Claim: Carbon Capture Vital to Meeting Climate Goals

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Carbon capture vs Renewable Energy? Proponents of contradictory green visions for Britain’s future are fighting over British PM Boris Johnson’s renewable energy policy largesse.

Carbon capture is vital to meeting climate goals, scientists tell green critics

Supporters insist that storage technology is not a costly mistake but the best way for UK to cut emissions from heavy industry

Robin McKie

Sun 17 Jan 2021 04.36 AEDT

Engineers and geologists have strongly criticised green groups who last week claimed that carbon capture and storage schemes – for reducing fossil fuel emissions – are costly mistakes.

The scientists insisted that such schemes are vital weapons in the battle against global heating and warn that failure to set up ways to trap carbon dioxide and store it underground would make it almost impossible to hold net emissions to below zero by 2050.

Carbon capture and storage is going to be the only effective way we have in the short term to prevent our steel industry, cement manufacture and many other processes from continuing to pour emissions into the atmosphere,” said Professor Stuart Haszeldine, of Edinburgh University.

“If we are to have any hope of keeping global temperature [increases] down below 2 degrees C then we desperately need to develop ways to capture and store carbon dioxide.”

But campaigners at Global Witness and Friends of the Earth Scotland said last week that a reliance on CCS was not a reliable way to decarbonise the energy system, and published a paper last Monday from the Tyndall Manchester climate change research centre that they said proved that CCS has a “history of over-promising and under-delivering”.

Both groups claimed CCS would not make “a meaningful contribution to 2030 climate targets” despite the investment, and instead urged the construction of more renewable energy plants to be given priority.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/16/carbon-capture-vital-meeting-climate-goals-scientists-cut-emissions

It is all kind of entertaining in a macabre way, once you get past the sadness of watching such a stupendous waste of all that taxpayer’s money.

In my opinion there is no chance either camp will achieve anything useful.

At 50 degrees North, Britain will never build enough renewables to replace fossil fuel. Even if I’m wrong, at best Britain would end up with what they already have – the ability to produce electricity.

Carbon capture – what can you say? If you pump all the empty North Sea gas wells full of CO2, you provide a cash bonanza for people who thought their exhausted fossil fuel claims were worthless – kind of like a lottery win for billionaires, where ordinary taxpayers pay for the tickets.

4.9 9 votes
Article Rating
134 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Kamakaris
January 18, 2021 10:12 am

To all the alarmists who frequent this blog, what exactly is your climate “goal”? What do you want to happen to the climate when your goals have been accomplished?

Pauleta
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 18, 2021 10:20 am

I have the same question on the back of my mind, David. When you see hail and floods being called extreme events, I wonder what is the so-called normal weather. Maybe sunny-partly cloudy, average 20C every day be it winter or summer, exact amount of rain for farmers and wind at speed enough to fan the blades but not enough to disrupt hairdos.

DHR
Reply to  Pauleta
January 18, 2021 12:47 pm

Kinda like theMorelocks.

Mr.
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 18, 2021 12:23 pm

Alarmists are almost exclusively leftists.

What the leftists want is to know exactly what life has in store for them, and/or what will be provided to them from one day to the next. Life for them is something to be group-processed through, rather than individually experienced.

So they want governments to work all these things out for them.

The power-motivated within leftist ranks figured out that because humans don’t have control of the weather, that can be promoted as a major lack in the predictability / certainty of daily life for leftists everywhere.

How can this ‘gap’ be exploited for manipulation of power positions?

Their answer was – AGW.

And now we all have to suffer the ramifications of this perfidy.

fred250
Reply to  Mr.
January 18, 2021 9:16 pm

So they want governments to work all these things out for them.

.

And not just for them.. for EVERYONE ELSE as well.

Giordi Milton
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 18, 2021 2:03 pm

For the politicians, the goal is a totalitarian, socialist state. For the lemmings, to seem cool

January 18, 2021 10:22 am

Oh, global warming is out, now it’s global heating, oooohhhkay.
What do they dream at night ?
What pills do they take, do I need a prescription for that ? 😀

Sara
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 18, 2021 10:33 am

Just try mixing peanut butter and grape jelly sandwiches with a really ripsnorting loaded pizza with lots of onions. You’ll probably get the same results they do.

Vuk
Reply to  Sara
January 18, 2021 11:16 am

All result of the most important Carbon capture that there is.

Dave-E
January 18, 2021 10:29 am

Masterminds refuse to accept that carbon dioxide is plant food and not a pollutant. Taking it out of the atmosphere and trapping it? Yeah, what can go wrong? In their astronomical arrogance they lack the imagination to see anything except upside. In mythology and religious stories the offender pays for such hubris. Unlike these stories, our self-proclaimed godlike masters are likely to harm all of us in their insurmountable pride.

Reply to  Dave-E
January 18, 2021 10:39 am

While there are some direct air capture demonstration projects, most CCS projects involve capturing industrial emissions from point sources and injecting it into saline aquifer formations. CCS could never capture and store enough CO2 to reduce the actual atmospheric concentration. The most it could do is to slow the rise, which is all that would be necessary to avoid the so-called 1.5 C limit.

