UK Government Gambles on Carbon Capture and Storage Tech Despite Scientists' Doubts (theguardian.com) 58
The UK government will defy scientific doubts to place a massive bet on technology to capture and store carbon dioxide in undersea caverns, to enable an expansion of oil and gas in the North Sea. From a report: Grant Shapps, the energy and net zero secretary, on Thursday unveiled the "powering up Britain" strategy, with carbon capture and storage (CCS) at its heart, during a visit to a nuclear fusion development facility in Oxford. Shapps said the continued production of oil and gas in the North Sea was still necessary, and that the UK had a geological advantage in being able to store most of the carbon likely to be produced in Europe for the next 250 years in the large caverns underneath the North Sea. "Unless you can explain how we can transition [to net zero] without oil and gas, we need oil and gas," he said. "I am very keen that we fill those cavities with storing carbon. I think there are huge opportunities for us to do that."
Shapps pointed to the $24.7bn the government is planning to spend over 20 years on developing CCS, which he said would generate new jobs and make the UK a world leader in the technology. Among the 1,000 pages of proposals to be published on Thursday will be boosts for offshore wind, hydrogen, heat pumps and electric vehicles. A green finance strategy, to be set out by the chancellor of the exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, will be aimed at mobilising private-sector money for investments in green industry, and there will be a consultation on carbon border taxes, aimed at penalising the import of high-carbon goods from overseas. But the plans contain no new government spending, and campaigners said they missed out key elements, such as a comprehensive programme of home insulation and a full lifting of the ban on new onshore wind turbines in England.
Shapps pointed to the $24.7bn the government is planning to spend over 20 years on developing CCS, which he said would generate new jobs and make the UK a world leader in the technology. Among the 1,000 pages of proposals to be published on Thursday will be boosts for offshore wind, hydrogen, heat pumps and electric vehicles. A green finance strategy, to be set out by the chancellor of the exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, will be aimed at mobilising private-sector money for investments in green industry, and there will be a consultation on carbon border taxes, aimed at penalising the import of high-carbon goods from overseas. But the plans contain no new government spending, and campaigners said they missed out key elements, such as a comprehensive programme of home insulation and a full lifting of the ban on new onshore wind turbines in England.
Quote from article is telling (Score:4, Interesting)
"But the plans contain no new government spending, and campaigners said they missed out key elements, such as a comprehensive programme of home insulation and a full lifting of the ban on new onshore wind turbines in England."
I suspect that BP is flexing their control over Parliament and we can expect US oil companies to use similar tactics
Re: (Score:2)
and a full lifting of the ban on new onshore wind turbines in England. I suspect that BP is flexing their control over Parliament
The same bp that is flexing their position as a large supplier of onshore wind power? The bp who just paid out of their arse because parliament imposed a magic windfall tax on energy companies? You got that a bit backwards, the energy companies currently are playing catchup because they failed to exert any control over parliament. Mind you in the past that may have been true given how bp got the contract to build CCS in Teeside despite having precisely zero experience doing so before. But that was years ago
Re: (Score:2)
bp attempting to own an emerging energy source in no way indicates that they are not committed to continuing to extract and sell fossil fuels
if they are like American companies, they are really looking to suppress alternatives no matter what fluff they throw in the air to distract you
Makes sense when current agreements placebos (Score:3)
UK Government Gambles on Carbon Capture and Storage Tech Despite Scientists' Doubts
This makes sense when current climate agreements are placebos. Exempting the greatest polluters in this world and allowing them to continue as in the past. For example China, exempting them as if they were still some developing nation.
Re: (Score:3)
Refusing to do anything because somebody else is being "bad" is a childish excuse that just leads to more bad behavior
Re: (Score:3)
Refusing to do anything because somebody else is being "bad" is a childish excuse that just leads to more bad behavior
They are not refusing to do something. They are considering additional solutions that are not based on some people reforming their behavior and some not. Acknowledging that more proactive solutions may be necessary, that the current solutions are looking insufficient.
