I've worked in the development of a CCS plant last year. What I've learnt is that it is very costly, takes a lot of energy and there's not enough economic drivers today for companies to invest in this.
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
135 points (99.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5152 readers
556 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This already happened with flyash and other coal byproducts. The law pointed out the shit was poison and had to be mitigated. That mitigation made coal a technology so worthless that utilities with purchase agreements were buying out coal plants just to shut them down.
Even under the huge incentives of the IRA, CCS is just never going to happen by market forces. It's nearly a thermodynamics violation to make it work.
Which is another way of saying that the only reason fossil fuels are economical at all is because the GHG producers are not paying for their negative externalities. That they're being massively, massively, hugely subsidized by the rest of us. It's another way of saying something anyone at all interested in the climate already knows: we cannot afford NOT switching all energy production to renewables as fast as possible.
Time to admit that CO2, on the horizon of time, is that bad.
Kind of a headache to enforce this kind of stuff when natural resource production is essentially entirely private. Why would they make any of these costly changes when they can just bank that, at some point in the next 30 years or whatever, a republican will probably get elected who will free them of the obligation?
It's in Hampshire - 'Republican' means something entirely different here, and they already have a conservative government that likes to ignore pollution.
In other news, a big corporation lies to expand profits and the government for and by the people is too broken to address it.