Whether we like it or not, government will force a reduction in CO2 emissions. CCS is a critical pathway to doing this, while still being able to generate reliable, affordable electricity and make steel & cement.

Curious George
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 10:46 am

David, don’t be so narrowly technical. Think of all that money!

Reply to  Curious George
January 18, 2021 11:14 am

Let’s just assume they expand the CCS tax credit… And let’s assume that some infrastructure (pipelines, platforms, etc) can be repurposed for CCS… The combination of tax credits and delayed decommissioning costs could actually make it economically viable.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 11:43 am

The main purpose behind CCS is to “fight climate change”, whateverthat means. Nobody has been able to articulate exactly what they are fighting for, so in my mind, CCS is nothing but virtue signaling almost as ridiculous as the Paris Climate Accord.

Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 18, 2021 11:53 am

The main purpose doesn’t really matter, once the government tells us we have to do something.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 12:42 pm

And the beat goes on…..

fred250
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 12:01 pm

With China, Asia, Africa etc building fossil-fuel powered power-stations hand over foot……

…… no CCS project is going to make the slightest difference to anything except people’s wallets.

Reply to  fred250
January 18, 2021 12:11 pm

If it keeps more coal and natural gas fired power plants operating in the US, it will make a difference.

fred250
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 2:13 pm

Not to atmospheric CO2 emissions, though.

Electricity costs will go up, forcing more manufacturing elsewhere.

Things still need to be made.

People still want “stuff”..

And a large proportion of the “not quite as developed” world wants to catch up to western society.

That catching up can only happen using fossil fuels in their cheapest possible form..

Reply to  fred250
January 18, 2021 2:26 pm

Yep. China, India, Vietnam, etc. will still be expanding coal generation for some time to come.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 2:31 pm

If we can avoid the crazy stuff, our electricity rates might not go up that much nationally.

A bipartisan bill that provides tax breaks, loan guarantees and other subsidies for CCS, nuclear, “renewables”, storage technology, etc., without imposing a carbon tax might not cost us much, apart from piling on more debt.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 19, 2021 12:23 am

I see you really love subsidies and loans and “no crazy stuff”. You are part of the problem by promoting the nonsense that got us here in the first place; subsidising poorly-considered business plans for the ultra-rich while externalising the cost onto the working, tax-paying classes.
I’m sure it was just a (recurrent) slip of the tongue..
Let the rich start paying for their own crap, and pay taxes like everyone else. Then there will be enough for important things, like education and healthcare.
Enough with the subsidies and tax breaks, that’s Bolshevism! And Bolshevists hate humankind, geddit?

Reply to  paranoid goy
January 19, 2021 2:25 am

I’m not promoting anything. I’m simply pointing out that CCS is the least bad way to reduce CO2 emissions from energy production & industrial processes, that it technically works and that there is bipartisan support for it in Congress.

I had my say on reducing CO2 emissions in November.

fred250
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 2:37 pm

Parts of Africa look like they are wanting to gain reliable electricity supplies too.

World Bank will supply funding for intermittent USELESS unreliables.

China will fund fossil fuel RELIABILITY

Last edited 6 months ago by fred250
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  fred250
January 18, 2021 5:33 pm

hand over foot……”

Or hand over fist.

David A
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 12:13 pm

Except for those paying the useless tax.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 19, 2021 12:12 am

I don’t wanna fight, but when you say “economically viable” you actually mean “financially viable”. The misuse and abuse of the term “economy” is one of the pillars of Bolshevik brainscrubbing.
Frankly, this entire “article” could do with a rewrite, where the word ‘carbon’ is replaced with ‘pollution’. This whole CO2 bullshit myth has been created to distract us from the actual problem regarding environmental damage: pollution by capitalists too much in love with money to pay for cleaning up after their own dirty asses. Now they shoved that cost onto us by taxing our smalltalk as “carbon causes the weather to misbehave”.
Is this in the hope we will clean up their mess while scraping together carbon atoms, or do they just not give a shit and talk carbon hoping we forget about the sulfates and sulphides and heavy metals and toxins and organophosphates and….

Reply to  paranoid goy
January 19, 2021 2:17 am

Economically viable means having a better net present value than the alternative. Production platforms are often operated beyond the point of becoming cash flow negative, because it has a greater net present value than incurring the decommissioning expense.

bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
January 19, 2021 6:18 am

“Production platforms are often operated beyond the point of becoming cash flow negative, because it has a greater net present value than incurring the decommissioning expense.”

You’re committing oilfield heresy here. And also near truth. My only correction is admittedly petroleum economically picky. The economic parameter that makes it all too common for skeleton crewing shut in /near shut in platforms in both the GOM and Cal OCS – many that hardly cast a shadow any more – is not the incrementally positive NPV, but incremental AFIT ROR’s that meet/exceed corporate hurdle rates.

The trick is to obstruct the BOEMRE and/or the too many California state regulatory bodies into allowing us to shirk our responsibilities for “Just one more year”. We petroleum engineers do your dirty work with our arsenal of usual excuses, juiced up by the fact that we are technically stronger than the regulators self selected by remuneration about half as large. Of course API/WSPA and other lobbying/functional bribery doesn’t hurt.