It's adding a tool to the toolbox, a tool that works in parallel with other tools. Put this under the "all of the above" category.
Re: (Score:3)
Refusing to do anything because somebody else is being "bad" is a childish excuse that just leads to more bad behavior
They are not refusing to do something. They are considering additional solutions that are not based on some people reforming their behavior and some not. Acknowledging that more proactive solutions may be necessary, that the current solutions are looking insufficient.
It's adding a tool to the toolbox, a tool that works in parallel with other tools. Put this under the "all of the above" category.
I think he was talking about you, not the Tories. That being said the Tories use the fallacy of pointing to somebody else who is supposedly even worse than they are as an excuse for inaction as well.
Supplementing not replacing current half measures (Score:2)
Refusing to do anything because somebody else is being "bad" is a childish excuse that just leads to more bad behavior
They are not refusing to do something. They are considering additional solutions that are not based on some people reforming their behavior and some not. Acknowledging that more proactive solutions may be necessary, that the current solutions are looking insufficient.
It's adding a tool to the toolbox, a tool that works in parallel with other tools. Put this under the "all of the above" category.
I think he was talking about you, not the Tories. That being said the Tories use the fallacy of pointing to somebody else who is supposedly even worse than they are as an excuse for inaction as well.
I never said do nothing. I am merely realizing that current solutions seem to be falling short. That they are undermined by politics. That additional solution seem to be necessary. These additions solutions do not replace the current half measures, they supplement them.
Re: (Score:2)
So is adopting some hero complex, to excuse wasted effort on actions that cannot succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
For example China, exempting them as if they were still some developing nation.
China? They barely show up on the list when ranked in emissions per capita. The greatest polluters in the world are we in the west. I know it's uncomfortable to hear and I look forward it hearing you justify why your life is more important than that of a Chinese person's just because of which group of people we've arbitrarily drawn a line around.
Re: (Score:2)
For example China, exempting them as if they were still some developing nation.
China? They barely show up on the list when ranked in emissions per capita.
That is how statistics are used to lie. The fact remains China is the greatest polluter, still building coal fire plants in significant numbers.
Carbon capture already exists, it's called (Score:4, Insightful)
Every living thing. Every human, every plant, every bug, every animal. It's why we're called "Carbon based lifeforms"
What's neat is these carbon based lifeforms tend to store carbon in a way that is mostly stable. This idea that we will pump carbon from the air, turn it into liquid (likely burning carbon to generate the power to do so) and pump it deep underground sort of scares me. I think about how Siberia is warming, and now we have tons of methane spewing out daily.
One recent idea I read talked about burying trees. This seems like a decent solution as trees grow fast, and turn into coal underground.
Just rattling away here. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and the carbon capture of currently living things surely is effective, to a point
That point is surpassed when you go digging up hundreds of millions of years of dead things and burning them, but yeah bury some trees, that'll fix it
IMO, we need to give the fossil fuel industry props for helping to industrialize humanity, then send them off to retirement as we bring non-carbon-emitting energy sources online
The fossil fuel industry can be expected to delay this for as long as possible, while maligning an
Re: (Score:2)
>then send them off to retirement as we bring non-carbon-emitting energy sources online
We have non-carbon emitting energy sources? Do tell. Did we invent solar panels that require no carbon in production? Lithium Batteries that require no mining? Wind power that doesn't require 100+ tons of limestone to be baked at 3000+ degrees as a weighted base?
I'm really curious about these "non-carbon-emitting energy sources online" you speak of. Did they invent a battery that is on par with the energy density o
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon generation during manufacture is limited, and dense enough for capture, but carbon release during normal operation is a constant contributor to global warming and a key feature of fossil fuels
Right now fossil fuels (during mining/drilling, processing and use) are the number one culprit for atmospheric carbon
Production of cement and fertilizers are also significant, but secondary to fossil fuels, and will eventually need to be addressed by new processes or localized co2 capture. [iea.org] Localize capture of co
Re: (Score:3)
We have non-carbon emitting energy sources? Do tell. Did we invent solar panels that require no carbon in production? Lithium Batteries that require no mining? Wind power that doesn't require 100+ tons of limestone to be baked at 3000+ degrees as a weighted base?
