Lloyd, thanks for recognizing the improbability of CC&S as an economically feasible technology. Hopefully you can contact the good peoples at the UN IPCC working group policy committees to now revise their timelines to reflect "real world" conditions, since net zero are wholly reliant on MASSIVE development and deployment of CC&S technology to capture every last single gram of CO2 emitted going forward (and then more from ambient atmospheric gases.)
I have said for a long, LONG time over at TreeHugger.com that the CC&S abatement scheme was an outright lie as a means to "prove" the validity and ease of going net zero. IIRC, more than 1/3 of all net forcing projections for global temperatures is dependent upon the rapid development of CC&S technology *even though* it has never been proven to be cost-effective. And jacking a carbon tax into the stratosphere to pay for the subsidies to make CC&S economics work would mean total global economic collapse.
So please, I beg you, tell all your carbon friends that CC&S is a dead-end pipe dream and get them onboard with the idea of next-gen and thorium-based nuclear power plants. Streamline each plant's design (think UL standards for electricity-related products), deregulate, and limit litigation which drives costs through the roof. Maybe then we can really begin to think about a carbon-free energy sector WITHOUT relying on non-existent unicorn rainbow farts.
I don't know whither reading your articles and reading what Vindaloo Bugaboo adds has made me more informed and smarter but at least I feel more informed and smarter.
Carbon capture is still a dream. When a proven system that captures more carbon dioxide than it generates happens, then we can start discussing carbon capture.
It's not about being net negative, it's about being economically feasible. We're emitting ~33 Gt of CO2 annually; the best CC&S demonstration plant can do ~1 Mt annually, or 0.003% of ANNUAL emissions, to say nothing of cumulative emissions to date.
We simply cannot pretend that CC&S is going to be our savior any more than pretending that EV's—with their much heavier chassis—aren't going to destroy our roads and infrastructure much more quickly, thereby negating a LOT of the carbon savings by going electric.
Premier Moe: "They want to completely shut down our energy sector."
Translation:
THEY aim to take away what is OURS! DON'T LET THEM TAKE YOUR LIVELIHOOD! WE NEED MORE F*CK TRUDEAU TRUCK STICKERS! IF YOU AREN'T ANGRY, YOU SHOULD BE!
Lloyd, thanks for recognizing the improbability of CC&S as an economically feasible technology. Hopefully you can contact the good peoples at the UN IPCC working group policy committees to now revise their timelines to reflect "real world" conditions, since net zero are wholly reliant on MASSIVE development and deployment of CC&S technology to capture every last single gram of CO2 emitted going forward (and then more from ambient atmospheric gases.)
I have said for a long, LONG time over at TreeHugger.com that the CC&S abatement scheme was an outright lie as a means to "prove" the validity and ease of going net zero. IIRC, more than 1/3 of all net forcing projections for global temperatures is dependent upon the rapid development of CC&S technology *even though* it has never been proven to be cost-effective. And jacking a carbon tax into the stratosphere to pay for the subsidies to make CC&S economics work would mean total global economic collapse.
So please, I beg you, tell all your carbon friends that CC&S is a dead-end pipe dream and get them onboard with the idea of next-gen and thorium-based nuclear power plants. Streamline each plant's design (think UL standards for electricity-related products), deregulate, and limit litigation which drives costs through the roof. Maybe then we can really begin to think about a carbon-free energy sector WITHOUT relying on non-existent unicorn rainbow farts.
dead on! hopefully at some point, society will criminalize this bullcrap
I don't know whither reading your articles and reading what Vindaloo Bugaboo adds has made me more informed and smarter but at least I feel more informed and smarter.
Carbon capture is still a dream. When a proven system that captures more carbon dioxide than it generates happens, then we can start discussing carbon capture.
It's not about being net negative, it's about being economically feasible. We're emitting ~33 Gt of CO2 annually; the best CC&S demonstration plant can do ~1 Mt annually, or 0.003% of ANNUAL emissions, to say nothing of cumulative emissions to date.
We simply cannot pretend that CC&S is going to be our savior any more than pretending that EV's—with their much heavier chassis—aren't going to destroy our roads and infrastructure much more quickly, thereby negating a LOT of the carbon savings by going electric.
Check out this Substack on Al Gore's Ted Talk:
https://open.substack.com/pub/heated/p/al-gores-new-ted-talk-is-out?r=3pb09&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post