Your near truth comes with your unintended admission that actual platform/well asset retirement costs are Trumpian YUGE compared to the qualitatively lower ones you have at least indirectly referenced in the past.

Last edited 6 months ago by bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 19, 2021 6:27 am

Your near truth comes with your unintended admission that actual platform/well asset retirement costs are Trumpian YUGE compared to the qualitatively lower ones you have at least indirectly reference in the past.

Total horst schist. Any ARO expense that can be deferred has value. The ARO is no bigger now than it was before the November coup. The only things that have changed is that CCS might now be a more viable pathway to deferring ARO and it might become an essential part of keeping the GOM open for business.

bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
January 19, 2021 6:48 am

Any ARO expense that can be deferred has value.”

True. But the techniques used to defer them are not ethical. I can list you all of the BS excuses we (successfully) deploy to bully the laws into compliance. Year after year.

“The ARO is no bigger now than it was before the November coup. “

Still with the “coup”? Applying this fact denying/ignoring infantility to this topic colors your treatment of all others. But please show me where I said that those actual costs changed, post 1/20/21. Hint: I did not. They were big before, big now.

But thanks for more truthing about how the operators haven’t properly bonded/lock boxed for the costs that they agreed to. After all, if they had, these $ wouldn’t be available for alternative use, and we wouldn’t be widely bad practicing…

Dave Fair
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 10:54 am

Sadly, I have to agree with you, David. All levels of government are hell-bent on appeasing the zealots. Taking the least harmful method of reducing CO2 production may be our only choice.

Reply to  Dave Fair
January 18, 2021 11:42 am

This…

Plus this…

Equals this…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 12:18 pm

David,
I can’t read the last graphic on my 26″ (1920 pixel) monitor at full screen, even with my glasses on.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 6:23 pm

Thank you, David. Now I see why I had difficulty. While readable, the text in even the original is a little fuzzy.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 18, 2021 7:28 pm

The original PDF is a little fuzzy.

The “scary bit” is that Tip’s presentation was just for a reasonable reduction in emissions… Not the idiotic “net zero” being demanded by the junta.

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 18, 2021 8:36 pm

I use an ACER monitor and MS Edge; enlarge to 175% and I can read the table, where it says:

CCS – – – Widely Deployed After 2020
What a joke. “Widely” and “after” are conceptually a bit fuzzy.
“Deployed” and “2020” are respectively “not” and “here”.

Crazy stuff, these climate scams.

Dave Fair
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 6:11 pm

Zealots of all stripes have Voltaire backwards.

Reply to  Dave Fair
January 18, 2021 7:24 pm

I think that was Voltaire’s point… 🍻

David A
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 18, 2021 2:00 pm

Sad, yet possibly the least ugly option. So would this CO2 be available to be released at some future date?

Reply to  David A
January 18, 2021 2:23 pm

If it’s injected into saline aquifer formations, it would eventually mineralize.

fred250
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 4:57 pm

“it would eventually mineralize.”

Wouldn’t that start to block the aquifer?

Reply to  fred250
January 18, 2021 7:20 pm

That part takes time. Initially it would migrate updip and then gradually mineralize. This assumes it’s injected into normally pressured reservoirs.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 6:28 pm

David
Are the required alkaline-metal ions extracted from the brine? Does this have chemical consequences for the aquifer or the constraining formations?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 18, 2021 7:30 pm

I don’t know. However, the constraining formations constrained oil & gas over geological time scales.

Reply to  David A
January 18, 2021 2:28 pm

If Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) keeps his word, we’ll survive the next 2-4 years. If not, it’s “lights out”.

David A
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 12:12 pm

How much C02 do you imagine nerds to be captured to avoid the 2 C, oh wait, make it now 1.5 C rise.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  David A
January 18, 2021 5:22 pm

Just keep the nerds out of this, ok?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 12:14 pm

David
Some ‘geniuses’ at UC San Diego disagree with you. They propose going on a war-time footing to build 800 Direct Air Capture plants throughout the world. However, as I pointed out in the comments section, they ignore the increase in CO2 emissions resulting from their crash building program:

https://scitechdaily.com/climate-crisis-calls-for-direct-air-capture-wartime-level-funding-for-a-fleet-of-co2-scrubbers/

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 18, 2021 12:57 pm

Here’s a crazy idea that’s actually being considered: Using electricity generated from offshore wind to split hydrogen and oxygen in seawater while using direct air capture to generate CO2. Use the O2 for aquaculture. Combine the H and CO2 into renewable diesel.

Lot’s of crazy ideas floating around.

David A
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 2:03 pm

And sadly our new government will fund even more crazy ideas. Thanks for your posts btw.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 6:28 pm

It would be easier to use the CO2 with electrolytically produced hydrogen to generate methane via the Sabatier reaction. At least the pipeline distribution network for methane (natural gas) exists, and the process may actually level off net CO2 emissions (it can’t reduce them). It might – just might – be economical. The enormous time constant built into this kind of infrastructure would at least prevent it from destabilizing the electrical grid.

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
January 18, 2021 7:36 pm

Unfortunately, logic has now become a secondary driver.

Rick C
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 2:28 pm

If we call pumping CO2 into old oil fields for enhanced recovery CCS, I’m all for it. It’s even cost effective. But trying to pull CO2 out of ambient air to control global temperature is a fool’s errand.

