Carbon capture: the hopes, challenges and controversies | FT Film
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 кві 2024
- Once a fringe idea, carbon capture and storage has become a key part of decarbonisation plans the world over. Supporters argue that we need a way to remove CO2 already in the atmosphere to stay below 1.5C of global warming. But does this technology risk providing big polluters a license to carry on as normal? The FT weighs the pros and cons. Read more at on.ft.com/3jc8iDS
#Carboncapture #climatechange #CO2 #decarbonisation #globalwarming #technology #pollution
#air #environment #netzero #carbonstorage #CCS #fossilfuel #gas #energy #emissions #fuel
See if you get the FT for free as a student (ft.com/schoolsarefree) or start a £1 trial: subs.ft.com/spa3_trial?segmen....
► Check out our Community tab for more stories on the economy.
► Listen to our podcasts: www.ft.com/podcasts
► Follow us on Instagram: / financialtimes'
CCS shouldn't be considered an outright solution but rather a stepping stone to a greener future; employ it now on existing fossil fuel plants so they can continue producing energy whilst proper nuclear/renewable infrastructure is set up, reducing their impact and providing the necessary energy excess to achieve this.
Another problem with carbon capture is the fact that it also needs to use fossil fuels for transportation. No facilities can be built and maintained with EVs...yet. The same applies to solar and wind. So, for every ton removed some more will necessarily be added. That makes the timeline even longer to reach net-zero.
@@kentowe2080 I don't think this can be used as an argument against its implementation - yes it may not be rid of the emissions in their entirety but the reduction of co2 emitted from a plant itself surely must outweigh the increase from transportation.
@@wisetown782 It's not just one plant. According to the Global CCS Institute there are ~2500 plants now being planned to take about 1.5 million tons a year out of the atmosphere. that's only one half of one ppm. There are all the solar and wind "farms" that will need fuels for vehicles they use to manufacture and install them. All that will be adding CO2 to the atmosphere while the CCS facilities around the world are trying to remove and store some. It's not a winning situation for the planet. It's a big loss of energy (and money) that could be used for more and better infrastructure to adapt to changing climates.
@@kentowe2080 whilst proper CCUS will by no means remove enough CO2, some is better than none - for proper renewable and nuclear infrastructure to be set up there needs to be existing energy production, which will have its impact reduced by implementing CCUS, and it's utilisation does somewhat offset it's cost. Also, within a decade, proper EV infrastructure will allow for EV usage for transport in these cases.
@@wisetown782 Hello? Some is better than none? At best it is less than one part-per-million. And while it is being captured and stored, more is b being added to the atmosphere. Renewables don't just pop up like mushrooms. CCS is a game that cannot be won. A costly and very risky one.
@ft it would be great to show cost, efficiency, and investments datapoint for CCS vs other technologies. Without it, these points of view have little weight
I have just planted 6 carbon capture technologies in my garden, I call them trees...........
you must be fun at parties..
The problem with those is that people keep cutting them down and burn them. We need permanent storage that stays captured without being reintroduced into the atmosphere.
@@Anders127 That is what a tree does. And you make some laws that you can not cut some trees and put some people to prison. Also if you produce carbon you plant some trees.
the 2 uk guys tried to stop Brazilian rain forest destruction, they were met with a bullet and a shallow grave!
Wow. Now tell me how much co2 that sucks per space it takes up. Since this bad boy takes as much carbon as 100M trees
Not a single climate scientist in this video, instead it features employees of the oil and gas industry though....
Yet the IPCC Report was pretty clear - we need everything, and that includes CCS and CDR
I didn't notice this till i saw this comment, well spotted
@@Patchesmcgee123 That just means the oil lobbyists got to them first.
7, Plant trees, they're really good at capturing carbon
Agreed
Carbon capture is like the fusion reactor we need both now to clean up the damage we have done to our home world, but developing these two technologies does not negate us from getting off fossil fuels, otherwise for mother nature to clean up our mess could take a millenia or more.
the only real solution to drive down carbon emissions is nuclear power. Carbon capture is fine if the electricity comes from a carbon zero source.
We could produce electricity with nuclear power, use the energy to desalinate water from the ocean, run carbon capture, and power homes and industry.
All the talk about renewables is fine, but they lack the land density, raw materials, supply chain, and intensity that we need to move the scale in a meaningful way.
as the lady says at 6:40 of the clip, anything other than nuclear power is "tinkering around the edges".
Nuclear power is contained waste, and carbon emissions free.
The continued use of coal can not persist.
Mother nature cleans up the mess every time it rains ...total amount of all rare gases, all green house gases, all pollution in the air from all fossil fuels by volume is 0.97% of 1% of the entire atmosphere so if you know your math there is no problem with dirty air ..but now the co2 levels are below low critical at 0.03% ..this is a dangerous level in which is killing all vegetation on earth as this 0.03% co2 is not enough to allow plants to produce the sugar in their sap to nourish its self and the plant staves to death ..and no longer produces Oxygen ..and for every molecule you idiots seal from our atmosphere is two atoms of oxygen that no one will ever inhale ..and in the last 6 moths oxygen levels are dropping faster than carbon dioxide as oxygen is critically down to 20% ....so guess what happens as all you Einstein do gooders continue ...oxygen levels will continue to drop sharply ..and at 19.5% oxygen all people on earth will drop over DEAD ! AND AT YOUR PRESENT RATE WE HAVE ABOUT 90 DAYS LEFT UNTIL Everyone SUFFOCATES TO DEATH ....C U BOIS IN HELL ...MOTHERFUCKEN BASTARDS . THANKS TO YOUR Ignorance AND LACK OF AN EDUCATION ... I was taught the facts of this carbon based ecosystem 60 years ago in elementary school, high school , and the university of illinois .
Lanzatech has several different types of plant and end uses. They will IPO this year.
The group research project for my undergrad industrial chemistry class rn is about using the captured CO2 to make polymer/plastic resins. Lol, I was just working on my part of the project then I saw this video.
Seems like they can capture the co2 then add microbes to produce hydrogen in the recover co2 and more helpful microbes for food/other benefits...it's probably biochemistry or some chemistry variant field...the chemistry applications seem compromised tread lightly...Good luck.
We should have a meeting about it. Better still a series of meetings. And it should be mandatory for everyone to attend in person. That'll sort it out.
Hello!
Im super new to to exploring carbon credits & I have a question that i'm hoping somebody could answer for me,
When they talk about carbon capture & then storing the carbon underground NOT having a monetary incentive for companies, cant carbon credits be that incentive?
An excellent video by the FT (we would not expect anything less of course!). Realistic, and not sponsored to make things look any better than they are, but not dismissing the technology either. I think you are asking the right questions throughout. What needs to be stressed time and time again is that carbon capture is NOT a silver bullet to solve all the world's problems. We should never see it that way. Instead, it is a part of the toolkit and provides particularly interesting opportunities in heavy industry. BUT: we need serious commitments from governments, industry and the financial sector to make it happen in large scale.
Ra
They just forgot microalgae (cyanobactéries) but no problem.
Carbon Capture is a FANTASY. Absolutely NONE of these stories about it give us a DETAILED accounting for of all the CO2 and Joules of ENERGY used to pull that CO2 out of the air. It's just a Greenwashing lie to make people feel better about themselves.
Was pleased to see at the end that basically all experts in this video, claimed there is NO ONE solution and that we likely need a combination of all to achieve our goals.... and I thought I heard an agreement that there is NO easy elimination of O&G because of the many industrial processes that require it..... including; Steel, Cement, Fertilizer, etc....... I would also like to see a better balance on the discussion on the green energy and electrification side of the equation.... for example we are NO Where near capable of removing more than 10% of the global transportation and distribution from Carbon with electrical.... and no one has proven that we can get there with current battery technologies. So we need all parties to be HONEST about the implications of the many changes, and also we are still a ways off from being able to produce enough green (wind/solar) to offset the carbon based generation..... considering there is more than enough solar energy hitting the earths atmosphere every day to allow us to replace all generation with it.... the problem is a significant portion does not actually reach the surface where we are currently putting our solar capture devices..... is this an opportunity; satellite based receivers???
The reaction to convert CO2 into Synthetic fuels is Endothermic, a good direction would be to piggyback CCS, with cooling technologies.
Heat pumps can have efficiencies (COPs) over 400 percent. The activation temperatures for methanation of CO2 are higher than current heat pumps typically operate. High temp heat pumps are a very promising technology
Cool. Microbes/some engineered... can probably be added to it for different outcome products as well
I will explain the reason at the end, but I would like CCS and CCUS companies to continue with their development.
The general public now needs to reduce their power consumption at night, when solar power cannot be generated.
If you know anyone who works at a window sash manufacturer, please introduce them to me.
The other day, I had a discussion with a Japanese sash manufacturer, but even though they are registered with the Ministry of the Environment's decarbonization activities, they prioritized profits and were reluctant to accept our proposal.
Carbon dioxide is a problem because it is a very stable gas.
Now that such large-scale wildfires have occurred, it is important not to emit any more CO2.
What I would like to propose is a device that uses natural wind to exhaust heat and reduce air conditioning power consumption at night, and features a gust protection function.
We have a plan to install this device on windows, so we would like to discuss this with North American sash manufacturers.
I think CCS needs to be collected higher up in the sky.
This is because CO2 from thermal power generation is exhausted from tall chimneys, and the exhaust gas from gasoline cars is also hot and rises quickly.
If carbon dioxide can be good and bad for plants, then the CO2 near the ground must be delicious.
If so, the original mission is to collect the CO2 in the sky generated by thermal power.
Last year, the weeds in my neighborhood died in the intense heat, and even survived the winter with their shape intact.
In other words, since there is less chance for new grass to grow, global warming may accelerate, so I think it is better to leave CCS as a method.
What an interesting guy! I look forward to see him and his companies evolve and shape human civilization.
Carbon capture technologies will go a long way to mitigate some anthropogenic GHGs. The other key solutions to reach net zero are: efficiency, low-carbon electricity, electrification, alternative fuels (such as hydrogen and bioenergy), and behavioural changes. Only if those 6 are combined will we have a fighting chance of reaching net zero.
Yeah, no ccu is the solution, not ccs.
@@janvisagie231 Carbon capture use? Isn't that when sequestered CO2 is used to push out oil in the ground that would otherwise be impossible to get out?
It is Truely Shocking how many Believe that 3.5% of Carbon Dioxide over Rules , Natures 96.5% of it's Carbon Dioxide !!
Truely Shocking !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Digital sound really Did push the Dumbed ones Much Further !!!
At $200 per ton for direct carbon capture, we could capture all 40 Billion tons of CO2 yearly emissions for $8 Trillion. Currently, we give the oil industry $6 Trillion in subsidies a year.
It’s not a problem to increase capture 40x, other than the will to do it. G19, go for it!
At -73 Celsius CO2 becomes a liquid and separates from the air.
There are places on earth almost as cold, where facilities can be. So with very little energy to lower further to extract it easy.
Why no mention of tidal or wave produced energy in the renewable mix?
Because the video was about carbon capture and storage ... not specifically about renewable energy generation except where that is a part of CCS.
I am going to use this nice video to illustrate the glossary for the historical record so our grand children can understand how we talked ourselves into the runaway climate catastrophe
Beware. Most of the speakers in the video are journalists, not experts on the subject.
In a situation where developing countries are yet to map out how to transition to renewables, using CCS is the most viable option because countries can’t abandon their resources, it will cripple the economy and even let them reach a stage of intense energy poverty.
The CDM needs to be intensely functional, developed countries who are already functional in reduction of CO2 should assist the developing countries. The African continent is far behind in their CO2 reduction plan.
Don't look at Africa to reduce their CO2 emissions, it is a fraction compared to India, Russia and China. Why should the least developed continent carry the burden of the industrial world?
Ask Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Quatar etc to stop pumping.
And while you are asking, ask china (Hendrik) to stop building 2 large coal burning power stations per month, every month and importing coal, to feed them.
Population there is highest in the world.
An inconvenient truth, is it not?
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. The developing countries have the highest levels if air pollution caused by the very fossil fuels, the pollution that we now know causes 9 or more million deaths worldwide and millions more suffer daily from chronic illness. Fossil fuels kill and growth fuelled on corpses is murder.
They should Carbon Capture at the Smoke Stacks, and Mobile Carbon Capture at the vehicle tailpipes. The current method of Carbon Capture is bizarre, because they strangely prefer to filter the air anywhere, which includes bugs, birds, and other bad emissions.
if this only works by building on existing infrastructure; what does that mean for the people and communities that live and work in these areas? They will continue to experience the negative health impacts of air pollution, the depletion of water resources
More needs to be done to educate people on how the carbon capture storage end of things work.
The FT upshot - "We need to use all the tools in the toolbox to decarbonise - CCS, green & blue hydrogen, electrification, biomass, solar and wind energy"
We must use nuclear
Tldw: We need it because we failed, but it is not the answer.
Thanks for the informative content guys, keep these coming!
Failed at what? CO2 is not really warming the climate and whatever temperature observed is not catastrophic. If anything, the CO2 is a boon for most life on the planet. Human activity increases the carbon budget in the carbon cycle. This means plants grow better, all of them. That means more food for critters and bugs, which means more food for larger animals, and life thrives.
@@kayakMike1000 Greenhouse gasses increasing does indeed increase the global temperature over time. Studies of Venus by people like Carl Sagan were a big part of the discovery of the power of greenhouse gasses.
@@UberOtaku001 Yesterday, the son of US President Hunter was captured in Mariupol
The carbon capture " FABLE"!
Interesting documentary, very much raises some big points especially the capture of CO2 at source. Completely agree that CCS tech needs to be magnitudes more effective than current solutions, but if I'm honest I'm not sure if that's possible without a miraculous breakthrough. At the moment CCS tech is being banded round like a potential future saviour with most commentary relying on faith and optimism which is not how we should be looking at this, and it's mainly being driven by grubby fossil lobbyists in supposedly pragmatic clothing as they attempt to balloon their profits as much as possible before the extinction of the human race.
As for the question is hydrogen overhyped.... In 99% of cases the answer to that is yes.
That’s the job the trees do for us how stupid are these scientists and politicians? They cut down the trees and come up with man made solutions for the problems they created! Plants need CO2 to give us oxygen to breathe! Some investors and These people in government are more stupid than people give them credit for!
FT correspondents and other experts express clearly the challenges related with CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and superficially give some ideas for CCS or CCUS or other transitions ways. The emission from fossil fuels is really a big challenge, but today the world has a bigger challenge, scarcity on energy demand supply. All depends from actual technologies used worldwide, which may be considered as solutions, but are very expensive for the economy mainly from low efficiency. So if we will see energy related with efficiency the fossil fuels used on transportation have low efficiency, the fossil fuels used to produce electricity again have low efficiency, the wind and solar power not only are intermittent but have low efficiency, battery storing or Hydrogen energy have even lower efficiency.
The energy transition from fossil fuels is a necessity but the actual technologies will help only marginally on CO2 emission, the renewable energies may replace only a part of energy shortage from oil and gas, coming this from natural depletion on production and existing technologies are with limited success which make the technologies used as CCUS EOR very expensive and CO2 intensive. Let see Occidental petroleum for example, this company really is one of the most advanced on CCUS EOR and has decades experience, but when they inject natural CO2 produced from underground and for every barrel oil they produce 15000 scf/bbl CO2 is consumed, only energy used to compress this amount of energy will increase the cost of oil and the CO2 emission will be high. Theoretically if one barrel oil will be pushed from pore space may need not more than 2000 scf/bbl, and this is possible and on practice. However advanced expertise is needed to reach these efficiency and of course this need invention on well completion which will decrease the cost of production and will decrease the emission. The CCUS EOR has high Gas oil Ratio and increase and losses on all cycle of processes. The Occidental petroleum is invited on individual discussion about improving CO2 injection EOR on their reservoirs. Other oil and gas companies which want to use CCUS EOR and produce more from their oil reservoirs are respectful for individual discussion for e new inventive technology.
Today I believe that carbon capture and storage is not really amazing. But carbon capture and utilization can be a really helpful technology for replacing natural gas and oil. The main reason is that captured CO2 has a value and can be used for the synthesis of carbon neutral fuels like synthetic methane and methanol, or even gasoline.
I am sure all the people shown would think nothing about jumping on a plane and traveling for work or leisure.
having a global carbon certificate economy globally and it would work like a charm. We all WANT more carbon beneath our feet.
carbon tax is more effective at raising revenue and less vulnerable to scams
Off topic but in thinking about CO2 sequestration the big problem is that of CO2 concentration (0.004% of the atmosphere) is really, really low. But plants are bloody good at concentrating CO2. Why not grow fast growing plants, then burn them under a controlled conditions (i.e.; furnace) and then capture the CO2 from the smoke which will be much higher in CO2 than the atmosphere. Essentially using plants as solar powered CO2 concentraters. The energy given off from the burning could be used to make electricity and power the CO2 concentrating equipment (solving a second problem of CO2 sequestration).
The problem that some major proponents of carbon capture and storage are aware of, but unwilling to acknowledge, is the fact that ALL of the combined technologies (even scaled up) would be unable to store even one part-per-million of CO2 in the end. One ppm = 7,800 million metric tons. The IEA estimates 7,600 million would be needed by 2050. Even if done, the climate would not even miss it. And, while it is being done, fossil fuels for transportation will be adding more to the atmosphere. These facilities don't just appear by themselves. This approach will never work.
@@ChristophBackhaus The point that Ken Towe is making is even the best CCS tech will not be enough to remove all the carbon already in the atmosphere!
@@ChristophBackhaus To make the world CO2 neutral would require the permanent capture and storage of about 40 billion tons. That's what was emitted globally last year. Hemp is no different from algae or trees. It will be recycled by the oxygen that photosynthesis created. Carbon capture must be permanent to affect the climate long term. In order to plant and use hemp fossil fuels will be needed, just as they are to plant corn or sugarcane for biofuel ethanol.
@生活有滋有味 So, how can you expect us to transition to an all-electric world without using the fuels needed for transporting all the materials needed? Renewables just don't appear like mushrooms.
@@kentowe2080 what do you suggest
@@dennisdidinger2402 Forget the dire forecasts of climate models and the hopeless attempts to mitigate climate...zero or net-zero emissions. Focus funding and attention to innovative infrastructures so we can better adapt to whatever future climates do. We will have to do that anyway and without fossil fuels for transportation we can't even make EVs, never mind solar and wind installations..
Carbon taxation will lead to solutions in its own way and to be honest, there isn't a single great method that can solve all our problems. We can start by reducing our dependency on fossil fuels
We can only succeed in 'taxing' carbon emissions produced by those nations 'willing' to agree to such taxes in the first place.
However, the world's 2 major manufacturing countries (and subsequently, among the largest polluters) are highly unlikely to accept such agreements.
And let's not forget, both these nations are seriously considering buying their oil from a country whose infamous leader fails to recognise that climate change is even a problem (didn't even bother to attend COP28).
So, while the West and a few other nations continue to depend on buying massed produced products from 2 outstandingly high polluters fuelled by a country that openly dumps radioactive waste into its air, waterways and on its own soil with complete disregard for health of any living beings (human or otherwise) - how do we possibly get these 3 nations to adhere to fair or even honest carbon taxation?
@@debbiehenri345 Economic sanctions and diplomatic ties are the weapon of civil society.
We should extend to great lengths to achieve Carbon Neutral Goal. Polluters should take the responsibility and if not then their actions will make their nations suffer. An unilateral decision is our upmost priority.
Some exceptions can be made as there are nations that actually can not finance their green new deals. For them there should be a fund raiser campaigns. Giving floor to change makers, making more opportunities for new innovations like Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)
There's a lot we can achieve, if we are willing to take the responsibility.
@@debbiehenri345 Yesterday, the son of US President Hunter was captured in Mariupol
@@user-ik9xr2wi9v What drugs are you on?
We need too regulate how much carbon comes out of the ground and out of biomass exploitation. "keep it in the ground" is really the only way.
It seems the problem from Carbon Capture is not the technology but that it doesn’t have a commercial value
So companies are not willing to invest any carbon capturing because they can’t sell it to a consumer like solar panels and electric car
Correct me if i am wrong?
20:35 Most present sources will fall of the table of their own accord pretty soon. Still, public policy matters. To continue the metaphor, it can tilt the table in a better or worse direction.
Very good !
But I have always argued that we should determine the economic return on investment WITHOUT the combustion of one trillionth of a scintilla or 1/1,000,000,000,000 of a hydrocarbon atom nor a hydrocarbon molecule that can attain, sustain, and maintain the world's Gross Domestic Products increasingly every year by solely on sustainable alternative energy.
I also believe that carbon capture of hydrocarbon combustion, such as coal, would be the most dense and efficient fuel source.....but the energy required to attain, sustain, and maintain a carbon capture operation system MUST be derived from alternative energy sources because of the energy intensiveness needed for carbon capture and storage needed.
The use of Red hydrogen ( from nuclear) was not mention. Japan has a plant operational making this.
I think we need to plant more trees 🌲🌳🌴. Trees use the carbon dioxide and release oxygen. if we increase the amount trees, that will have many benefits in terms of soil health, better nutrition, climate change, carbon capture, sustainable living, etc., Please support save soil movement as it is much better than the carbon capture industry which is a manmade solution to a manmade problem. It's better to have a nature based solution. #SaveSoil.
Yesterday, the son of US President Hunter was captured in Mariupol
@@user-ik9xr2wi9v Stop taking drugs.
Glad to see that this is an objective and fair assessment of Carbon Capture. Bottom line with almost all green projects is, that they are used to make money. We are made to believe that we help the environment, because "they" can make money out of it. CCS to revive old wells... Killing American forests to turn them into pellets... electric cars that weigh much more than conventional cars - and therefore can not possibly drive more economical... solar panels that work during noon when there is hardly any need for that electricity... a demand for lithium ion batteries that asks so much resources that it is an environmental and economic problem in itself... a total dependence of electricity to a point that our society could fall if the power grid would be destroyed...
And in the end it is all just soft talk (dont be too blunt because in the end people only want to hear positive stories and they will "kill the messenger"!) and no significant action.
How many MW per tone of carbon taken from the air?
Didn't cover any of the new ammonia fuel cell projects... similar to hydrogen but I guess easier to store and transport as a liquid instead of a pressurized gas.
Microbes can probably added to the recovered carbon to generate hydrogen in it and any number of things to make vast amount of products
Instead of storing CO² why do they not use CO² free energy to split molecules into carbon and oxygen?
For what purpose? It would take huge amounts of energy and money to do that. Far more than you get from producing the co2 in the first place. We have plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere. If you converted 100% of CO2 into o2 it would make no difference to the o2 concentration. O2 is about 18% co2 is about 0.04%
That’s what plants do
Next gen needs to start develop simple equipment to reduce emission while burning garbage
This looks like a video covering current emitters and how to remove residual emissions from them.
Why is there no talk about biochar and nature based solutions?
the only real solution to drive down carbon emissions is nuclear power. Carbon capture is fine if the electricity comes from a carbon zero source.
We could produce electricity with nuclear power, use the energy to desalinate water from the ocean, run carbon capture, and power homes and industry.
All the talk about renewables is fine, but they lack the land density, raw materials, supply chain, and intensity that we need to move the scale in a meaningful way.
as the lady says at 6:40 of the clip, anything other than nuclear power is "tinkering around the edges".
Nuclear power is contained waste, and carbon emissions free.
The continued use of coal can not persist.
So trees take Co² and store it as carbon. Right now capturing it goes to storage.
So I wonder what steps might be done to convert the captured co² into a hard substance to be used similar to wood. It would add a dollar value to the capture.
If the pelletised carbon can uptake water, maybe it could be used as a spillage soaker?
We have to look at several ways to make a cleaner planet. For me nothing can be too expensive if it saves the world.
Where would a person go to get financial backing for a capture solution startup?
Venture Capital firms that focus on that space, universities or even government programs. Depends a bit how capital intensive your idea is and how far along you already are.
Plot at 11:51 indicates that wind turbines & solar photovoltaic now generate 250 / 18,000 = 1.4 % of humans' energy. It's a start I suppose. I assumed the plot is energy delivered and not energy generated (includes transmission losses).
the only real solution to drive down carbon emissions is nuclear power. Carbon capture is fine if the electricity comes from a carbon zero source.
We could produce electricity with nuclear power, use the energy to desalinate water from the ocean, run carbon capture, and power homes and industry.
All the talk about renewables is fine, but they lack the land density, raw materials, supply chain, and intensity that we need to move the scale in a meaningful way.
as the lady says at 6:40 of the clip, anything other than nuclear power is "tinkering around the edges".
Nuclear power is contained waste, and carbon emissions free.
The continued use of coal can not persist.
Really is frustrating this... 'Norway' so they "flashed" a number of headlines 'incomplete' instead of ourselves just seeing a few, which we could "fully" read. As I said before, let the story tell itself....
The only hope is nuclear plus renewable. There is no other way.
only nuclear.. fission at first, then fusion..
nuclear is not only. unnecessary, it is much too slow to build out
and much more expensive to build than renewables
@@AWildBard Only in the US. Most countries outside the US, within developing markets of Asia and Africa, its cheaper. It might be slow to initially build out, but it takes more to build of renewables to produce the same output as Nuclear though.
@@AWildBard Nuclear is way more material efficient over its lifetime and produces reliable source of energy. Who cares about cheaply building out a bunch of cheap solar panels that will end up in the dump quicker than a nuclear power plant
Nuclear is not renewable.
Tasmania (the postage stamp at the bottom of Australia) has recently become one of the first carbon-negative jurisdictions. They've done this by reducing the harvesting of old growth forests. Perhaps planting more trees might be helpful.
This video, like many discussing carbon capture, didn't do enough to differentiate between capturing CO2 at source, from waste gas chimneys, and capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Capturing from the atmosphere is enormously harder because the concentration is on the order of 400 times lower. Most carbon capture is therefore done at source. But with the exception of BECCS, capture at source can never result in negative emissions because all you are doing is emitting less than you would have been without it, but you are still emitting some CO2 because CCS is never 100% effective.
Direct air capture = expensive but necessary for negative emissions. CCS (at source) = affordable but does not negate emissions from other sources.
In almost all cases it would be cheaper to not burn the fossil fuels than to capture the carbon from them. The only exception is gas peaker plants which are currently needed as a backup to renewables as storage is not yet available at large enough scale for affordable prices.
biomass + ccs = negative emmisions
We don't currently have viable CCS, we should keep working on it, but we should focus on CCU. We currently burn gas to get CO2 for food packaging while having it belch out of factories and power stations, not to mention breweries and bakeries, we have had the technology to solve this simple issue for decades. There are practical applications for the CO2 waste which could be solved with millions, rather than the billions going into CCS and achieving little.
Реализация оптимальной комбинации максимально возможного сбережения и поддержания чистоты экологии, развития зелёной энергетики и увеличения коэффициента полезного действия использования углеводородов - это задача, которая посильна технологически развитым странам, но в качестве наиболее актуального фактора представляется всё-таки увеличение КПД использования углеводородов
The best carbon capture is the preservation of forests, especially the tropical rain forests whereby plants and trees grow at amazing rates, capturing more carbon than all our modern carbon capture technology combine.
Isnt it Cheaper to Plant Trees 🌱and turn Deserts green?
No substantive discussion of the pros and cons of the technology.
+18:00 Green hydrogen only makes sense for non-energy applications, but there are quite a few such uses, so it could go good for those.
green hydrogen is defined as hydrogen released from water by electrical hydrolysis, an inefficient way to store energy, which at best produces electricity in a convenient location at a combined efficiency of ~ 50%, not counting the efficiency loss, when producing the electricity to run the hydrolysis, 18% for solar cells, day time only, 33% with steam driven coal powered turbines.
In Summary you are right.
Among the few are the liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen launch vehicles like the expensive SLS.
But for the production of ammonia based fertilizers it is essential (Haber-Bosch process)
I was really shocked they let that statement go in without challenging it. She actually suggested buring hydrogen in a normal power plant. That would be just insane. If you're going to use a gas power plant just burn the gas and do CCS on the exhaust. Blue hydrogen is a scam. Per useful energy produced at the end it contributes about the same or according to one analysis even more ghg than just burning the gas would. Hydrogen is only worth it for uses that can't viably electrified. Possibly for storage of excess energy, but then you use a fuel cell not a power station.
Once all this carbon is captured, what will they do with it? and when we get to zero carbon, how will anything live?
Music @3:00 ?????
How can you say Drax will be carbon negative? They ship their feedstock wood all the way from Canada and burn it to produce energy. Where is that carbon emitted to cross half the planet exactly accounted for in your calculation?
Excellent analysis, thx FT👍
How about making methane using the Sabatier process and using that methane as fuel. That would make the use of that methane carbon neutral.
But why bother? You have to put more energy in to make the methane than you get out when you burn it. The process is very inefficient, especially since you have to capture the co2 first to then feed it into the process. If you want to store energy in a gas using hydrogen or ammonia for that makes more sense. Hydrogen only needs water and nitrogen makes up 80% of the air so it's much easier to get hold of.
Would be great to also include KlimaDAO in this feature. They're the leading blockchain ecosystem building a more transparent carbon credit market on the lowest-emissions blockchain network (the Polygon network; they in fact recently committed millions toward being fully carbon neutral as a network as they recognize their own and the broader crypto industry's collective carbon footprint is significant)
There are very few actual experts in this video, but rather a bunch of journalists regurgitating what they've read..
Soundtrack?
Net Zero is not good enough we will need CCS to undo what has been done. Anyone not arguing for both and at this point is missing the point.
Big issue here is that I think the Decarbonisation pathways to 2050 in IPCC reports seem to rely heavily on substantial carbon capture and storage. The forecaster’s notion of it ran ahead of actual viability.
Here´s an idea: Let´s just plant more trees and this time not burn them to the ground ;)
The film is also too positive I think about Drax unfortunately, and the biofuel project there - many environmental experts and people think this does an awful lot of harm. Whole swathes of forests are devoted to this in America, and then all this wood has to be shipped to the UK. Monoculture forests also cause problems in themselves... some analysts think Drax is as bad or worse than fossil fuels? Perhaps, this is an exaggeration, but I don't think Drax - unless the wood were sourced more responsibly - is not what was promised.
Definitely not worth building a new plant but perhaps repurposing the existing coal plant is worth a go. Shipping the wood around needs to have co2 minimised. Since there is no rush perhaps slow but low carbon sailing ships could be used for that.
Thank You Financial Times I Learned A Lot.
No, you did not really. A lot of propaganda in the video.
Thanks for show that!
Make the Plains Great Again - expand the area around the world through smarter grazing available to people who read for 40 years.
Great video, music is too good tho.
any idea of the music tracks?
@FINANCIAL TIMES Justin Jacobs needs to speak up
or get closer to his mic or get a better mic. Couldn't make out what he said.
No discussion of nuclear as a viable, clean energy source?
We must continue to use carbon based fuels. We need them for all the modern materials even to build green products. Paints, steel, plastics, coatings l, electrical wire, pipes, fasteners, fabrics, insulations, medical devices, food production l, computer, cell phones all required carbon based chemicals.
If we continue driving the price of carbon based fuels up, our economies will collapse.
As future generations look back at the economic and human devastation wrought by the world's irrational response to COVID, they likewise will see the foolishness of our "battle" against carbon. Propositions oft repeated don't create facts.
Every one of those plants and processes can be made to run smarter and cheaper I would argue - and carbon can be used and recycled............
The above all sounds very nice but in the meantime Draxx have been caught chopping down virgin forrest in Canada to produce the wood pellets to burn in their biomass plant. A much bigger concern that I have with all these people getting so giddy about the use of electricity and changing to renewable is the question if anyone of them went to the trouble to do a Life Cycle Analysis of solar and wind power.
What amount of fossil fuels are used to produce the metals and minerals needed for the production of these wind farms and solar panels?
What amount of fossil fuels will be burnt to recycle the solar panels and wind turbines when they reach the end of their life cycle.
Do we actually gave the technology to recycle batteries, solar panels and the windturbine blades? The answer is no, we don't.
The inability to recycle all these dirty green energy products will hugely contribute to a much larger problem that we have to address and that is pollution.
Fossil fuels improved and saved the lives of millions, if not billions of people and until all these commentators are willing to give up all the luxuries afforded to them through the fossil fuel industry it is not really worth listening to them.
What about nature-based solutions? Tree-hugging or realistic?
Ccs is turning oil and gas into the equivalent of batteries? A way to store energy without increasing the net amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The key is figuring out how to take capture carbon and convert it back into oil and gas efficiently. Not sure how all this will pan out yet see it’s equivalency to battery tech. Interesting. Let’s see how it pans out and let our combined human endeavor create a better world - instead of a worse one!
Carbon capture as a technology may work with enough investment. But regenerative agriculture as practiced by understanding AG is a proven methodology to storing carbon in the soil making the soil more productive. Any investment in switching farming practices to regenerative farming will switch farming from a net emitter of carbon to negative carbon emitter. If investment was made to green deserts and degraded land there would be a huge storage of carbon in soil making the soil productive. Regenerative agriculture is a methodology and not a technology. The investment is in education. It is available now. Greening desert will require investment but will pay for itself when the greened land is productive and has value.
Using carbon capture to reduce impact of coal/oil/gas power stations/cars is pointless and expensive.
Using surplus energy coming frome nuclear and renewables to decarbonize some specific sectors which intrinscly produce CO2 makes sense (for exaple waste-burning plants, steel mills, chemical plants, cement factories...). But it means extra costs that will be possible to support only if people stop to be anti-nuke ( I personallly used to be one of them, but then I realized that random renewables require fossil fuels or emitting biomass, while renewables+ nuke don't)
NASA is up with builting up a rocket fuel with carbon ,the project is on R&D,Carbon could be electronically traded by ETS
With zero emissions plus carbon capture is like upping the voltage on your own executioner's electric chair.
