Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)  (Read 31558 times)

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 52
« Last Edit: April 27, 2019, 06:35:25 PM by Tom_Mazanec »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1509
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 551
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #151 on: May 03, 2019, 03:33:28 PM »
Department of Justice Opens Investigation Into Failed Carbon-Capture Plant 
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/department-of-justice-opens-investigation-into-failed-carbon-capture-plant/

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) notified Southern Company that it is opening an investigation "related to the Kemper County energy facility," according to Southern's most recent financial statement (PDF).

The Mississippi-based facility had received $387 million in federal grants to build a state-of-the-art coal gasification and carbon-capture power plant (otherwise known as an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, plant). But in 2017, Southern's subsidiary, Mississippi Power, decided to scrap the cutting-edge tech and only use the power plant to burn cheaper natural gas, in a major blow to the proponents of carbon capture.



Kemper was a complicated project. It was located near a lignite coal mine, which was intended to serve Kemper exclusively. Lignite is a low-grade coal compared to the anthracite and bituminous coal that's found in Wyoming and Montana, so Kemper planned to synthetically transform the plentiful local coal to gas. The plant would then burn the syngas in a turbine, strip the carbon dioxide (CO2) from the power plant's flue, and send that CO2 through a pipeline to an oilfield where it would be used for enhanced oil recovery. (That is, CO2 is forced down into an oil well to increase the pressure of the well so more oil can be recovered.)

In theory, Kemper's complicated process was supposed to help it compete with other nearby coal plants because it could use lower-grade local coal, and the captured carbon would be used to increase oil field returns.

But in practice, Kemper proved to be an expensive boondoggle.
It came online just as natural gas prices were falling to a point when burning natural gas was simply cheaper than relying on any type of coal, local or not. The plant ran more than $4 billion over budget before the Mississippi Public Service Commission made clear to the company that Kemper would need to pursue a more affordable solution for Mississippi customers.

... And now, renewables are cheaper than natural gas.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

FrostKing70

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #152 on: May 03, 2019, 04:30:22 PM »
That is news to me, would you please provide a reference for renewables being cheaper than natural gas?

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2996
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 321
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #153 on: May 03, 2019, 04:42:19 PM »
Renewables ‘Have Won the Race’ against Coal and Are Starting to Beat Natural Gas

By Joe Romm, originally published by Climate Progress (April 4, 2019)
Quote
… according to a report released this week by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

FrostKing70

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #154 on: May 03, 2019, 05:23:57 PM »
Thank you for the link, I missed that one some how!

I find the low CO2 concrete interesting, creating the mix 200 to 250 degrees lower should have a significant impact on emissions, regardless of the CO2 used to cure it.  I've downloaded the document and sent it to some friends at work to see if we can use this material!

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 52
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #156 on: June 03, 2019, 01:38:30 PM »
Meh, this site is blocked for visitors from Europe. :-\

Tom, can you tell me what alleged method is?

crandles

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2497
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #157 on: June 03, 2019, 02:55:57 PM »
That is news to me, would you please provide a reference for renewables being cheaper than natural gas?

https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

Unsubsidised costs:
Utility scale solar thin film $36-44
Wind $29-56
Gas Combined cycle $41-74

Graph on page 7 seems to indicate they crossed to be cheaper in 2015. However, I don't think this includes storage costs. But battery prices are also falling rapidly.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #158 on: June 03, 2019, 03:19:05 PM »
Meh, this site is blocked for visitors from Europe. :-\

Tom, can you tell me what alleged method is?

This team's new method instead uses an electrolyzer, a device that uses electricity to power a chemical reaction. Electrolyzers are sometimes used to produce hydrogen fuel from water, and this team realised they can also use it to release the CO2 from dissolved carbonate, skipping the heating entirely.

The electrolyzer also has a silver-based catalyst that immediately converts the CO2 into a gas mixture known as syngas. Syngas can be easily turned into a wide variety of products, including jet fuel and plastic precursors.

"This is the first known process that can go all the way from carbonate to syngas in a single step," says Sargent.

SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #159 on: June 03, 2019, 04:52:59 PM »
Thanks Tom.

Quote
a device that uses electricity to power a chemical reaction.

Q: And where do we get this energy?

A: Let's power it with wind energy!

Q: But there are coal plants. Why not use the power for not emitting CO2 in the first place?

A: Because this is not a business model for me. I don't build wind turbines.

Q: So you are a charlatan?

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #160 on: June 03, 2019, 05:00:08 PM »
They say their efficiency is 35%, higher than any other method, and expect it to go even higher.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #161 on: June 03, 2019, 05:37:26 PM »
Sorry Tom, but their efficiency claim is BS!

As long as there are CO2 producing energy sources the efficiency is always net-negative and will produce more CO2 than if you replace the original CO2 source.

Unless we have eliminated all CO2 producing energy sources, CCS adds to global CO2 consumption. It's that easy.

The day we've stopped burning fossil fuel entirely on this planet is the day this technology is useful. Not a day before.

Sam

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #162 on: June 03, 2019, 06:01:57 PM »
b_lumenkraft is correct.

We live in societies based on economic competition. The "winner" or selected systems are those that have the lowest short term cash costs. Our chosen system excludes consideration of any other costs, whether those are long term cash costs, societal or human impacts, environmental impacts, other "non enumerated" costs, etc...These all become "externalities" not worth valuing or considering.

To add insult, when we do include them, we only include those via regulatory requirements. Politically such requirements are fought tooth and fang, as they increase costs, which is seen as an assault on profits.

Unless and until we either change our economic systems dramatically, or unless and until we use up the last of the fossil fuels, the CCS systems will be powered by fossil fuels, rendering them less than useless. They will in point of fact make the problems and emissions worse. That is especially true if we try to legislate their use.

We as a species are extremely poor at considering the future in our analyses. We have immense difficulties imposing more than a single requirement at a time. In common parlance, we are generally unable to both walk AND chew bubble gum without causing ourselves great harm.

Worse, we have elevated our choices of economic systems to religious levels of status. These are now taken as articles of faith. Any opposition to them is taken as a fundamental assault on self. Money, profit specifically, is our God. Anything or anyone that gets in the way of maximizing profit is taken as inherently an evil that must be immediately destroyed.

And so it is that we doom ourselves as a species, and take uncounted other species with us.

Sam

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6358
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1377
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #163 on: June 03, 2019, 06:03:46 PM »
A new magic gizmo every week.

"Even if there is climate change we don't have to worry because all this new technology will fix any problems for us". I am surprised not to have come across this line of rubbish reasoning in the media more often.

We had the Bjorn Lomberg crap, but that was
"The cost of going to zero-carbon is hugely greater than adapting to a changed climate".

But the cost of renewable energy generation is going down fast and EVs are becoming a natural choice for the average Joe while the cost of of electricity generation by LNG and coal does not. So this argument quickly lost any force it had.

So I expected the "technology will fix it" theme to emerge and flourish on our **favourite social and mainstream media. (**Spits on floor). Is there an emoji for that (contempt and disgust)?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #164 on: June 03, 2019, 06:20:31 PM »
Gerontocrat, this is the internet. Of course, there is!

Also: https://emojipedia.org/nauseated-face/

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #165 on: June 03, 2019, 06:32:51 PM »
Thanks for the criticism.
I like how you people can critique items like this.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #166 on: June 03, 2019, 06:56:30 PM »
Welcome, Tom.

When it comes to fighting for wind turbines and solar cells, you can count on me. ;)

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2037
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #167 on: June 03, 2019, 07:07:33 PM »
That is news to me, would you please provide a reference for renewables being cheaper than natural gas?

https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

Unsubsidised costs:
Utility scale solar thin film $36-44
Wind $29-56
Gas Combined cycle $41-74

Graph on page 7 seems to indicate they crossed to be cheaper in 2015. However, I don't think this includes storage costs. But battery prices are also falling rapidly.