Reply to  Rick C
January 18, 2021 2:36 pm

Lots of laws, regulations and other government-imposed things are fool’s errands.

Jim Brock
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 3:43 pm

Aye, and there’s the rub, David.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 5:32 pm

Whether we like it or not, government will force a reduction in CO2 emissions.”

And it won’t affect “climate” one whit.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 18, 2021 7:16 pm

Certainly not in any measurable way in our lifetime.

John F Hultquist
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 8:40 pm

I see a need to redefine “existential “.

Reply to  John F Hultquist
January 19, 2021 2:44 am

The people running our government need to actually learn the definition of existential.

David Stone CEng
Reply to  David Middleton
January 19, 2021 3:21 am

Your idea might work, but has a serious problem. To capture, move and pump into gas wells needs a huge amount of energy if you are going to make a difference. CO2 would probably have to be dumped into the wells as liquid, otherwise the pressure required would be very high. This would mean cooling the space and surrounding rocks to -80C or so, for potentially billions of tons of rock. You could just compress it I suppose, but gas well pressures are often very high once some CO2 is places there and you need to dump many many millions of tons of CO2. The work needed to do this would need many offshore turbine fields, or perhaps you want to use fossil fuel? It takes a lot of energy to compress gasses, or to liquify them, and the idea is probably impractical from an energy perspective, let alone anything else. Even extracting CO2 from the air is difficult, needs separation from water vapour, and uses a lot of energy. The problem is that 400 ppm or so is not a lot of CO2 and a great deal of everything else. It would be helpful if someone came up with an energy balance set of data, so that a assessment of practicality could be made, but there is just a great deal of hand-waving. In any case it would need a huge very expensive plant because scale would be the only saviour of the idea.

Reply to  David Stone CEng
January 19, 2021 5:44 am

Separating the CO2, compressing it, transporting it via pipeline and injecting it into the subsurface aren’t terribly difficult to do.

The pressure and geothermal gradients transform the gas to a supercritical liquid about 1 km below the surface/seafloor.


https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/faqs/carbon-storage-faqs

The storage window is from about 1 km to the top of geopressure (where the pressure gradient exceeds hydrostatic).

The Petra Nova pilot project successfully captured >90% of the CO2 from one of the coal-fired units at the W.A. Parrish generating station in Fort Bend County, TX and transported it through an 80 mile pipeline to West Ranch oil field in Jackson County, TX, where it was injected into a Frio oil reservoir. Production quickly increased from a couple of hundred barrels per day to over 3,000 bbl/d. However, it needed >$50/bbl to breakeven and was shut in due to low oil prices.

https://www.iea-coal.org/blogs/mothballed-petra-nova-has-already-proved-its-worth/

The main constraints are the rate at which injection wells can be drilled, the rate at which they can inject CO2 and the volume that can be injected in reservoirs. The Bureau of Economic Geology has been evaluating the prospects for CCS in the Gulf of Mexico…

https://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/research/gomcarb

Steve Case
Reply to  Dave-E
January 18, 2021 3:56 pm

The climate warriors conveniently, constantly and intentionally
ignore the positive aspects of carbon dioxide, and then go on to
conveniently, constantly and intentionally ignore the negative
aspects of carbon capture.

Sara
January 18, 2021 10:31 am

I’m still trying to figure out how some gas that is one-four-hundredth of a percent (that’s 0.04%) of the total gas volume in the atmosphere can be more of a threat than nitrogen, which is about 78% of the total atmospheric gas volume.

And if you want to have really efficient carbon capture, doesn’t it make more sense for the complainers to wear rebreathing equipment; go without any heat at all in the cold seasons; and in general, just not continue to produce the very gas (CO2) that they’re scared silly of by not talking at all?

And why isn’t nitrogen more of a threat than carbon????? Inquiring minds want to know. After all, most of these clever people whose lives are so afflicted by CO2 must be aware that every time they burp after a meal, or overload their GI tracts, they are quite capable of producing a rather high volume of personally-produced methane.

Surely that should be addressed, shouldn’t it?

Just askin’.

Pauleta
Reply to  Sara
January 18, 2021 12:16 pm

I stopped drinking carbonated drinks. Am I crazy to keep ingesting pollutants? /s

donb
Reply to  Sara
January 18, 2021 12:37 pm

If all O2 disappeared from the atmosphere such that N2 was the only dominant gas, then N would be far more deadly to humans (and much of life) than is current CO2.
However, Earth loses its energy by IR emission to space, and N2 absorbs very little of outgoing IR (it mainly absorbs in the UV), and thus N2 is not a greenhouse gas. Simple science.

mkelly
Reply to  donb
January 18, 2021 2:03 pm

donb, this is silly. If all O2 disappeared from the atmosphere we die due to lack of oxygen. Suffocation. It would take about 2 minutes.

Redge
Reply to  Sara
January 18, 2021 11:31 pm

Those who believe CO2 is all evil should set an example and turn off all their electrically operated white goods, computers, phones and gadgets.

They should drink nothing but water.

They should only travel as far as they can walk.

They should only eat with locally produced food.

Lead by example.