Did you try to plant trees?🙂
Tree farms (for profit) are barely carbon neutral. Old forests work better but nobody wants them. The only virgin forests in the US are in California (no surprise there) and they are in remote mountains. Watch the BBC video "the trouble with trees".
@@ChristophBackhausthat’s crazy just looked this up. Had no idea. But we shouldn’t downplay how fundamental trees are to some rich (thus productive and profitable) ecosystems
there is no problem with carbon capture not being "economical" or viable without having a use. just put a price on emissions, make the polluters pay. many countries already have carbon taxes and similar schemes.
We have to get rid of vertical business structures...
Where does carbon come from? Oil, coal, and gas. Where do they come from? Life. More CO2 means more life. Its all part of the carbon cycle which is the life cycle. Also, there is a finite amount of fossil fuels. Which means there is a ceiling on CO2.
Problem solved for the fossil fuel industry then, just in case lets do the math, the US emits 4.6 billion tons of co2 the largest carbon capture plant in the world (Orca in Iceland) can do 4000 tons a year so the US only needs 11,500,000 of these plants. Put it this way you need one of the biggest plants in the world for every 700 people in the world. Please can someone else do the calculation because I can't believe the numbers myself.
There is absolut no need to capture and store or tax CO2...its a natural trace gas and nature will take care of it if necessary, like it did for the last 450 to 600 million years...anything else is a waste of money and resources. Plus, plants would love to get more CO2...Quote: "CO2 is so beneficial in so many ways it would be crazy to try to reduce it!" Freeman Dyson
Hand-wringing and groaning about the use of CO2 to pressurize formations and thus recover more oil and gas from them is logically flawed at best, and specious at worst. There IS demand for oil and gas. It is NOT increased simply because CO2 was used to enhance productivity of existing oilfields.
If petroleum producers don't use their own CO2 to recover more product from an already-developed field, then they'll simply vent off the CO2 and move on to develop yet another field. Get it? A new field; new company access roads; new oil and gas wells drilled; new gas and oil gathering systems (pipelines) laid down; new dehydrators and other infrastructure; and either longer trucking routes or new processing facilities built near the new field.
These idiots with their emotional reasoning are our 'experts?' Gawd help us.
enhancing productivity aka increasing supply and lowering price does lead to more emissions. just pay for carbon capture through a carbon tax.
Thank you, well said
There will always be demand for oil and gas. People will always want it. But if we just let them have it then severe climate change will happen. Most of the known deposits have to be left in the ground. Governments have to take action to make that happen, either by taxing it to make it more expensive and less appealing than the alternatives or by refusing permission for further drilling. The problem is that deposits are not evenly distributed, and most of them are in countries with dodgy governments such as Russia. I used to be against any investment in additional extraction since we already have more than enough available and have to leave a lot in the ground. Now we have to invest some more in extracting western deposits and instead leave russian oil and gas in the ground in order to not give Putin more money for invading his neighbours.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 western oil companies are also refusing to increase production. all this complaining about government not increasing permits is the oil company equivalent of the footballer faking injury. they have enough unused permits, their profits are up, and they want even more.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 just stfu after such great comment hmm?
Carbon is not carbon dioxide the terms are not interchangeable unless one is trying to deceive.
No mention of nuclear energy, as usual.
Nuclear energy is not green. Mining uranium produces CO2, building a nuclear reactor uses lots of cement and nobody knows what to do with nuclear waste. That is why nobody talks about it.
Can somebody get up to the ice sheets and scrape that heat inductive diesel soot off the top layer to prevent some ocean rise? #whadya think????
You need to look who came up with the idea of carbon capture...
The petrochemical industry!
Check 4 yourself - Google it... the info is there.
So... this *should* be ringing alarm bells for you: would this industry really be doing this for the benefit of the planet and population? Or for profit?
Carbon capture is trapping only a fraction of what was forecasted... and the process would appear to generate more carbon than is captured... so there would appear to be very limited benefit for the planet and population...?
But... here's the kicker... the oil companies use the carbon they do capture to extract more oil (including more profitably where the oil field is close to exhausted and it used to be more costly to extract what's left). Check for yourself... this is what happens.
So? Benefit - No. Profit - yes!
And here's the really, really, really, really good bit....
A 💩-tonne of taxpayer money was used to research/develop and build this technology.
Yes. The petrochemical industry sat back and waited for the taxpayer to build it all for them... minimal cost to themselves. And then profited from it (the only profit the whole scheme showed).
Brilliant! A master stroke by the industry. As despicable as it is - you have to applaud the brilliance of the whole plan 🤣🤣🤣
Good video. Informative and to the point.
Asked industry players to pay for carbon captured and carbon emissions taxes.