This is the unsubsidized values of least cost of energy but I can pretty much guarantee that only direct subsidies are counted and the incredible fossil fuel subsidies provided through various accounting and tax schemes as well as low-cost access to public lands and not including externalities of pollution and climate change mean that these fossil fuel costs are about 1/10th what they should be.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3945
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 408
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #168 on: June 03, 2019, 10:26:04 PM »
I just read up on a highly efficient carbon capture technology that is powered entirely by solar energy....plants!

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 296
  • Likes Given: 0

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #170 on: June 23, 2019, 07:15:26 AM »
CCS thru wood burial:

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1

Cacti making CaCO3:

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1

sidd

I think wood burial is worth giving a good consideration.  Imagine a planting, harvesting, deep pit burial process that ran on renewable energy.  We can do all those jobs with electricity now. Lots of the work could be automated.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #171 on: June 23, 2019, 08:48:56 AM »
While it sounds like a no-brainer at first, the problem i see with this is that the timeline doesn't check out. If you cut down the existing trees you do the opposite, so it only works if you have additional trees, but we start with fewer trees as needed anyway. To burry substantial amounts of CO2, you need to wait 50-100 years of tree growth.

Nice idea, but only if we had started with this 50-100 years ago and never cut any rainforests since then.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #172 on: June 23, 2019, 09:16:33 AM »
While it sounds like a no-brainer at first, the problem i see with this is that the timeline doesn't check out. If you cut down the existing trees you do the opposite, so it only works if you have additional trees, but we start with fewer trees as needed anyway. To burry substantial amounts of CO2, you need to wait 50-100 years of tree growth.

Nice idea, but only if we had started with this 50-100 years ago and never cut any rainforests since then.

Use rapidly growing trees.  Some species of eucalyptus put on a lot wood in only a decade. 

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 296
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #173 on: June 23, 2019, 09:37:25 AM »
They got hybrid poplar now that grows ridiculously quickly. And other hybrids. But i am skeptical, at least until i see someone pull this off to megaton scale and monitor burial forawhile for emissions.

sidd

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #174 on: June 23, 2019, 10:31:45 AM »
I also think you could tweak it here and there with cleverly choosing sites and sorts and installing irrigation and whatnot to make the outcome more efficient, but the foundation of the problem persists. There are just not enough trees as of yet. Even if we do it (which i doubt in the first place) there is no reduction of CO2 due to this for a very long time to come.

be cause

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 869
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #175 on: June 23, 2019, 10:35:22 AM »
with hemp you capture a forest's worth of carbon every year .. b.c.
2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 + 3 = 2019 ...

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #176 on: June 23, 2019, 10:40:25 AM »
Hemp is magic!

Are there numbers or papers on that B.C.?

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #177 on: June 23, 2019, 11:49:22 AM »
Bill Gates and Big Oil back this company that’s trying to solve climate change by sucking CO2 out of the air

Link >> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/carbon-engineering-co2-capture-backed-by-bill-gates-oil-companies.html

They are not interested in bringing down CO2 emissions. For them, it's a business model. Become (even more) rich(er) with climate change. Those are the most despicable people the planet has to offer. They lied about climate change. Don't listen to them.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #178 on: June 23, 2019, 03:49:22 PM »
While it sounds like a no-brainer at first, the problem i see with this is that the timeline doesn't check out. If you cut down the existing trees you do the opposite, so it only works if you have additional trees, but we start with fewer trees as needed anyway. To burry substantial amounts of CO2, you need to wait 50-100 years of tree growth.

Nice idea, but only if we had started with this 50-100 years ago and never cut any rainforests since then.

Not at all.  Existing trees die or get harvested and release their carbon to the atmosphere.  Put existing trees in deep burial and you avoid those CO2 emissions.  Plant new growth, and CO2 uptake is prompt.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #179 on: June 23, 2019, 03:56:32 PM »

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #180 on: June 23, 2019, 04:00:36 PM »
That's a good point, Steve. We can do this today and we should.

Although i think this might not produce a measurable effect. You need heavy machinery to dig these holes, right? Can you bury more CO2 by doing this than you emit? Possibly. But then, there is only so much dead trees in the forests.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #181 on: June 23, 2019, 04:08:42 PM »
That's a good point, Steve. We can do this today and we should.

