Submitted by Sorin61 t3_ztfrdo in technology
DonManuel t1_j1de2an wrote
Carbon capture is a stupid end-of-the-pipe solution. The money should only go to roll-out renewable energy technologies replacing any carbon release from happening. Of course the fossil lobby tries to shill for this nonsense.
JayGeeCanuck22 t1_j1djbp7 wrote
Yep. A lifeline/bandaid for the fossil fuel industry, just like their hydrogen scam.
t-who t1_j1ecma8 wrote
I’m with you on H2 unless it is using green to replace blue/black for things like fertilizer or hard to electrify industries.
But I do think carbon capture has a valid place, we won’t be able to turn off NG power production fast enough.
eat_more_ovaltine t1_j1dvbpt wrote
Forgive my ignorance. Why is hydrogen sourced from renewable energy a scam?
PleasantAdvertising t1_j1dwuws wrote
Because we can use those renewable directly. Hydrogen only makes sense if there's energy abundance. We're in an energy crisis with no end if you haven't noticed.
onegumas t1_j1es15k wrote
What crysis? We have da and but not crysis. Hydrogen is energy carrier or you can say energy storage. We need it for making renewable energy always on demand. Hydrogen is one of the ways, not only solution.
fgdfghdhj5yeh t1_j1ervz4 wrote
yea, once we have energy abundance running directly off hydrogen or cups of water lmao. if we get actual fusion lots of stuff will change. Power efficiency won't be a care anymore for most electronics and many other things. Would be very interesting to see
PleasantAdvertising t1_j1esi2r wrote
Hydrogen should be looked at for high power applications like airplanes/rockets/cargo ships. If we have fusion I can definitely see a future in that.
That said it's wholly unrealistic to think about today. It's just not efficient or viable.
fgdfghdhj5yeh t1_j1etzh3 wrote
Yea there's better stuff to look at, like desalting ocean water with the abundance of extra solar energy during the day... but... it'll be a while until they give a shit about that. Can't wait for the ridiculous pipe from the mississippi to the west before they realize there's an ocean next to cali LOL. You know they're gonna do it
eat_more_ovaltine t1_j1e3bpy wrote
What about using the hydrogen for non energy reasons that electricity can’t replace?
Lurk3rAtTheThreshold t1_j1fgkfc wrote
Because hydrogen made through electrolysis takes a huge amount more energy than you get out of the resulting hydrogen. This makes it quite expensive.
Also the fact that they always say hydrogen can be green (which is true), but 95% of the hydrogen we have is made from natural gas which releases all the carbon.
eat_more_ovaltine t1_j1fs4e5 wrote
So it’s ok if it goes toward chemical production if green and cheap?
Mr-Logic101 t1_j1hogxa wrote
If you have abundant electrical energy, say via a nuclear reactor which can’t be cycled down during low demand like night or some thing like nuclear fusion, it is perfectly valid route
JayGeeCanuck22 t1_j1e2mrf wrote
The oil and gas industry is sourcing it from natural gas. I suppose you could produce it using emissions free energy, but you're probably better off just using that renewable energy directly .
MyPacman t1_j1fm0fs wrote
Except sometimes the timing for the renewable energy isn't ideal. Being able to siphon that energy into storage would be one solution.
Another is pumping the water back up into the reservoir. But that only works if it isn't already full.
Layer_4_Solutions t1_j1ge7ev wrote
Because it isn't actually sourced from renewables. People keep selling that, while actually sourcing the hydrogen from natural gas.
Cooletompie t1_j1ekvr9 wrote
Because that Redditor rather sees South America destroyed for lithium than accepting an efficiency loss with hydrogen.
AdultingGoneMild t1_j1fkwzm wrote
they could just, you know, take over the renewable energy game and start pushing that.
i_am_bromega t1_j1exue6 wrote
It’s actually not as terrible an idea as everyone in this thread is making it out to be. Transitioning away from fossil fuels will not be immediate, and these changes will curb the growth emissions of these absolutely necessary functions of society. The secondary benefit of carbon capture, especially if it were enforced to be a requirement for refineries, chemical plants, coal/LNG power plants, is that it would drive the cost of them up, making renewables cheaper by comparison and drive more investment there.
seven_tech t1_j1gxnlj wrote
Yeah, nah mate. Sorry, this line has been parroted by the fossil fuel industry since the 90s. We're still waiting for a broad scale fossil fuel carbon capture plant to achieve its emissions capture targets. None have gotten anywhere near even half let alone full capture goals.
