Carbon Removal Strategies
As GreenTechMedia reports, carbon capture and sequestration is a subject of growing interest.
There are two main classes of ideas surrounding CCS: those that address point sources of CO2, e.g., concrete manufacturing facilities and fossil fuel power plants, and those that attempt to tackle atmospheric CO2.
Though I’m willing to be wrong about this, here are my two top-level beliefs on this subject:
• Deploying CCS technology to point sources is probably doomed to failure. The time required to phase out virtually all combustion of fossil fuels (the next few decades) will not allow the development of effective and affordable technology in this space. All resources directed to CCS for coal plants, for instance, would be far better directed to replacing the coal plants themselves.
• The issue with atmospheric CO2 is that we’re talking about 400 PPM, i.e., 99.96% of the atmosphere isn’t CO2. While there are natural CCS technologies, e.g., planting trees and encouraging CO2 absorption into the oceans, concepts that require the consumption of energy to push massive amounts of air through/past some sort of device are similarly doomed to failure.
Message: Let’s enhance the natural technologies, while removing the necessity at the same time.
Craig,
You are quite right, no single technology is a panacea for all carbon pollution.
The cacophony of extremists and panicking alarmists often drowns out news of real improvements in technology and non-disruptive advances.
Development of clean(er) technology requires economic prosperity and careful appraisal, difficult in an atmosphere of political-ideological fanaticism and panic.
Knowing the problem is only half the challenge ! The really difficult part is providing practical, effective, acceptable solutions or alternatives. Anything else is just raucous noise.
Atmospheric removal and use of carbon technology is still at very early stage of development. Early pilot programs show promise, but whether the technology can ever be deployed on a realistic scale is yet to be established.
The value of deploying large scale carbon removal and sequestration technology at the point of creation is far more advanced at has displayed real value.
Pollution removal and sequestration technology is much older and more effective than most people are aware, existing in some form for most of civilized human existence. Solving the problem of pollutant emissions will require a combination of deploying new technologies and reducing emissions by increasing conservation of old carbon sequestration technologies with better forestry, soils conservation, oceanic programs, etc.
The oceans are even more vulnerable to pollution than land. Regrettably, the ocean are treated with understanding or care. Fortunately, the problems of human ocean pollution while daunting, remain repairable without impossible economic disruption.
Why isn’t more being done ?
In my opinion, part of the problem has been the infiltration and politicization of the conservation/environmental movement by the old socialist left. This is when the agenda changed.
Originally, the movement was very inclusive. Governments, along with the majority of industry and the community united behind the necessity to develop more environmentally friendly technology and effective regulatory programs to reduce pollution with achievable and objective targets, understood and agreed by all stakeholders.
So what went wrong ?
Obviously, there were always going to be irresponsible industrial participants, even corrupt governments seeking to evade regulations and obligations. While these remained a small minority, the problem was easy to contain by enforcement,economic consequences and public opinion.
That was until the explosion of the political-ideological green boom, turned a campaign against pollution, into an “anti-capitalist” anti-industrial, anti-western, anti-human, irrational, but fanatical crusade.
The original moderate objectives became obscured by a wave of alarmist cries and demands for social revolution and a re-engineering of social values. The public were assailed with the most fantastic visions of global warming and climate change Armageddon, usually by totally unqualified and self-appointed experts.
Science and scientists suddenly became politicized celebrity advocates. In doing they lost respect and credibility among the general public who had previous held a high regard for scientific integrity. Scientific reputations once so respected, became exploited and identified with highly politicized crusades, eventually becoming devalued and ignored.
As I wrote back in 2010, the inevitable back lash began. Public support for a “social revolution” was never going to occur. A policy of “all or nothing” , brought about a loss of meaningful progress and resulted in disillusionment and disaster on a monumental scale.
Policy failures resulting from wild and excessive claims, (US corn ethanol, “peak oil”, Germany’s anti-nuke policy, growing disillusionment with large scale solar etc) has contributed to the general public losing faith in radical environmental solutions.
Worse, the global general public has lost interest. The emphasis has shifted to economic issues and the pecking order of the new Geo-political dynamic.
Pollution and environmental issues have become yesterdays news. The shock election of Donald Trump to the Presidency, The UK’s decision to leave the EU, the PRC’s increasingly authoritarian and aggressive expansionism, President Trump’s re-positioning of the world largest economy, Europe’s struggle to remain relevant and cope with a rising tide of nationalistic populism, Russia’s increasingly desperate effort to recover from the problems inherited from the old USSR, the increasing pressures of chaotic third world development, the increasing disintegration of the old media into little more than scandal entertainment,…these are the issues which occupy the minds of the ordinary man in the street.
The number one issue is the divide between a new urban elite whose affluence has been created by the new economy created by the silicon digital revolution and those left behind, economically disadvantaged by remaining in the old economy.
These folk don’t see Exxon etc, as an enemy. They understand the “fracking revolution”, (so opposed by environmental extremists)brought back economic hope and prosperity.
Joe Public is growing increasingly cynical of the established media’s relentless claims of destruction and despair caused by the Presidency of Donald Trump, evaporate. In fact, so far the US is definitely doing better economically and internationally.
The President is so far on track to keep his election promises. Isis is largely obliterated, the flow of illegal migrant has been stemmed, employment and business confidence has increased, nothing untoward resulted from his withdrawal from Paris, his mild trade war is succeeding with China acquienence, even his brinkmanship diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula seems to be fruitful.
That’s the problem with confusing objectives ! The hype is unsustainable.
It’s time environmentalists to forget extravagant political social engineering objectives, and return to the practical and core message to win back public commitment.
That trust can only be regained through advancements in clean(er) technology.
In February the US Congress approved the most significant CCS national policy in over a decade. The measure ( 45Q) allows tax credits for CO2 storage. The new law has already generated over $34 billion in investment for development of new CCS projects. This huge commitment will mean thousands of new jobs and a significant leadership in CCS technology by the US.
Yet you remain silent ?
Craig, I’m afraid the time has passed for advocates like yourself to simply dismiss CCR with unhelpful ” leave it in the ground” type of observation.
No one’s going to “leave it in the ground”. Coal is still 32% of US energy generation, a large strategic export earner, and 41% of the world electrical energy generation.
You have a choice, join the rest of us in developing new clean(er) technologies to produce steel, cement and other heavy industry products by mitigating the harmful effects of existing fuels, or become counter-productive and increasingly irrelevant clinging to utopian advocacy and concepts preaching to a powerless and shrinking group of acolytes.
It’s not hard to adapt and move with the times ! In fact it’s very exciting ! I’ll grant you the plethora of advances in new technologies are bewildering for folk of our age, but it just takes a little readjustment and abandonment of old ideological inhibitions.
Craig,
There will never be a time in the future in which there are not point sources. Cement plants, Limestone plants, Ammonia plants, Cellulosic ethanol plants, sewage treatment facilities, biomass power plants, paper mills, etc…
All of these will constantly produce CO2 even after fossil carbon is no longer in play, and fossil carbon will continue to be in play for at least 5 decades under the most optimistic scenarios.
There’s no reason not to develop the technology.
In fact, in the distant future – when we would seek to recover carbon from the dilute atmosphere – the more efficient technique would then be to grow trees, burn the trees in a biomass power plant, and recover the carbon at the point source exhaust from that power plant.