Although i think this might not produce a measurable effect. You need heavy machinery to dig these holes, right? Can you bury more CO2 by doing this than you emit? Possibly. But then, there is only so much dead trees in the forests.

There's lots of space in disused coal mines.  To paraphrase Dr Strangelove, we do not have a mine shaft gap.

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2312
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #182 on: June 23, 2019, 06:13:40 PM »
I know some of you may abhor this but it has to be done. We need to remove CO2, reduce emissions to 0 AND invest into protecting our infrastructure.

I know that this looks like an incentive to continue to pollute and that is a possibility, but whether we reduce emissions to zero or not, we are going to need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We need an all above strategy. The Arctic countdown clock is ticking.

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #183 on: June 23, 2019, 06:17:27 PM »
Archimid, this is a big oil business model. Why would you trust them?

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #184 on: June 23, 2019, 06:27:09 PM »
I know some of you may abhor this but it has to be done. We need to remove CO2, reduce emissions to 0 AND invest into protecting our infrastructure.

I know that this looks like an incentive to continue to pollute and that is a possibility, but whether we reduce emissions to zero or not, we are going to need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We need an all above strategy. The Arctic countdown clock is ticking.


Funded by oil companies.  I think this is a PR gimmick, so they can advertise as working on helping the environment.

According to this, the end product is calcium carbonate.  Chalk, limestone.  So the chemical reaction isn't energy intensive.  But where do they get the calcium oxide or hydroxide to combine with CO2?

Wikipedia:
"Calcium oxide is usually made by the thermal decomposition of materials, such as limestone or seashells, that contain calcium carbonate (CaCO3; mineral calcite) in a lime kiln. This is accomplished by heating the material to above 825 °C (1,517 °F),[6] a process called calcination or lime-burning, to liberate a molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2), leaving quicklime."

Release CO2 to get calcium oxide, which will bind that CO2 to re-form limestone.  Net zero.  But great PR!!

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #185 on: June 23, 2019, 06:32:55 PM »
Net zero is never proven. They emit more CO2 than they consume for this shit, otherwise, they would brag about it.

(Edit: Steve, sorry! That was a weird way to say i agree with you.)
« Last Edit: June 23, 2019, 07:21:08 PM by b_lumenkraft »

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #186 on: June 23, 2019, 07:18:54 PM »
with hemp you capture a forest's worth of carbon every year .. b.c.

OK, bury hemp.  Hybrid poplar.  Whatever.  But take the idea and model it to see if it would be possible to re-sequester a meaningful amount of carbon for an acceptable cost.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #187 on: June 23, 2019, 07:28:34 PM »
That's a good point, Steve. We can do this today and we should.

Although i think this might not produce a measurable effect. You need heavy machinery to dig these holes, right? Can you bury more CO2 by doing this than you emit? Possibly. But then, there is only so much dead trees in the forests.

We can dig holes using electricity.  Diesel is not a requirement.

Think about a portable harvest/bury system that could be moved from forest area to forest area.  The digger unit opens a deep trench ahead of the harvest unit which dumps trees into the trench.  Another unit covers the trees and plants new trees over the burial site.  The units take their solar/wind/battery systems with them as they move.

And this is not selectively removing dead trees.  It's growing plants that collect carbon from the atmosphere and putting it back underground where it won't mess up our climate.

Massive undertaking.  If done on the scale of our past coal and oil extraction it would take 100 years to pull CO2 levels back down.  But the alternative is?

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2312
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #188 on: June 23, 2019, 07:31:29 PM »
Archimid, this is a big oil business model. Why would you trust them?

I don't trust fossil fuel interests one bit, but this type of technology is needed, if it works.

Funded by oil companies.  I think this is a PR gimmick, so they can advertise as working on helping the environment.

 Ok but, Bill gates is backing this, his charities and speeches suggests that he is aware that climate change will cost him his fortune, lifestyle and that of his children. He got nothing to gain from covering up "carbon leaks" on this proposed technology. However he might be unaware of them.