(Not that any of that will ever happen, except for the great unwashed of course)

Reply to  Redge
January 19, 2021 2:26 am

That all sounds great. But elections and coups have consequences.

Beta Blocker
January 18, 2021 10:33 am

See my comment posted today on “Outdated carbon credits from old wind and solar farms are threatening climate change efforts”.

The carbcoin — a carbon credit trading currency

A carbcoin would be a government-sanctioned equivalent of a bitcoin for use in the carbon credit trading markets — a carbon emission currency of sorts.

Under a worldwide carbon credit trading system, one using something like a carbcoin as its medium of carbon credit exchange, new-build carbon capture and storage facilities could become huge cash collection machines for their owners and investors, regardless of how many tons of carbon those facilities actually sequestered over the course of their operational lives. 

George Daddis
January 18, 2021 10:35 am

Are there any “carbon capture” schemes economically feasible in the “short term”?
But anyway:

“For your own good you need to reduce purchase of products that produce CO2 in their use or manufacture. But since you are not intelligent enough to make such decisions on your own, we will help you by making everything you buy and use cost more, forcing you to consume less.”

“PS Don’t worry about us, we can afford more costly jet travel, gasoline, heating fuel and even absorb the higher cost of anything we own made of plastic.”

“Thank you and have a nice day.”

CD in Wisconsin
January 18, 2021 10:51 am

“….But campaigners at Global Witness and Friends of the Earth Scotland said last week that a reliance on CCS was not a reliable way to decarbonise the energy system, and published a paper last Monday from the Tyndall Manchester climate change research centre that they said proved that CCS has a “history of over-promising and under-delivering”.

*******

Decarbonise?

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Carbon and CO2 are Pollutants

I must remember to keep my Orwellian Newspeak Dictionary up-to-date. Love Big Brother.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
January 19, 2021 11:38 am

And continue with the Mandarin lessons.

CokMosby
January 18, 2021 11:00 am

Hey folks, molten salt small modular reactors will arrive in force before 2030 – they can be installed faster and cheaper than anything else. Period.

Vuk
Reply to  CokMosby
January 18, 2021 11:13 am

Hmm, I wouldn’t be so sure. Oak Ridge National Laboratory developed the molten salt breeder reactor in the 1960s.

Mr. Lee
Reply to  CokMosby
January 18, 2021 11:16 am

yeah, molten salt is pretty darn neat. I suppose once “they who rule us” decide that it is in their interest to have them, then we will see the media narrative on nuclear energy do a u-turn. but, until such time, molten salt reactors will be persona non grata at the energy ball.

philincalifornia
Reply to  CokMosby
January 18, 2021 11:23 am

Hey whether that’s true or not, stoppit would you? Chattering about whatever it is they’re chattering about (they don’t even seem to know) is a good little earner and could go well past 2030.

Anyway, Biden, the leader of the free world is going to vanquish climate with one or two strokes of his pen come Wednesday or Thursday.

fred250
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 18, 2021 11:57 am

Biden, the leader of the free world.

Seriously ? There is no possibility of a free world under Biden. !

Just the opposite.. aim is for “control” and it will be massively costly.

They already have it over the US voting system.

A lot of “freedoms” will disappear over the next few years.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  fred250
January 18, 2021 5:25 pm

Didn’t catch the sarcasm, eh Fred?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 18, 2021 5:34 pm

Fred usually does actually, but I’m sure he knows that I know that Biden doesn’t know if he’s having a sh!t or a haircut. A couple of commentators on a Youtube vid I saw (and lost, dammit) described Biden and Harris as empty suits and the country was now going to be run by Pelosi, Schumer and …. wait for it …. McConnell.

He even looks like a lizard person, a bit.

fred250
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 18, 2021 7:46 pm

😉

Rory Forbes
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 18, 2021 2:40 pm

Au contraire … Joe Biden isn’t going to be the leader of anything. His minders are going to keep him pretty much in the same place they kept him pre-election … under tight wraps.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 18, 2021 5:36 pm

Yep, see above. They’re having to vet the military who will guard the inauguration, to make sure he makes it past Wednesday, I guess.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 18, 2021 6:48 pm

I had to laugh, though; I believe Trump isn’t planning to attend. So … they won’t be able to blame anything on him. Frankly, I don’t blame him for shunning Mr. Nobody and Kamala’s “special day”. It will be the lowest point in US history. Inaugurating a pointless old fool like him is just too embarrassing for words. What happened to dignity?

Reply to  philincalifornia
January 18, 2021 7:14 pm

If it looks like a coup, walks like a coup and quacks like a coup…

fred250
Reply to  CokMosby
January 18, 2021 11:53 am

YAWN…. we are still waiting !

Rud Istvan
January 18, 2021 11:13 am

The only operational CCS IN THE WORLD is Boundary Waters unit 4 in Saskatchewan. The CO2 was to be sold via pipeline to a nearby oil field for tertiary recovery. Unit 4 never functioned as designed. After 4 years of tweaking, uptime never exceeded 65%. The parasitic load is 35% of unit 4 electrical output. The oilfield sued because it never received even the minimum contracted CO2 after having invested in the pipeline.