And here we have a classic example of making Perfect the enemy of Good...
Don't do that. It is not clever.
Re: (Score:2)
That point is surpassed when you go digging up hundreds of millions of years of dead things and burning them, but yeah bury some trees, that'll fix it
And what if we don't dig up sequestered carbon to power this effort, rather use excess renewable energy?
Re: (Score:2)
And what if we don't dig up sequestered carbon to power this effort, rather use excess renewable energy?
That is not the plan the UK government announced.
The plan (as announced in the article referenced above) is to "Drill baby drill!" for more oil and gas and offset the carbon release with an unproven plan to capture and store carbon in undersea caverns.
But, yes... doing what you suggest sounds like a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, we need to give the fossil fuel industry props for helping to industrialize humanity, then send them off to retirement as we bring non-carbon-emitting energy sources online
Just so long as the non-carbon-emitting energy isn't nuclear fission. What people want is "Meatloaf energy", as in "we will do anything for global warming but we won't do THAT."
The UK commissioned a study on energy not so long ago. The result was that the UK would be unable to lower CO2 emissions while meeting their energy needs without some nuclear fission in the mix. Windmills are fine, as are solar panels, but those are still both optional. What is not optional for the future energy supply in UK is n
Re: (Score:2)
>>Just so long as the non-carbon-emitting energy isn't nuclear fission.
Why exclude the most suitable replacement for fossil fuels?
Have you been stupified by the fossil fuel companies supporting "environmental groups" attempts to demonize nuclear energy? [environmen...ogress.org]
Do you realize that the co-founder of GreenPeace was kicked out of the group and demonized for supporting nuclear power as a viable source of energy? [politico.com]
wake up and smell the affront that is propaganda developed by the fossil fuel industry to make more mone
Re: (Score:2)
>>Why exclude the most suitable replacement for fossil fuels?
Cause they don't get it.
Modern breeder reactors are really the only current answer that gives more energy out (and fuel) than what is put in (This is including harvesting the ore, then processing it) If the world went with 100% breeder reactors at our current electric consumption rate, and we harvested from seawater, we'd have energy for 60,000 years.
Sauce: https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why exclude the most suitable replacement for fossil fuels?
Because people are deluded about how effective renewable energy sources are, and how dangerous nuclear fission power has been.
Have you been stupified by the fossil fuel companies supporting "environmental groups" attempts to demonize nuclear energy?
Nope. It appears you didn't read my entire post before replying.
Do you realize that the co-founder of GreenPeace was kicked out of the group and demonized for supporting nuclear power as a viable source of energy?
Yes.
wake up and smell the affront that is propaganda developed by the fossil fuel industry to make more money, even after their own scients identified their role in global warming
The fossil fuel industry has been funding support for wind and solar power projects because they know that the intermittent nature of wind and solar will require fossil fuel as backup power. The fossil fuel lobby is opposed to nuclear power because it is a direct threat to their dominance. The renewable energy lob
Re: (Score:2)
>>Nope. It appears you didn't read my entire post before replying.
Yes, sorry about that. a snark or sarcasm tag would be helpful
That said, thanks for the reply and reinforcement of the core argument that anti-fission power movement is mostly an attempt by fossil fuel industry to undermine primary competitor
Re: (Score:2)
and turn into coal underground.
That doesn't really work any more since white fungus came around. In the carboniferous, when coal was made, there were no white fungi so the lignite in trees couldn't be digested by anything and waited around until it did actually turn into coal. Now it mostly rots first instead (though you could do something similar in the right places by keeping the trees dry.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buried it far enough under ground you'd be essentially cooking it into coal while hopefully trapping all/most of the other volatile gasses wood normally releases as it burns.
I imagine the depths you'd need to go to for this would be prohibitively high, and so again it likely just rots.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine the depths you'd need to go to for this would be prohibitively high, and so again it likely just rots.
Well, if you had a mine in a subduction zone (dunno how you can do that safely, but I guess you sort of can?) then you could rely on the action of the earth to bury it long term. Again, you'd have to keep it stable and reasonably dry for thousands of years, but it's not totally stupid.
What worries me about this is loss of nutriants. What's the chemical balance with nitrogen, for example?
Re: (Score:2)
This idea that we will pump carbon from the air, turn it into liquid (likely burning carbon to generate the power to do so) and pump it deep underground sort of scares me.
It should scare you more that we reversed the natural process that ran for a millennia prior to this and pumped stored carbon from deep underground just for the purposes of setting it on fire.
What specifically are you scared about? Surely not storing liquid under pressure in a geology that has stored liquid under pressure for millions of years already.
One recent idea I read talked about burying trees. This seems like a decent solution as trees grow fast, and turn into coal underground.
The issue is depth. If you bury trees low they will just rot and give off various global warming causing gasses. You need a way of burring trees in a way that
Use excess renewable energy (Score:2)
They want to.. Take carbon out of the ground Convert it to energy
Replace this with "use excess renewable energy" and what is the problem?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that if you have enough energy through alternative means to create a closed carbon loop, or something close to that, then why in the name of fuck are you still using hydrocarbon-based energy sources at all? You have literally solved the energy problem, and if you need vehicles like airplanes or big trucks to move goods around, you can start cracking water or other sources of hydrogen to create hydrogen fuel cells.
In other words, carbon capture and sequestering is a 21st century perpetual moti
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that if you have enough energy through alternative means to create a closed carbon loop, or something close to that, then why in the name of fuck are you still using hydrocarbon-based energy sources at all?
Extraction of atmospheric carbon and sequestration does not require fossil fuels.
For applications where ICE is necessary, perhaps segments of aviation, the product of carbon neutral fuel using excess renewable energy would also be desirable. But this is something separate from the aforementioned sequestration.
You have literally solved the energy problem, ...
Global warming is a different problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Extraction of atmospheric carbon is a pipe dream since it is a tiny component of the atmosphere
The only viable means of extracting carbon is directly from fossil fuel exhaust, but it certainly would be expensive and not suitable at all for vehicles
Re: (Score:2)
Extraction of atmospheric carbon is a pipe dream since it is a tiny component of the atmosphere
Excess CO2 in the atmosphere is excesss CO2 in the atmosphere. Its removal reduces climate change issues.
The only viable means of extracting carbon is directly from fossil fuel exhaust, but it certainly would be expensive and not suitable at all for vehicles
Withe excess renewable energy we could make carbon neutral fuels for applications where ICE is necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't you just move to hydrogen where internal combustion is required? If you have enough excess energy from renewables, why would you waste it on long chain hydrocarbons, when you could literally just crack, store and distribute hydrogen?
Re: (Score:2)
because the most profitable route for hydrocarbons are to sell them in the form that has the least amount of processing, cracking for H2 is orders of magnitude more expensive than just distilling to products they can sell to their largest markets
everything else is a distraction to convince the public that they are really, really, really doing something positive after lying about their role in global warming for the past 40 years
shame on anybody who believes their lies, much less spread them like dmb
Re: (Score:2)
because the most profitable route for hydrocarbons ...
Is what we are moving away from, either due to environmental concerns or the exhaustion of that resource.
everything else is a distraction ...
Everything else is just ongoing research and welcome. Exploring paths that may evolve into viable solutions. Again, the problem is the source of the liquid fuel, not ICE, jets engines, etc.
lying about their role in global warming for the past 40 years
shame on anybody who believes their lies, much less spread them
The only lie is yours. That exploring other paths takes away from existing emerging tech. We can explore all these paths in parallel. The elimination of liquid fuels is religious-like dogma. If carbon neutral it's not
Re: (Score:2)
Extraction of C
O2 certainly does require energy. Whether that's solar energy for plants, chemical reactions absorbing CO2 into sea water, or any reaction you care to think of, there's no free rides. And the amount of energy it would take to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere in amounts to reverse AGW would be absolutely enormous, and once again, if you can produce that much energy, there's no need to ever dig another mililiter of oil out of the ground, because you'll probably be using bacteria to grow plastics.