Quote
Release CO2 to get calcium oxide, which will bind that CO2 to re-form limestone.  Net zero.  But great PR!!

That seems like a significant loophole if they don't cover it. The video does not go into details on how they sold that problem.

Quote
Net zero is never proven. They emit more CO2 than they consume for this shit, otherwise, they would brag about it.

If they could prove significant net negative emissions, would you favor it?
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #189 on: June 23, 2019, 07:36:40 PM »
Archimid, this is a big oil business model. Why would you trust them?

Last night I stumbled onto a site that was oil industry centered.  The sorts of articles about how to improve well yields, where the price of oil is heading, that sort of expected stuff. 

But there was also stuff about renewable energy.  Not renewable energy as 'the enemy', but business opportunities for oil industry companies.  Things like using oil rig technology, ships, and experience to get into the offshore wind turbine business.  Opening large opportunity for companies.

There was positive mention of Statoil who is moving into offshore wind and changed their name to Equinor as part of their transition.

These companies have great abilities.  We'd be better off if they were working with us.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #190 on: June 23, 2019, 07:48:01 PM »
We'd be better off if they were working with us.

Sorry, hard disagreement on that one Bob.

Renewables are a great opportunity to get rid of big energy monopolies.

Solar panels, onshore wind turbines, biogas plants, all this is predestined for small investors. Small as in private house owners, farmers, cities, etc. A decentralized power production is a great tool for economic justice in this sector.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #191 on: June 23, 2019, 08:03:02 PM »
Actually, i'm unsatisfied with my post above. Too much calmness. Why would i even use this kind of arguments?

So here i go again:

We are talking about the oil industry here. An industry that has proven to be malicious in a way the survival of this whole planet is at stake. They lied to us! All of them! They knowingly killed the planet for profits. Every single executive should be imprisoned for as long as they live. They should inhale concentrated fumes 24/7 until they die a horribly painful death.

Yeah, that's better!

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #192 on: June 23, 2019, 08:24:19 PM »
We'd be better off if they were working with us.

Sorry, hard disagreement on that one Bob.

Renewables are a great opportunity to get rid of big energy monopolies.

Solar panels, onshore wind turbines, biogas plants, all this is predestined for small investors. Small as in private house owners, farmers, cities, etc. A decentralized power production is a great tool for economic justice in this sector.

The company that used to be Statoil is now the leading company in floating wind turbines?  You'd rather they not lead the way to deep water wind energy?

We are not going to fix our climate change problems with individuals and small businesses.  It will take a massive effort to manufacture and install all the solar panels, wind turbines, storage systems, and transmission lines we are going to need.  To build the EVs and battery powered trucks/buses.

We're going to end up with very large solar panel, wind turbine, EV, etc. companies.  I'd rather see companies with abilities abandon fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy.  We can get where we want to be faster.

Consider Tesla.  Right now they can manufacture about half a million EVs per year.  Adding the Shanghai factory might take them to one million per year.  Over several years they could build up to the size of Toyota (10 million per year) or VW (10 million per year) or Hyundai (7 million per year).  With a supply of batteries the traditional car manufacturing companies could be building millions of EVs per year.




b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #193 on: June 23, 2019, 08:48:02 PM »
You'd rather they not lead the way to deep water wind energy?

Actually yes. Onshore wind is cheaper and needs less maintenance. Offshore is big energy which i oppose for the reasons in my first answer. I want homeowners, farmers and cities profit from this, not big companies.

Quote
We are not going to fix our climate change problems with individuals and small businesses.

Of course, you do. :)

The government gives out cheap loans to mentioned entities and subsidises renewables by statutory feed-in compensation. This is how Germany did it for a brief period and this was the time when renewables grew big time here. The scenario i paint is a tested scenario. It has shown to work. And even according to Frauenhofer (applied science institute in Germany) it's the cheapest and most rapid way to do it. It leads to the outcome i painted above: More economic justice and weakened monopolies. There are studies on that. I don't pull this out of thin air.