CCS is another ‘solution’ that doesn’t work in reality.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 12:19 pm

The Sturgeon and ACTL project are brother and sister projects. They are the equivalent of taking approx. 200,000 cars off the road as far as CO2 emissions. But does take the horsepower of about 600 cars to run it….
https://actl.ca/actl-project/about-actl/
and a shameless plug for my company
https://www.gasliquids.com/co2-processing-sequestration/

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 18, 2021 1:21 pm

Its a great project, i was one of the electrical suppliers, nothing better than taking captured co2 to produce more oil in “depleted” oil fields

Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 2:55 pm

Petra Nova in Texas?

Reply to  Sid Abma
January 18, 2021 4:51 pm

It was a huge success until the oil price crash forced it to be suspended.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 5:59 pm

Dave, glad you are now an editor. A suggestion. Next time you choose to contradict a long time WUWT contributor like myself who even wrote a book chapter on this subject (essay Clean Coal in ebook Blowing Smoke), do more fact checking first. Your source is the global CCS institute. Bias? Yes, totally.

I went and researched their list of ~20, for which you provided their latest blurb on most recent CCS. The list includes natural gas CO2 scrubbing units (all for tertiary oil recovery) of which there are about ten based on the amine technology, like Century and Shute Creek. It includes the heavily subsidized Petro Nova project that was used by EPA to falsely claim commercial viability. It includes Boundary Dam as operationally viable rather than in reality acommercial failure.

The organization is a total CCS promotional joke. On you.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 18, 2021 7:12 pm

Rud,

I’ll put together a detailed list of the growing number of active CCS projects and write up a post.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  David Middleton
January 19, 2021 3:12 pm

Good. I await your promised post reply. Cause you cannot. I have already been there and done that. Read my cited essay for many references before you start trying to respond.

Mr. Lee
January 18, 2021 11:23 am

Two groups arguing about fantastical world that they mistake for reality

Brings back fond memories of arguing with my friends about “who was more powerful, Thor or Superman?”

Reply to  Mr. Lee
January 18, 2021 11:35 am

The problem is that our government has made that “fantastical world” the new “reality.”

Flight Level
January 18, 2021 12:29 pm

Please help fund my new startup:
-Electromagnetic canons to shoot high pressure CO2 containers right into the sun.

All donations are tax deductible and will be rewarded with carbon credits.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Flight Level
January 18, 2021 1:19 pm

Elon already has that, hyperloop

Flight Level
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
January 19, 2021 12:19 pm

LOL, could well happen indeed 😉 This thing is unfit for other, inclusive above all, it’s main intended purpose to safely transfer passengers.

Ian McClintock
January 18, 2021 1:17 pm

Those who imagine that reducing carbon dioxide by any means at all is desirable or acceptable, are unaware of the major benefits increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide provides and ignore the enormous costs and dis-benefits imposed on mankind and all biota by such uninformed and overwhelmingly futile policy.

Surely we should be advocating for a major, comprehensive, due-diligence investigation to be undertaken to check the basis for these populous claims.

Such an inquiry would rapidly disclose the spurious foundation that they are presently based on and allow rational discussion and development of beneficial, appropriate future policy to occur.

Pat from Kerbob
January 18, 2021 1:17 pm

“But campaigners at Global Witness and Friends of the Earth Scotland said last week that a reliance on CCS was not a reliable way to decarbonise the energy system, and published a paper last Monday from the Tyndall Manchester climate change research centre that they said proved that CCS has a “history of over-promising and under-delivering”.

I wonder if these people are trying to be intentionally funny.
Have Green renewable energy advocates ever actually over delivered?

Near as i can tell all of their promises need to be discounted by 99%, whether its on reliability of renewables or cost of power.
All lies

Last edited 6 months ago by Pat from Kerbob
Sean
January 18, 2021 1:25 pm

Why is it always an industrial process, like pumping into underground caverns, all that is being considered? Is it so that it can be more easily metered and billed? 97% of the natural CO2 emitted is re-absorbed by natural processes into the environment. It would seem if you could improves mother nature’s existing carbon capture schemes by a very small amount, you’d solve the problem…except for how to meter and claim carbon credits for the effort.

Chris Hanley
January 18, 2021 1:55 pm

Boris is being led by a (presumably) prominent physical feature and it’s not his nose.

mkelly
January 18, 2021 2:33 pm

One very sad thing in CCS is that people like Rep. Dan Crenshaw thinks it is a good idea. With friends like that ….

Last edited 6 months ago by mkelly
Reply to  mkelly
January 18, 2021 2:41 pm

Quite a few Republicans think it’s a good idea.

https://schweikert.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/us-house-gop-starts-roll-out-broad-climate-plan
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063718637

It’s actually the least worst idea on the long list of bad ideas.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 5:05 pm

David:

Talk about damning with faint praise … but I have to disagree with you. I can think of two less worse ideas than CCS: expanding nuclear power and planting more trees. For trees I would plant desirable hardwoods which could be harvested and turned in to long-lasting durable wood products like furniture and string instruments, both of which have lifetimes measured in centuries.

