We also note that at least as much and most likely more CO2 is used to capture 1 ton of CO2 ! The other absurdity is that the great majority of CO2 from carbon capture is used in enhanced oil 🛢️ recovery.
The law of unintended consequences. We are still 'inventing' the automobile, 125 years later. Taking something from the theoretical stage to full implantation in one easy step never works. Not ever.
Unlike Midas, anything the federal government touches turns to crap.
And on top of all this: we know that CO2 is good for us and the planet in regular distribution in the atmosphere. At least up to concentrations of 1000ppm, but possibly even higher. At the moment we are at around 425ppm, so we have still lots of room to carry on adding CO2. It will make planet Earth a lot greener. We also know that at these concentrations CO2’s efficiency as a GHG is negligible, so, CCS is exactly the opposite of what we should do. We should follow China’s and India’s example.
Yes. CO2 is not a pollutant per say. Plants love it. And as the article points out, the concentration has to be at least 50x higher compared to current ambient atmosphere to have any effect on humans and other land mammals. We also know that other historic periods have been warmer than modern times, ie. the Roman Warm Period.
Great article again! I will say that CCS has a long history, in fact the longest CCS that we have records SCOR fuels in Texas which has in operation in for over 40 years with no know issues. CCS is not a "climate" solution, but more of an industrial process. The most successful CCS are SCOR field in Texas, Gordon Field in Australia, & a natural gas field in Norway-name escapes me at the moment-all used as EOR. Furthermore, as an industrial process, tax scheming comes into play.
Excellent research and presentation
Thanks!
Great find K. T. !
We also note that at least as much and most likely more CO2 is used to capture 1 ton of CO2 ! The other absurdity is that the great majority of CO2 from carbon capture is used in enhanced oil 🛢️ recovery.
100% ! It's absurd.
The law of unintended consequences. We are still 'inventing' the automobile, 125 years later. Taking something from the theoretical stage to full implantation in one easy step never works. Not ever.
Unlike Midas, anything the federal government touches turns to crap.
Yup. Same with fusion -- always 25 years away, lol.
I suggest we sequester the CO2 in EPA offices until better ideas come along.
Let's just remove the oxygen FROM the EPA offices. Win, win.
Same results, but that would be too efficient!
Let's put it 7n rockets and shoot it into space, hey think I can get some money to try it. 😉
And on top of all this: we know that CO2 is good for us and the planet in regular distribution in the atmosphere. At least up to concentrations of 1000ppm, but possibly even higher. At the moment we are at around 425ppm, so we have still lots of room to carry on adding CO2. It will make planet Earth a lot greener. We also know that at these concentrations CO2’s efficiency as a GHG is negligible, so, CCS is exactly the opposite of what we should do. We should follow China’s and India’s example.
Yes. CO2 is not a pollutant per say. Plants love it. And as the article points out, the concentration has to be at least 50x higher compared to current ambient atmosphere to have any effect on humans and other land mammals. We also know that other historic periods have been warmer than modern times, ie. the Roman Warm Period.
That’s right and at lower CO2 concentrations than present.
Great article again! I will say that CCS has a long history, in fact the longest CCS that we have records SCOR fuels in Texas which has in operation in for over 40 years with no know issues. CCS is not a "climate" solution, but more of an industrial process. The most successful CCS are SCOR field in Texas, Gordon Field in Australia, & a natural gas field in Norway-name escapes me at the moment-all used as EOR. Furthermore, as an industrial process, tax scheming comes into play.
Very good point!