US Department of Energy analysis says coal carbon capture project would emit more greenhouse gases than it stores

energyandpolicy.org Department of Energy analysis says coal carbon capture project would emit more greenhouse gases than it stores

The Department of Energy says Project Tundra will emit more than it stores. The coal carbon capture project faces delays and increased costs

Carbon Capture @sopuli.xyz US Department of Energy analysis says coal carbon capture project would emit more greenhouse gases than it stores

21 comments

Oh man wow crazy it's almost like the only way to stop bringing the carbon from outside the carbon cycle to inside the carbon cycle is to stop moving the carbon from outside the carbon cycle to inside the carbon cycle

34
- The thermodynamic limits on carbon removal aren't quite that bad, but the technology is nowhere near as good as the constraints physics imposes.
  
  16
  
  We need to build more nuclear plants and use those to power carbon capture devices, not MORE COAL
  
  4
Ah that scam of carbon offsets. Guys let us pollute a little bit more, we promise we'll pull it out of the air later.

12
- This is about carbon capture and storage (which takes energy and concrete and by this report doubles the carbon impact of just burning the coal).
  
  6
  
  Yeah its largely a thing for carbon offset regulations. Like if you emit too much you owe fees but if you "offset" your emissions in some way you can deduct that from your emissions. Stuff like paying tree planting organizations, and imvesting carbon capture technology. The carbon offset scheme dont work, we have to emit less
  
  4
The main opportunity of carbon capture technology is to power it with excess clean energy during periods of high renewable availability. If you power it with coal, that would be a bad idea in all cases.

7
I have yet to see a carbon capture that seems at all feasible. In some cases there seems to be something that might replace fuel at net 0 which is at least promising in that we are still burning fuel so it would be better to stop getting it from the ground. Problem is is that we have a society built on burning one barrel of oil to easily get 100 barrels and im not sure we are going to get 100 solar panels/wind turbines/etc from one of the particular thing.

5
- Direct air capture is way more practical than any kind of regular carbon capture. And direct air capture is never going to be a major part of de-carbonizing, even if it will be essential for total success.
  
  There has literally never been a commercially-successful carbon capture implementation. Well over a billion sunk into this technology with no useful results. Just total bamboozles like Petra Nova.
  
  We have to leave fossil fuels in the ground, first and foremost. As many of them as possible, as soon as possible. We can save all this technowizard nonsense for when we're trying to get rid of the final tons. We won't need to be pissing money at "clean coal" or any such nonsense once the coal plants are all shut down. Bonus points, even the free market wants to shut them down because they're not economical.
  
  8
  
  Im not really confident on the coal part either. Its not so economical in the US but every so often you see articles in other places about doing more. And not just china and india but like australia.
  
  1
- Capturing carbon is really amazingly simple: plant trees.
  
  Unfortunately planting trees doesn't get venture capitalists interested.
  
  3
  
  my understanding is that tree planting isn't considered a magical solution because all that vegetable matter ultimately dies and its sequestered carbon is released by the creatures or microbes that break it down for energy and nutrients.
  
  6
- It takes 200kWh to produce a 100W panel. Within 30 years that panel produces about 26,000kWh with a capacity factor of 10%, so we are talking about a similar factor. Even crazier solar panels last longer then 30 years, but they do loose capacity over time. However that happens slowly, so a century old solar panel is possible.
  
  The issue is that oil can be used right away, whereas renewables take decades to produce the power.
  
  As for carbon capture plants do it no problem. Then we need to take the carbon from the plants, in processes like wood coal and store it. That works, but it takes too long. There are also industrial processes, which we know work. However none are fast and scalable enough to even make a dent in current emissions. It makes perfect sense to look into it to reduce the carbon content long term, but right now the cheapest way to reduce future carbon in the atmosphere is to use less fossil fuels.
  
  1
What about ramping up bamboo production? It grows super fast and is relatively useful.

4
- It likely has the same limits as tree planting: you can do it, just not anywhere near enough to make up for the amount of CO2 people dump into the atmosphere after burning fossil fuels.
  
  1
Anyone surprised? That's just a marketing term by insecure Right Wingers who replace a crap personality with a loud car. They're afraid that if they can't rev their engine to demonstrate how masculine they are and demonstate they have more money than everyone else, people will lose interest in them. They know if coal goes, fossil fuels will join them (same reason they're freaking about Gas stoves.. Most of them likely don't even cook). It all comes down to a fashion accessory (ie, their car)

4

You've viewed 21 comments.