Why inject CO2 into some deep geological formation when you can fertilize trees for future string instruments, oboes and bassoons? Not to mention Brazillian rosewood paneling.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 18, 2021 8:03 pm

Alan, CO2 is otherwise known as acid gas and its very good as a lubricant to get more oil out of depleted conventional reservoirs, “depleted” meaning 50-75% or more of the oil is still there.
We have lots of co2, I’m happy to use a few million tons to produce more oil

Especially when green idiots pay us to do it

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 19, 2021 2:42 am

The sad thing is that EOR is uneconomic in most oil fields when oil is below $80/bbl.

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 18, 2021 8:55 pm

Alan W.,
Let’s say every family in the world had a string instrument, or two.
How much CO2 would that involve?

I suggest massive tree plantations of fast growing hybrid Poplars. Every 10 years, cut them down and move the logs to a cool dry desert.
The jobs needed for this are simple, unlike a luthier.
{invoke Poe’s Law}

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  John F Hultquist
January 19, 2021 3:26 pm

OK. If I must I’ll accept poplar paneling for the library. But poplar makes a really lousy violin.

fred250
Reply to  mkelly
January 18, 2021 4:07 pm

I have no problem with capturing CO2 at power stations IF it is going to be used for a specific purpose.

CCS just for the sake of storing it underground ….. is totally a FOOL’S ERRAND

The utmost in CO2 and plant life hatred idiocy.

January 18, 2021 2:47 pm

There is an option to CCS and that is Carbon Capture Utilization. This is an affordable carbon capture process that turns the CO2 into good paying full time jobs and money.
Check it out. https://youtu.be/RQRQ7S92_lo

Hotscot
January 18, 2021 2:50 pm

Remember the good old days of incandescent light bulbs? The the UK government outlawed them and we were all forced to buy those awful fluorescent items the government insisted we used.

Then, of course, within a few years LED light bulbs, superior in almost every way, began to hit the shops. Yet another example of failed government technical imposition.

Now we have the government promoting a scheme to have the first Nuclear Fusion reactor working by 2050. If it’s anything like HS2 (An unnecessary High Speed Railway line from London (of course) to the Northern regions of England, but not Scotland, then we can expect to see eye watering financial overruns and time delays with Fusion as well.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Tokamak Energy in Oxford (roughly 100 miles from London) https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk is promising it’s first Fusion Reactor connected to the grid by 2030, it seems our government missed that, despite it being on their doorstep.

Is this yet another example of Fusion being only ten/twenty years away? Well, in 2018 (from memory) they hit a milestone of heating Plasma to 15 million C, and anticipate reaching the critical temperature of 100 million C by 2025 (again, from memory).

Is the 100 million C just another Fusion pipe dream? Well, it appears a Tokomak in S. Korea has already hit 100 million C, and maintained it for 20 seconds. So perhaps we are closer than we think.

If this is the case, then Boris’ grand Green Industrial Revolution will, along with most other government Market meddling, very quickly be consigned to history – again. All those wind turbines being erected today, and over the coming decade will be rendered obsolete almost overnight, just as those horrid little fluorescent light bulbs were.

When will governments ever learn they are uniquely unqualified to pick technological winners, and leave it to the market which comes up Trumps every time?

Last edited 6 months ago by Hotscot
Peta of Newark
January 18, 2021 3:15 pm

Quote:
“” we have in the short term to prevent our steel industry, cement manufacture and many other processes from continuing to pour emissions into the atmosphere,” said Professor Stuart Haszeldine, of Edinburgh University.“”

Which steel industry is that, Professor. It all went to China.
Even all the scrap iron/steel went to China
In the UK, we cannot even make lengths of railway track of the correct size & specification any more
I’m not far from Sheffield, what was the centre of UK steel.
Now a shopping mall – name of ‘Meadowhall’, or as the natives say, Meddohell
Presently closed because of yet more Government meddling, muddling, buck passing and flat-out paranoia

The cement industry now only really caters for Government projects (Heathrow expansion, Hi-speed rail) or the construction of distribution centres for the likes of Amazon & DHL to name just 2.
i.e. Shops, = things and places that do not Add Value to the or any economy.
Things that do not give people ‘fulfilment’ , as a muppet professor was yowling on about round here just yesterday.
Shops and distribution centres only go to create ever increasing demand.
That China willingly fulfills
Fulfills. haha
Demand that you yourself say is Wrecking The Climate, The Planet, The World & Everything.
And what’s the Hi-speed railway for if not so people can spend ever more time fulfilling themselves inside shops?
clown

Otherwise cement goes into the 300,000 new houses that Government has promised to build, annually. or windmill bases

What ‘many other processes’?
I cannot imagine tailoring for The Emperor creates much CO2

So c’mon Professor, tell us. What Other Processes?
People like you, PROFESSOR, should not be allowed to get away with Liying By Omission.
For folks like you it really is or should be, A Capital Offence.

In a nutshell, THERE IS THE PROBLEM.
The Problem only exists inside these people’s heads and then, they get away with murder (murdering the truth) on a daily basis.

Boy oh boy, are we in deep shit here or what

btw – who mentioned Boris’ ‘prominence’
No, its not that

Boris’ ‘prominence’, as he will freely admit, is his bloated belly
It’s how Covid got a hold of, and nearly killed him

And he got that belly by eating sugar.
Now, there’s a Cause & Effect problem for you all to work on.
Does his bloat cause his obvious weak will and seeming stupidity, or did the sugar do it.
Which came first, what caused what.

