Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

scheckentowzer t1_j5uiopd wrote

This is how we solve the problem. We can’t expect emerging nations to stay poor and low-energy consumers. That’s asking them to literally chose death for their populations in the near term so as to protect the planet in the long run.

But innovation to capture carbon and new, powerful clean energy solutions like fusion are how we can all have abundance wo killing Mother Earth.

59

CultFuse t1_j5uqk8l wrote

If this technology exists already then, regardless of the cost of the current or even earlier versions of it, why is it not already being used? Why doesn't every group or politician fighting against climate change push for it to be implemented?

Edit: Thanks for all of your responses. I'm glad there was an opportunity to learn more information about this. It didn't make sense to me that such a promising solution wouldn't have already been used but now I see putting a plan into action is a little complicated.

18

Stone_Like_Rock t1_j5v5x4m wrote

The issue with carbon capture is that it takes energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Unless every energy transfer from release of carbon to capture of carbon is perfectly 100% efficient it will always result in more than 1 tonne of carbon emitted to capture 1 tonne of carbon using fossil fuel power stations.

The solution to that is obviously to use renewable energy and until the power grid is almost entirely renewable energy carbon capture won't be the best use of our time and effort.

14

BlameThePeacock t1_j5v7frs wrote

And this capture only works on greenhouse gas energy stations, so it's not particularly helpful once those get phased out.

8

Stone_Like_Rock t1_j5v87fh wrote

I mean yeah I'd rather we spent time replacing fossil fuel with some combination of nuclear and renewables as I think that'd be a better use of our time and money

3

CultFuse t1_j5v9a53 wrote

So is it a technology that has to be placed on site to work? The way carbon emissions from specific facilities are affecting the entire world, it almost seems counterintuitive to think you couldn't also set up carbon capture "plants" around the world to offset emissions.

1

scotty_dont t1_j5vlgzw wrote

Each of those “dollars” of input to do the carbon capture are coming from a system that releases carbon. The materials to build the plant, the transport of those materials, the transport for the people to run and maintain it, the clothes on their back, the food on their plate, the bank where their salary is deposited, the studio that makes the movies they watch etc. All those processes release carbon.

You can’t just look locally and say “well, I have green energy capturing carbon so this must be a net positive” because a lot of the carbon cost is externalized. You need to reduce the carbon footprint of a dollar of economic activity.

Otherwise you will be sitting there confused why atmospheric carbon is still increasing despite you building more and more capture systems.

5

CultFuse t1_j5vnswe wrote

That's another point I hadn't considered but it seems like we should have the means to do all of that without causing more carbon emissions. Money can't be the reason we don't do it, that's a copout.

1

Stone_Like_Rock t1_j5vc91g wrote

It depends on the carbon capture system being used. Some can be placed wherever others have to be placed at a Powerplant to capture emissions at the source. Again the issue is the energy required to capture this carbon will always result in more emissions than they capture until we have a renewable/low carbon energy grid to begin with and thus what we should really be doing is reducing the carbon output of our energy grid.

4

Tearakan t1_j5vphl6 wrote

Yep. Entropy kills us here. With us continuing to emit co2 carbon capture is kinda pointless.

1

N01_Special t1_j5ux6vl wrote

Because then they would have to, 1-admit that it is an issue, 2 - stop themselves and others from squeezing every last penny out of the current situation

Once you admit it's an issue you are boxing yourself into solving it or being against solving it. If it's not real than you are not against solving it.......

Edit to clarify what they are currently milking.

12

CultFuse t1_j5v8ctr wrote

I know the political process doesn't work this way but it seems like you should just force them to do it in this situation because of what will happen if they don't. Idk, maybe they have so many greedy allies that it would turn into a violent disaster.

2

N01_Special t1_j5v9iub wrote

You would think it should be easy, since the down side is we are the leaders in an industry and now have a bunch of new technology around making and storing energy, one of the biggest growing commodities in our current life, but they either don't care or don't think any disaster is coming and they just want to keep making money the way they are rather than try something unknown that they may not have as much control over.

3

Chickensandcoke t1_j5v3odz wrote

In addition to the other response, there isn’t anywhere to put it yet

3

mrlolloran t1_j5uvvf6 wrote

I’m not an expert but I think not all endeavors in carbon capturing are successful.

I’m also not sure how big this particular group of people are but there are people that see big corporations investing/spending money on carbon capture and because it’s big businesses doing, likely to be able to keep doing business as usual for as long as possible they seem to genuinely want these efforts to fail out of spite for companies. Pretty sure the Guardian ran a piece last week practically gloating that whatever company Microsoft(among other companies) pay to do carbon capturing to offset their output was failing to do so.

The only other reason I can think of is that people want to do this process more naturally. I can understand that but we need all hands on deck and we’re not going to regrow the vast sections of the Amazon overnight. Another solution I’ve seen is increasing the amount of algae in the seawater but this suggestion has several problems. For one thing I’ve never seen an actionable plan to do this. I’ve also seen marine scientists say that this would have an absurdly profound impact on Ocean ecosystems.

Again not my area of expertise, maybe somebody can help explain better. Basically people don’t like the solution because they have doubts as to its efficacy (fair but misguided, solar panels weren’t as efficient as they are now so the current efficiency shouldn’t be a long term consideration), they don’t like the majors players currently pushing this technology or they think a more natural solution is what we should pursue.