Quote
We're going to end up with very large solar panel, wind turbine, EV, etc. companies.


I know! In most countries, this will be the case. Still, it's the stupid way to go. It's the capitalist way to go. You know, the kind of capitalism that lead us to the problems we face today.

Quote
Consider Tesla

I think this is a whole other thing than the energy sector. Energy is infrastructure and should not be in big monopolists hands. It should be in public hands (like in the decentralized way i described, or else even completely out of private hands).

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6358
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1377
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #194 on: June 23, 2019, 09:17:47 PM »
Equinor, Statoil as was, is 67% owned by the citizens of Norway through the government. The rest is in the market. That gives some comfort.

Big business including fossil fuel companies are obviously moving into renewables in a big way, as are the big automotive manufacturers moving into EVs. Obviously the main motive is survival, closely followed by handouts from us via our Governments.

And while they are delivering the goods, we will be screwed (again).

Promises of a green energy jobs boom in Scotland are proving to be so much hot air
Kevin McKenna
The government stands accused of failing to protect workers as it sold off projects to EDF and other foreign firms.

Quote
There has been almost £5bn of investment in offshore renewables in Scotland that, if properly managed and negotiated, could amount to several thousand sustainable and skilled jobs. According to the GMB, only 100 temporary jobs currently derive from this. In this global sector, we are often taking a penknife to a gunfight, with foreign-owned outfits heavily backed by governments that underwrite losses.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/23/promises-of-green-energy-jobs-boom-in-scotland-so-much-hot-air

And as a "screwee" my wish for those who are doing it to us is - to die soon, to die slowly, and to die in great pain.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 296
  • Likes Given: 0

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #196 on: June 23, 2019, 09:56:48 PM »
Quote
Actually yes. Onshore wind is cheaper and needs less maintenance. Offshore is big energy which i oppose for the reasons in my first answer. I want homeowners, farmers and cities profit from this, not big companies.

California has poor onshore wind resources but some of the best wind resources anywhere in the world off its northern coast.  NorCal offshore wind resources put Midwestern wind to shame.

I'd suggest we consider keeping "Our eye on the prize".  Climate change will very seriously mess up every person and almost every living thing on the planet.  Big companies are not existential threats to the plant's living flora and fauna.

We do not have time to burn everything to the ground and create the perfect system from the ashes.  Our best hope is to use the big levers we have and tweak them to make them better. 

crandles

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2497
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #197 on: June 23, 2019, 10:23:42 PM »
A decentralized power production is a great tool for economic justice in this sector.

Nice if we get it but a side issue: Utility scale solar is much cheaper than rooftop. There are advantages to rooftop - it tends to be local so less transmission losses. But if these benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the extra costs is it really sensible to put a preference for decentralised ahead of the cost of installation disadvantage. Lots of people needing to make investment decisions could well be a big factor in slowing things down. Shouldn't we be prioritising speed to get to say 70% renewable electricity then minimising cost to get there and only after that other nice to have like decentralised power production?

kassy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 699
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 300
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #198 on: June 23, 2019, 11:18:49 PM »
Big companies are not existential threats to the plant's living flora and fauna.

Big Oil knew what was going to happen to the climate long ago and instead of adapting they spent dollars on lobbying and funding the merchants of doubt.

German Big Auto lobbied for emission tests they could fake with software and then faked them with software. OK the emissions mainly kill the poor living next to the roads but in a way they are fauna too.

So your claim is false...and we didn't even get to big Chem.

BTW: I do have the impression we are drifting from CCS.
 
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2996
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 321
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #199 on: June 23, 2019, 11:32:59 PM »
Crandles deserves more "likes" then he gets.

What's the topic, anyway???  Oh yes, CCS.  For my kids' sake, cannot we have an 'everything and' policy?  buried wood, cactus farms, maphic rock crushing, exhaust chimney capture, etc.  When 'we' get CO2 below 400 or 375, then get picky (and phase out the least efficient or most centralized systems).  There's a war out there!  (and no one is noticing)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.