tax does more to shape new decisions
Environmental "degrowth" measures (that in reality are just growth measures that take externalities into account) are evil, while the companies and the economic system literally destroying the natural environment and the prerequisites for human civilization on the planet are fine.
You can be pro-sustainability and pro-growth. Examples are (product-neutral) carbon tax and solar&nuclear power.
You can also be anti-growth and disguised as pro-sustainability. Examples are being anti-consumerism, anti-energy-abundance (including being pro-solar without solving for intermittency), and meat tax (i.e. singling out a single product that you don't like).
"More efficient devices" also falls in the second category, as (1) it's pursuing energy-scarcity, not energy-abundance, and (2) it's usually implemented as "uses less energy by being worse" (e.g. dishwasher that runs longer, cars with lesser range) not "uses less energy by being more efficient" (prime example are actually petrol cars, which have massively increased in efficiency in last few decades).
In practice, carbon taxes are easy to game and are counter-productive. The companies prioritize profits (growth) to the exclusion of sustainability; the governments are bureaucratic and slow, so they're always years behind the businesses playing the game.
> "uses less energy by being more efficient" (prime example are actually petrol cars, which have massively increased in efficiency in last few decades).
Jevon's Paradox is that as resource usage becomes more efficient (cheaper), there is a _greater_ overall use of the resource. This isn't bad per se, but it does mean that greater efficiency will not lead to reduced usage.
Nuclear power is one of our best current options, even though it's often derided for cost. But in lots of ways, we can't stop developing nations from burning fossil fuels, so energy developed nations produce from other sources can be use to capture those emissions.
Like most political terms it has been used in a variety of ways by different people.
Some of the classic "degrowth" proponent ideas would reduce the viable Earth human population to around a billion and this would be seen as a good thing. I know three such people personally.
"Survival of the fittest."
I advise you sit down and do the modelling, the data on electricity storage costs (consider kw, kwh, cycles reaction times and annual maintenance please) and wind and solar production variation is available.
IIRC worst case projections of HALYs lost due to climate change is under 10BY
One of them in particular helped write this: https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-e...
Do have a look, if you care to.
Also, I have no clue what "HALY" stands for, and searching for this term didn't lead to anything concrete either. I'm assuming BY stands for 10 billion years.
Those models are wrong, it's as simple as that.
They are probably wrong in ways that would be completely transparent to anyone actually looking into how they are constructed.
I can't say specifically what is wrong about the model you are referring to, but let me give an example that illustrates one common issue: Agriculture, forestry and fishing accounted for ~5% of the world economy last year. Loosing 5% of the economy is not good, but it is not that bad. But in reality, of course, loosing that particular 5% would lead to the total collapse of all civilisation.
Those kinds of dynamical effects are extremely difficult to model, and literary anyone doing that kind of modelling is a crackpot, no more or less. (But crackpots sometimes win prices, so that's good for them I guess...)
My point is: be extremely sceptical of "models" that tries to "value" ecological damage based on current prices. The present biological web on earth is the only place we know in the universe where we know humans can live and thrive. Let's not ruin it for a few percentage points of imaginary economic growth.