Re: (Score:2)
Extraction of C O2 certainly does require energy. Whether that's solar energy for plants, chemical reactions absorbing CO2 into sea water, or any reaction you care to think of, there's no free rides. And the amount of energy it would take to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere in amounts to reverse AGW would be absolutely enormous ...
When scaled up.
.... and once again, if you can produce that much energy, there's no need to ever dig another mililiter of oil out of the ground, because you'll probably be using bacteria to grow plastics.
Some application are better done with liquid fuels, aviation, perhaps long haul heavy trucking, etc.
Carbon capture is a scam.
No, it's immature technology. As solar once was.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is an interesting article that demonstrates that all of your arguments are just oil company shilling
Why the oil industry’s pivot to carbon capture and storage – while it keeps on drilling – isn’t a climate change solution [theconversation.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Here is an interesting article that demonstrates that all of your arguments are just oil company shilling
You are projecting, displaying your own world view that is simply the other side of the same biased coin as the oil companies.
I don't care what oil companies say or think, the fact remains that the nature of the fuel is the problem, not ICE or jets themselves. ICE and jets will have applications where they are the better fit. Developing carbon neutral fuels will be a good thing. Current expense or difficulty is not relevant, time will change those. As it did for solar, which was once upon a time too expe
Re: (Score:3)
It comes down to $9 trillion of identified petrol reserves [carbontracker.org] and the fossil fuel industries determination to make money from it, regardless to the effect on humanity
At this point, fossil fuel industry is a money driven death cult
What are the scientsts' doubts? (Score:2)
A carbon tax could work. Cap & trade could work. Carbon capture could work. The main doubts against such plans aren't technical, they're social/political... skepticism that the accounting will be honest, in the sense of registering net-0 only if and when we truly achieve it.
Re: (Score:2)
A carbon tax could work. Cap & trade could work. Carbon capture could work.
"Could" is the key word there.
You have to be careful how you implement these programs, as the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head.
Case in point, current independent carbon offset programs have largely been shown to be abject failures at actually reducing total carbon consumption. These are programs of the sort where a company buys credits in some charitable activity meant to reduce carbon production in another part of the world, in order to offset their own production which would be much more
I hate our media (Score:3)
It's the political equivalent of the old office trick "saying yes and never doing anything". You're telling everyone you've got a solution when you don't. Then you can get back to doing what you really want: stuffing your pockets with everyone else's cash.
"All of the above" not a replacement (Score:2)
This is a distraction to slow deployment on renewables ...
No, it works in parallel to renewables. Matter of fact it would need renewables to be practical. Its more of an "all of the above" not a replacement.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also a way to funnel public money to their pals.
Follow the money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While the insanity of banning onshore wind is just that, the idea of capturing carbon is quite a solid one. We live in an absolute fantasy if we think we can replace all industrial emissions sources with green alternatives. While we've yet to success with a carbon capture process we're not that different from the 1800s where we had yet to succeed in refining oil at scale. Maybe Teeside's CCS will be the first working at scale and demonstrate a huge success. Maybe it'll be a boondoggle. But right now unless
Perfect solution (Score:2)
The thing about CCS (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oil refining didn't exist in any viable form in the 1800s either. In fact nothing around you existed in any viable form at some point in history. That's the whole point of development.
Maybe Teeside will be the first viable CCS solution. Maybe it'll be a boondoggle. It would only be extremely stupid to not try and develop it given our species utter dependence on thermal energy.
Re: (Score:2)
\o/ (Score:1)
Yay - because optimizing for having excellent timing of facial expressions and body language > optimizing for processing information well
Oh wait.
Yes (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)