We have the resources, money, tools and labour to go to 100% renewable, with battery and other storage backing, within 15 years if we wanted. But while ideas like this continue to be pushed, we never will.
Carbon Capture for fossil fuels is just another way of sweating assets and getting governments to pay for it. Direct air/water Carbon Capture is what we need. There is a successful one in Iceland running at capacity day in day out right now.
i_am_bromega t1_j1h1cne wrote
Let’s see the breakdown of how that works. Show me any source that says we can go 100% in 15 years that wouldn’t absolutely wreck the global economy. I am hugely invested in renewables and going net negative carbon, but you’re talking fantasy land. Fossil fuels will be a huge part of the global energy profile for decades simply because there’s not enough money or resources to replace it in 15 years even if it were half the cost it is now. I encourage you to look at the math involved in replacing even half of what we use today.
seven_tech t1_j1h7rpb wrote
Ok there's 3 reasons this is simply not true, and is regularly used as an argument as to 'crashing the economy' :
1- Renewable energy creates jobs, while being cheaper to produce electricity AND cheaper to build than building out more fossil fuels
2- The more renewables there are, the more expensive mining new fossil fuel is, while conversely being less likely to get investment because renewable energy puts downward pressure on energy prices. This in turn makes building new or maintaining existing fossil fuel plants bad investments and therefore, more expensive
2- The world disagrees with you regardless: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_renewable_energy_target
i_am_bromega t1_j1i2qx4 wrote
Your link doesn’t really say anything that disagrees with me. We can set all kinds of targets, but that doesn’t mean we will hit them, or that it’ll be cheap to do it. The EU went from 14% renewable in 2012 to 21% in 2021, so 7% in 9 years.
At this pace, in 15 years we will not be anywhere near 100%.
seven_tech t1_j1jwo8c wrote
Australia went from 5% to 20% in 15 years. South Australia had blackouts during the 2016 summer due to fossil fuel (particularly gas) companies poor maintenance shutting them down during high heat scenarios. Their state government decided enough was enough and poured money into renewables. They got the very first Tesla grid scale battery from Musk in 2017, which saved their grid $48m last year. In October this year, their grid ran 100% renewable for 6 days. They are officially planning a regular 100% renewable grid in 2025.
Australia changed national government this year and altered their targets substantially. They injected $25b into renewable sources directly and received $85b on top in private investment as a result. Their energy regulator is now planning (not predicting, actively planning pole and wire infrastructure requirements, new regulation to control Rooftop solar and forcing fossil fuel, particularly coal, to stay idle) for 80% renewables in 2030.
It's attitudes like yours which are holding us back. Labour and private investment are waiting for strong targets.
i_am_bromega t1_j1kh2u1 wrote
You’re highlighting my point. 100% isn’t happening in 15 years. Australia isn’t going from 20 to 100% in that timeframe. 25 billion isn’t enough to cover most, if any US states to go renewable. You’re also not factoring in the economics or supply chain of switching. Lithium demand and other rare earth metals are already projected to skyrocket without coming close to getting net zero. Without new extraction technologies, we simply can’t produce enough materials to go 100% renewable in the timeframe you’re suggesting.
LNG/coal plants will be around in 20 years. That much is guaranteed. It’s better to force carbon capture, which will make those plants more expensive to operate, while reducing emissions as the transition happens.
seven_tech t1_j1kn3ts wrote
The last coal plant in Australia is due to close in 2038. It's moved forward closure an entire decade in the last 3 years and they're talking about moving it forward again. LNG has shot themselves in the foot here, as they tried to game the federal electrical system during a lack of 'gas availability' (they chose to export it for higher prices) in June. They've just had their prices capped and a super profits tax is on the cards in early '23. LNG will be summer peaking only by mid-2030s. They'll be lucky if they're being used more than a month year.
I'm afraid you don't seem to see what's happening in the renewable space. Regulation globally is decimating fossil fuels because people are sick of them determining prices based on their profits. This isn't the 2000s anymore. The world is moving quickly and inexorablly to renewables. The war in Ukraine has galvanised Europe on it even more. Yes, in the short term (2-4 years) they will be more dependant. But they are spending hundreds of billions to get off it now because they're no longer prepared to have it used as a weapon a la Russia. America is the only major Western country now lagging in their ambition.
