Carbon capture is not an immediate solution or even a viable one. It’s just so the corporations can keep greenwashing.
Not that carbon capture wouldn’t work eventually, but there would be a clean energy problem either way.
Honestly, it probably will not work eventually. It just feels too close to a thermodynamics violation.
It is just impossible for me to believe you can burn a fossil fuel and capture all of the GHG thus produced for a lower cost than it would’ve been to just use renewable energy in the first place.
Well tbf the idea of carbon capture is to undo damage, and not sustain fossil fuels. We move to clean energy which alone we know is not enough, and then capture to compensate. But i agree with you it shaky and mostly used for green washing and pretending there isn’t a problem.
To power these capture fueling machines we need energy, and there’s no point in doing all that if we can pump clean energy into the capture devices.
We need the remaining coal to reboot society too.
No, carbon capture happens at the smokestack.
You’re thinking of DAC – direct air capture.
It doesn’t matter, it’s carbon capture (from the stack, or air directly). These require energy we don’t have, even where there are smoke stacks.
It absolutely does matter. This article is not about DAC, it is about carbon capture. They are entirely different processes.
What goes into capturing and storing all of the concentrated GHG at the time of combustion at the site of energy production is entirely different than what goes in to pulling already-dispersed CO2 directly from the air. For one thing, carbon capture is necessarily powered by fossil fuels. DAC is virtually always renewable-powered because it makes zero sense otherwise.
These terms have meaning. I understand they are confusing, which is why I clarified for you. When you said that carbon capture may “work eventually”, I now know you were talking about DAC. But that’s an entirely different thing that isn’t relevant.
Carbon capture is a process for using fossil fuels without releasing GHG. It is not pulling CO2 from the atmosphere; that is a different thing. Almost certainly a total technological dead end not worth pursuing.
Bro way to come in late to the conversation like anybody was talking to you.
I responded to a comment that was talking about the technology itself, not the article. What I said still stands, go be pedantic somewhere else.
You didn’t reply to a comment. Your post is top-level.
You’re confused and defensive and don’t know what is going on here.
And the “technology itself” is CCS, not DAC. It’s not the technology you think it is. Try to learn instead of being a jerk.
It’s not a first as the article suggests.
Sweden is way ahead on making steel production carbon neutral. It’s not about capturing the carbon - it’s about not using carbon at all.
Industrial heat from renewable energy is a rapidly-growing field right now. Lot of ‘box of rocks’ companies in the field. I know Rondo has some pilots for cement plants making clinker using renewable energy, for example.
Solar is already so cheap that it makes sense to switch to it as your energy source as the tech allows it – and the tech is already allowing it. Hopefully wind will catch up to that point soon too.
It the first using a process which generates CO2 and then turns a little bit of it into something useful. Hybrit uses hydrogen for reducing iron ore instead of carbon.