I’m an all hands on deck kinda guy myself

2

CultFuse t1_j5v9pdc wrote

I kinda agree with you. If it works & it doesn't cause some other problem that might turn out to be worse, we should probably be using it even if it's expensive.

2

bluemooncalhoun t1_j5uydfg wrote

On the contrary, if we instead forced billionaires and top businesses to stop overconsuming then it would halt the exploitation of emerging nations AND reduce our environmental impact. Humanity has spent the past 50 years trying to invent our way out of climate change and it hasn't been successful yet, because we are simply treating the symptoms and not addressing the root causes.

4

Nothingtoseeheremmk t1_j5v4otv wrote

What? Most emissions from developing nations are coming from their own consumption now. Forcing companies to do something isn’t going to stop India from building coal plants

4

bluemooncalhoun t1_j5v7ffi wrote

Who do you think owns those coal plants, the people earning $2 a day working in them or the governments/companies running the factories that need most of that power? You forgetting that a significant proportion of those factories are working to produce goods for Western consumers and are contracted out by Western countries. Tomorrow the EU could release a statement saying "we won't allow anything you make to enter our countries unless you follow the same environmental regulations as we do" and these factories would happily charge 3x as much to do that. Asking the workers of a country to be responsible for the negative externalities of things they don't own being produced in factories owned by people that will happily milk them for profit is absurd.

−1

Nothingtoseeheremmk t1_j5v7tgf wrote

It doesn’t matter who owns them, they’re still going to emit a ton of carbon…

If the EU did what you’re suggesting it would massively drive up costs for those same workers too. That’s not to their benefit.

4

bluemooncalhoun t1_j5v9xnn wrote

First of all, 90% of those goods being produced aren't even staying in the local economy. The per capita consumption of the Western world dwarfs the higher population levels of the developing countries in which these goods are produced. This is why I'm arguing that the people in Western countries are responsible for the carbon, because it's their goods and business owners are deliberately producing goods elsewhere instead of locally because its profitable.

Second, let's say the EU really did force any goods to be produced according to their local standards. This would obviously include wage/worker standards in addition to environmental standards, so those factories would suddenly become the best places to work. This would provide pressure on other local factories to improve conditions so as to retain workers, thereby uplifting the local economy and helping everyone.

For the sake of consideration, let's say scenario 2 doesn't play out like that and locally produced goods become too expensive for people to afford. In that case, they can then turn to an even poorer country and start doing the same thing the EU did to them, thereby perpetuating the capitalist cycle.

0

Nothingtoseeheremmk t1_j5valf1 wrote

> First of all, 90% of those goods being produced aren’t even staying in the local economy

Do you have a source for this claim? That isn’t reflected in the research I’ve read

2

Tearakan t1_j5vp891 wrote

As another commenter states this would ultimately cost 1.95 trillion dollars (for the 50 gigatons of emmisions annually) assuming it's scalable.

And this process creates methanol. We'd have to pump it underground or find another way to store it otherwise we are just spinning our wheels.

1

mothftman t1_j5w292l wrote

Emerging nations are not the problem. The problem is the already-developed nations, who have the money to change to greener infrastructure and choose not to because it isn't profitable. Carbon capturing is another bandaid on the problem of over-growth, and will only serve as an excuse to allow corporations to keep polluting and putting off real change.

1

Jutboy t1_j5wc9oj wrote

Technology will surely save us from our technology

1

Oh_IHateIt t1_j5wu5zt wrote

Fusion isn't a thing. And won't be a thing for at least 20 years. And given the neutron problem, might never be.

And carbon capture has historically been more of a money capturing technique. $39 per ton..? We emit ~40 billion tons per year. There's no way to do this to scale, but there are ways to scam people out of their money to invest in it.

We gotta plant more trees. We gotta cut back our power consumption. And more than anything, we gotta convert to clean energy, as you said (but ones that already exist). You'd be amazed at how much solar has progressed.

0

IcallBSonthat t1_j5ulrol wrote

I agree. That has sadly always been the only argument against climate change that makes sense. There is a very real risk of creating greater wealth disparity between nations. This may be one step that allows for an even playing field before we get those countries to catch up with the rest of the world.

Aside from making renewables cost effective on a global scale.

−1

Sculptasquad t1_j5uorj8 wrote

How is that an argument against climate change?

They are not denying climate change. They are simply denying that the sollution put forward is a valid one.

2

IcallBSonthat t1_j5vdro7 wrote

Against renewable and climate technologies. I lump climate denial and renewable refusal in the same category.

0

Sculptasquad t1_j5x8kvb wrote

Kind of like how the CCCP referred to everyone who was not communist as "fascist". Makes sense... Not.

Edit - Kind of bigoted that you use "gay" as an insult. Not very 2023 my dude...

1

IcallBSonthat t1_j5y4cqs wrote

I don’t really care. I misspoke on a Reddit post. Kinda gay that you are taking it so personal.

1

IcallBSonthat t1_j5vgwls wrote

Look I don’t agree with it but it is the truth.

−1

Sculptasquad t1_j5x92cl wrote

Let me get this straight: Agreeing that climate change exists, but not agreeing that wind and solar is the solution is still "climate denial"?

This sounds suspiciously close to religious dogma...

0

-domi- t1_j5uo0mh wrote

Too bad all fusion will do is introduce more oligarchs, and the cost of energy won't drop enough to force a phasing out of dirty energy. :/

−2