Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Stone_Like_Rock t1_j5v5x4m wrote

Reply to comment by CultFuse in Researchers unveil the least costly carbon capture system to date - down to $39 per metric ton. by PNNL

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