You all know what my answer is.
Even before he got into a drunken row with his girlfriend at 4 in the morning, just before he was elected Party Leader.
Even worse, he actually WAS elected party leader

What. A. Mess.

Last edited 6 months ago by Peta of Newark
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 24, 2021 11:22 am

It seems that politicians are a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. They think that they are a lot smarter than what they actually are, and have a responsibility to do what is best for their ‘inferiors.’

Jim Brock
January 18, 2021 3:33 pm

I wonder how much the rate of warming today exceeds the normal rate of increase when coming out of an ice age. Any data?

Peter W
Reply to  Jim Brock
January 19, 2021 8:22 am

In about 12,000 years sea levels rose some 130 meters (400 feet). I’ll let you calculate the glacial ice melt yourself.

Jeff Alberts
January 18, 2021 5:27 pm

The only “climate goals” should be to have robust economies and energy infrastructures so that we can adapt when an actual emergency shows up. Right now, there isn’t one.

Big E
January 18, 2021 6:12 pm

What happens after successful carbon capture technologies development and implementation lowers CO2 below say 300 ppm? Do these firms stop recovering their huge investments and cease operation, OR do they continue down to the 150 ppm “unsafe for plant and human existence” level?
Who will be the arbiter to set the “optimum” CO2 levels? At 300 ppm, 200 ppm?

Reply to  Big E
January 18, 2021 7:41 pm

None of these CCS technologies will actually reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration over the next 500-1,000 years. They will just arrest the growth.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  David Middleton
January 18, 2021 8:18 pm

Yeah, and I can increase sea levels by pi$$ing in the ocean.

fred250
January 18, 2021 9:07 pm

Why don’t they set up large greenhouses near coal fired power plants, …

….. capture some of the CO2 and pump it to those greenhouses for enhanced plant growth.

CO2 is meant to be a greenhouse gas, after all. 🙂

Or maybe corn fields with the CO2 piped in.

Last edited 6 months ago by fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 19, 2021 2:38 am

The CO2 has to be chemically separated from the exhaust. As a gas, it occupies a large volume at 1 atm. In order to condense it, you have to pressurize it. At about 1 km below the surface or seafloor, it becomes a supercritical liquid and occupies the least volume.

Some of the captured CO2 will be sold for industrial and agricultural purposes. But I don’t think there’s a market for more than a small fraction of it.

Kiwi Gary
January 18, 2021 10:42 pm

What is to prevent the oceans outgassing carbon-dioxide as the atmospheric concentration reduces? Something about Henry’s Law might have a politically undesirable effect. But then, those expert climatologists B & B [ Boris & Biden ] probably have a cunning plan at least as good as Baldrick would propose.

Reply to  Kiwi Gary
January 19, 2021 2:28 am

CCS won’t reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration. It will just slow the growth.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  David Middleton
January 19, 2021 7:05 am

OK, let’s assume CCS will slow the growth of CO2 concentration. But by how much?

Reply to  Beta Blocker
January 19, 2021 7:31 am

It depends on how quickly and extensively it’s deployed. Realistically, it probably won’t be huge.

Neo Conscious
January 19, 2021 9:27 am

Carbon capture is already occurring naturally worldwide on an exponentially greater level than processes such as pumping CO2 into the ground, and that is by the increased plant growth being stimulated from increased atmospheric CO2.

Plants grow 25-30% faster when CO2 levels are increased 100%, and we are currently at 45% higher levels and expected to reach 100% in 30 years or so. Wood is the most concentrated form of carbon that plants produce and the most stable for long time periods, and thus forests are the best natural carbon sinks. Therefore the fostered growth and long-term storage of wood should be a top priority of those fighting global warming. However, the problem we face is that although environmentalists favor protecting forests, they oppose forest management practices that maximize wood production/harvest and minimize wildfires because of their obsession with natural ecosystem preservation.

Sharing the basic flaw of leftists in general, environmentalists are ineffectual at balancing the complexities of applying various imperfect and competing solutions to problems. Their shortsightedness leads them to continually oppose the most practical solutions for AGW such as nuclear power and re-prioritization of forest management policies.

Ian
January 19, 2021 9:27 am

Carbon capture is a joke. As fast as CO2 could be removed from the atmosphere, nature will put it right back in.
 
https://youtu.be/b1cGqL9y548?t=2906

The next Solyndra.

ResourceGuy
January 19, 2021 9:46 am

Only the best donors need to apply.

Jeffrey Banks
January 19, 2021 8:09 pm

Everyone seems to be so short-sighted as to what will happen in the future. Our energy needs continue to grow however the solution for this need is well underway with ITER https://www.iter.org/ By the end of this century we will have commercialized fusion energy generation. By dedicating 25 percent of power generation to cleaning the atmosphere for every power station built-by the year 2200 all of our past transgressions will be eliminated. At this moment in our timeline existence we are focusing on climate change and think we can actually do something about it when in actuality that goal is well beyond any of our lifetimes and we choose to focus on such frivolous endeavors. I refuse to stand by either climate-change activism/alarm nor will I stand by climate skepticism there is an alternative and that is to focus solely on what will work.

%d bloggers like this: