Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DonManuel t1_j56m5o0 wrote

When we emit 40 billion tonnes a year, 2 billion tonnes are just greenwashing. We have to invest all we can spare on avoiding carbon emissions, the rest we can manage by improving photosynthesis, like planting trees etc.

21

Surur t1_j56s4sd wrote

When I see numbers within one order of magnitude I naturally ask - "So we just need to scale this up 20 times to solve the problem"?

22

94746382926 t1_j576pz7 wrote

Yeah I'm wondering if this number includes carbon capture at the source (refineries) because this number is way higher than I was expecting. One order of magnitude isn't a technology issue it's a funding issue.

16

civilrunner t1_j58l2qf wrote

Reading the article it includes everything even trees and all of nature.

5

civilrunner t1_j58kd14 wrote

Pretty confident these numbers are wrong.

https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage

We're currently capturing about 45 megatons annually.

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/co2-emissions

Meanwhile globally we emit 31.5 gigatons or 31,500 megatons.

That means we need to scale up 700X to capture it all. We also want to scale up beyond that to become net negative as well to reverse climate change even.

This sounds like a lot, but most plants today are experimental development plants so we haven't really begun scaling it. For comparison in the USA alone we have almost 12,000 grid scale power plants, so scaling to 10s of thousands of carbon capture plants which is what it would take to reverse climate change isn't actually that infeasible at all. There's currently a ton of money flowing into developing carbon capture.

Obviously reducing emissions will also go a long way, but we do need to go carbon negative to reverse damage.

Most importantly trees release carbon when they decompose so we really have to bury it underground, which means we need to pay people to do that. Trees alone are not a solution to climate change unless you plan on burying the tree deep underground to capture its carbon.

Edit: I see from reading the article it's referring to all capture methods including all trees, land management, etc... Things that don't easily scale sadly. Meanwhile new technology (carbon capture facilities) only accounts for 0.1% of that.

13

ItilityMSP t1_j5aan1w wrote

Turning trees into structured lumber (clt) can solve this problem. Each of the building listed here saved over 1400 tonnes of carbon vs buildimg with just steel and concrete… Clt structures can last a 1000 years if built and maintained properly.

https://constructionreviewonline.com/biggest-projects/top-5-tallest-timber-buildings-in-the-world/

6

civilrunner t1_j5ac6pk wrote

I agree 100% and am a huge advocate for heavy timber construction. It won't move the needle enough to not need direct air capture, but I 100% agree that we should do it.

We can also have part of the life time plan for said buildings be to bury the carbon at their end of life.

High rise heavy timber in my opinion is the most desirable building type out there. It has the added benefit of increased density housing for that carbon emissions reduction as well.

3

seedanrun t1_j59b947 wrote

>About 0.1% of carbon removal — around 2.3 million tonnes per year — is performed by new technologies.

So 99.9% of that 2 Billion tons is just nature doing it's thing (like forests growing).

We would need to ramp up our technological carbon capture 100,000% to cancel production.

Burning one ton of coal produces a bit over two tons of CO2 (because oxygen is heavier than carbon). Whole sale coal costs about $50 a ton. Current carbon capture is about $600 per ton. So currently we would be spending $1,200 to capture coal that cost $50 to burn.

Prevention of coal use is definitely the smart investment currently.

Still worth researching capture, but we need new creative techniques that can increase cost effectiveness about 100 times before they will start having any real life application.

4

PartyYogurtcloset267 t1_j5jyb3x wrote

> So currently we would be spending $1,200 to capture coal that cost $50 to burn.

The way I see it is that this means coal should cost $1,250 per ton. As a society, we're just paying $50 in cash and putting the rest on our credit card. It's time that we wake up and start scaling back because our lifestyle is just unsustainable.

1

seedanrun t1_j5kjfpk wrote

Exactly! We can probably fund coal PREVETION for around $25 per ton (ie spend 50% more to use an alternate power source).

The numbers just don't support carbon capture - though I am not against spending on more carbon capture research to keep looking for a 100x more efficient method.

2

PartyYogurtcloset267 t1_j5kt2pl wrote

>The numbers just don't support carbon capture

But caputalism does. Imagine how much money these companies can make out of government subsidies. It's awesome if you're an investor.

1

Karasumor1 t1_j56tumj wrote

removing it does nothing while you let people burn tons of it for no valid reasons every day

9

Poggse t1_j5isikc wrote

Also, removing it burns more carbon than it csptures...

2

dontpet t1_j56yata wrote

I'm impressed that we are at 5% but a quick look had me like positive.

>Currently, the vast majority of CDR uses conventional methods, managing land so that it absorbs and stores atmospheric carbon dioxide — for example by planting trees, restoring damaged forests or replenishing soil so that it stores more carbon.

I'm guessing we can't increase that 20 times and there is a limited amount that can be stored there.

Maybe we should just stop making greenhouse gas emissions instead....

6

Surur t1_j57h7wi wrote

> there is a limited amount that can be stored there.

Interestingly this is where the idea that we need 5 earths come from - its in large part the surface area we need to absorb CO2 if we all emit at the same rate as the average American.

3

filosoful OP t1_j56ize7 wrote

More than 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide is being removed from Earth’s atmosphere each year, according to an analysis of global efforts to capture and store the greenhouse gas.

But this will not be enough to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures, even with pledges from governments worldwide to increase carbon dioxide removal (CDR) rates and invest in new technologies.

The report, called The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal, provides the first global estimates of the total amount of carbon that is being sucked out of the air each year, and predicts how much this will have to increase under various emissions scenarios. It was published on 19 January

2

shimstorm44 t1_j56xxrp wrote

Or stop foreign C02 from happening in the first place china has no regulations

2

w_a_s_here t1_j5am66p wrote

And tax the shit out of coal and natural gas burning for energy

2

FuturologyBot t1_j56opmb wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/filosoful:

More than 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide is being removed from Earth’s atmosphere each year, according to an analysis of global efforts to capture and store the greenhouse gas.

But this will not be enough to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures, even with pledges from governments worldwide to increase carbon dioxide removal (CDR) rates and invest in new technologies.

The report, called The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal, provides the first global estimates of the total amount of carbon that is being sucked out of the air each year, and predicts how much this will have to increase under various emissions scenarios. It was published on 19 January

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10h5gkc/carbon_capture_nets_2_billion_tonnes_of_co2_each/j56ize7/

1

Conmanjames t1_j5a5sam wrote

carbon capture is dead tech. R&D produces much better results focusing on more efficient green energy creation rather than cleaning/holding up the oil/coal industry.

1

Scope_Dog t1_j5fvd88 wrote

So we just need to cut emissions by 38 billion tons annually. You’re welcome.

1

NoSoupForYouRuskie t1_j5944kv wrote

Can we not put better filters on the tops of stacks and on cars?

−1

Far-Championship-251 t1_j5bbics wrote

≈33% Climate Scientist believe change is affected by man ≈33% disagree and ≈33% say we don't have enough knowledge to even know if carbon impact climate as dramatically as claimed by politicians.

Most Scientist agree that we don't know enough about climate to know if humans have an impact on climate.

In addition if carbon is impactful attempting to alter carbon may push us into another ice age.

Perhaps we stop listening to politicians and do more science. Btw the threat of funding cuts from politicians to scientist might be a divisive factor to many in the scientific community.

−1

happy_hawking t1_j5717ze wrote

There is a carbon capture technology that works flawlessly since thousands of years: trees. Awesome, isn't it?

−6

94746382926 t1_j5774vw wrote

Trees can buy some time but they're not a permanent solution unfortunately. When they die all that carbon gets released back into the atmosphere.

7

bnogal t1_j58iil8 wrote

You just need to use that trees later on.

Build CLT structures per example. Fornitures.

They could easily reduce taxes for CLT material and sustainable wood fornitures. So we store that trees for longer.

1

RaffiaWorkBase t1_j57d72d wrote

>When they die all that carbon gets released back into the atmosphere

This is not true.

>Trees can buy some time but they're not a permanent solution unfortunately.

This is absolutely true of CCS technologies.

0

civilrunner t1_j58lc0z wrote

We literally just have to bury it and refill the oil wells and then cap them. We can do that with anything that grabs carbon from the atmosphere whether it be trees or direct air capture technology.

1

94746382926 t1_j599shx wrote

Yeah I forgot you could bury them or use them in construction. My bad.

2

Ralph_Baric_PhD t1_j58yhuq wrote

Empty wells should be used as bioreactors for new methane production, filled with human landfill waste of any kind including plastics all shredded and a starter culture added. Apply temperature and pressure. Not so long later you have feed stocks to remake all that previously fixed carbon.

1

ItsAConspiracy t1_j57f7km wrote

Yeah they probably never thought of...oh wait, from the article:

> Currently, the vast majority of CDR uses conventional methods, managing land so that it absorbs and stores atmospheric carbon dioxide — for example by planting trees, restoring damaged forests or replenishing soil so that it stores more carbon.

(CDR is "carbon dioxide removal.")

4