this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)

CO2 capture technologies

283 readers
4 users here now

This community is evolving from being just about CDR to include all CO~2~ capture, removal, utilization, sequestration & storage technologies. So let's discuss everything related to:

While many climate scientists have reservations about CCS, the crisis has now grown so acute that almost all the net zero pathways modeled by the U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) envision huge deployments of the technology by mid-century. Governments have also embraced the prospect that CCS could be a cost-effective means for reducing emissions without disrupting fossil fuel-based economies.[1]

Perhaps, it could be considered alarming that these technologies are often intertwined with fossil fuel companies. These corporations use them as an excuse not to phase out their production, while portraying themselves as part of the solution. (see: Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, TotalEnergies)


Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), according to the definition by the IPCC, is a process that captures CO~2~ from a point-source.

The terms CCS and Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) are closely related and often used interchangeably. Both terms have been used predominantly to refer to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) a process in which captured CO~2~ is injected into partially depleted oil reservoirs in order to extract more oil.

Some sources use the term CCS, CCU, or CCUS more broadly, encompassing methods such as Direct Air Capture (DAC) or Direct Air Carbon Capture and Sequestration (DACCS), as well tree-planting which remove CO~2~ from the air.

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is defined by the IPCC as: "Anthropogenic activities removing CO~2~ from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products."

Synonyms for CDR include Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR), negative emissions technology, and carbon removal. The term geoengineering (or climate engineering) is sometimes used in the scientific literature for CDR. The terms geoengineering or climate engineering are no longer used in IPCC reports.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/3903718

Excerpt:

That’s the theory, anyway. But today, the lion’s share of the CO2 captured from industrial processes doesn’t go back into the ground. Instead, 60 percent of it is used to extract more oil, in a controversial process known as “enhanced oil recovery.”

“I think it’s a huge problem,” said Lorne Stockman, research co-director of the advocacy group Oil Change International. “The oil and gas industry has done a very good job of co-opting our climate and clean energy policy.”

For over a decade, the U.S. government has been quietly funding the capture of CO2 that is ultimately used to drill more oil. Some experts and researchers argue that the climate impact is net positive: The oil will be drilled anyway, and the process can help companies learn how to capture CO2 more efficiently. But others say that the government shouldn’t be helping companies sustain more fossil fuel extraction.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CadeJohnson@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago

It is not a surprising situation at this point - oil and gas companies already had a large available supply of CO2 from "sweetening" of natural gas. We have to understand the dramatic difference between "capturing" CO2 - meaning capturing from a point source like a stack or process - and "removing" CO2 - meaning removing it from the atmosphere. In normal use, these terms have such similar meanings that it is very easy for nefarious actors to conflate them. It is very easy for regulators to become confused. It is very easy for the oil and gas industry to take advantage of the situation. I think the key solution is education.

The technology to capture CO2 from industrial streams where it is already concentrated, is quite different that removal. Advances in capture technology are only stop-gap and can be better driven by strong enforcement of ever-tighter emission limits than subsidizing of costs.