11fingerfreak t1_j1p04f1 wrote
The global economy only exists so long as humans exist. Climate change will eventually result in a planet where nearly every life form we know of today is extinct… including us. The global economy is unimportant compared to extinction.
But I get it. You may feel differently about it. Maybe you’re hoping that it’s all a hoax or it won’t be as bad as scientists have been saying. Or maybe you’re hoping some other species will come along and they’ll maintain the global economy and Capitalism in our absence. We’d hate to ruin it all for the lizards from Alpha Centuri or the hyper intelligent cockroaches by making decisions that don’t ensure profits for shareholders. Either way, I strongly suggest you not put your faith in the markets or hope that the scientists are wrong. Your call, though.
PleasantAdvertising t1_j1dwqtz wrote
Hydrogen, carbon capture and reducing your individual carbon footprint all come from the fossil fuel industry
outgoinghermit t1_j1ecivb wrote
You’re right. The bulk of CO2e comes from transportation, industry, and power generation. If all residential went full Net0 tomorrow it would barely dent humanity’s output compared to the 3 top categories.
Layer_4_Solutions t1_j1geaco wrote
Residential users make up the majority of transportation and power demand.
fgdfghdhj5yeh t1_j1es0x9 wrote
don't forget the livestock industry! (pretty much big oil's brother)
illuminerdi t1_j1gsrur wrote
This. Carbon capture is a dead end, ask anyone with more than a HS Science education. Any money spent on it could do 100x more good in pursuit of carbon free energy sources.
OGPeglegPete t1_j1fkuft wrote
Do these even exist currently? My understanding is that that everything somewhat viable still starts with oil/natural gas and is then converted.
Plzbanmebrony t1_j1gjwms wrote
Carbon capture may still need to happen. We both know that nothing needed is going to happen when it needs too. This problem will get worse and worse unless we start chipping away at any way we can.
Spaceseeds t1_j1dh0zp wrote
Have you ever seen the Ted talk where the guy talks about how hybrids are way better than long range evs? I think you should educate yourself a bit more on the subject. It's not going to be one future or the other and we will benefit from all aspects of energy becoming more efficient and clean over time.
Also if you want to talk about lobbying preventing the next level of humanity complain about nuclear power being so fear mongered.
rjnd2828 t1_j1dl554 wrote
Oh wait, one guy says we should continue to use fossil fuels? Let me rethink my entire world view. Also I'm SURE Exxon Mobil really has our long term interests at heart, despite literally every piece of evidence to the contrary which shows they'll do absolutely anything to keep fossil fuels front and center
Spaceseeds t1_j1dolkq wrote
You didn't even scratch the surface of the argument. A hybrid is more energy efficient than a long range EV when you account for all the carbon it took to create the batteries in the long range EV.
Lithium is not what you think.
You sound like a child and a fool who won't look at the data presented. For anyone else interested, I have provided a link to the topic on discussion.. I'm sure this other fool will just shart diarrhea out of his mouth, so why don't you all be the judge for yourselves...
rob801 t1_j1dpfgu wrote
From the description of the exact video you linked to:
>This talk only reflects the speaker's personal views and interpretation. Several claims in this talk lack scientific support. We've flagged this talk because it falls outside the content guidelines TED gives TEDx organizers.
pantsattack t1_j1drtxy wrote
Moreover, both EVs and hybrids, despite being better for carbon release than conventional ICEs, are not enough to fix the problem. We need to build better public infrastructure and drastically reduce individual car ownership. Switching to more efficient cars is good, but it's effectively just kicking the can down the road. We need to overhaul the entire transportation industry.
Tearakan t1_j1dsws1 wrote
Yep. Continuing to rely on a car based system just asks for systematic failure when the cheap materials run out and they are running out.
rjnd2828 t1_j1dox3v wrote
Your insults really are making me want to listen to your Ted talk. You really know how to win hearts and minds.
DonManuel t1_j1dicmy wrote
It's funny how uneducated people always ask others to educate themselves.
Spaceseeds t1_j1djwa4 wrote
Funny how people with no response think they know more than someone who told them to educate themselves on a topic. Sorry you're not intellectual enough to educate yourself in the matters you speak of.
MyPacman t1_j1fnt1v wrote
> hybrids are way better than long range evs
Not in a country that sources its electricity from over 80% renewable energy. And not when it is more efficient to generate your electricity at a power station instead of a few thousand ICE engines.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments