Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Yes it is to much fun Harry pointing out that you didn’t read the article I posted or you would have seen there are already suggestions as to the use of the captured carbon and if the cost could be reasonable it would be great for stopping your climate change.

Why would I be interested in posting a link saying we should be getting rid of fossil fuels as soon as we can that seems to be in your wheel house silly boy.

I just QUOTED the article numbnuts.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Capturing and Repurposing CO2 in Earth's Atmosphere | Digital Trends

You don't really know how this interwebnets thing works, do you?

https://www./7609792908/videos/216022046315418

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

https://www./7609792908/videos/216022046315418

I can't see that working somehow.

More on carbon capture

Can Big Oil Make Carbon Capture Mainstream?

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Nov 24, 2020, 4:00 PM CSTJoin Our Community



The growing global drive to curb emissions has called attention to the processes of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), heralded as an indispensable technology that will help the world reach the much-hyped net-zero emissions.
The carbon capture concept and related technologies have been around for years. But the fight against climate change has prompted governments, major oil and gas companies, and scientists to pay more and more attention to the idea that sucking carbon out of industrial emissions or directly from air could be a way to reduce emissions from oil and gas operations, as well as from hard-to-abate emissions in industrial processes such as steel, chemicals, or cement production.
CCUS is becoming increasingly popular among governments as they try to "build back greener" after the pandemic. It is also gaining popularity with some of the biggest oil firms. However, questions remain. Can carbon capture become a viable large-scale cost-efficient technology that will reduce emissions? If so, will it reduce emissions enough to allow world economies and Big Oil to achieve their ambitious net-zero targets?
But there is one thing that CCUS will not do. CCUS will not help the world's biggest oil companies abate the Scope 3 emissions—those generated by the products they sell—Philippe Roos, Senior Reporter at Energy Intelligence, argues. CCUS could also be a smaller industry than currently anticipated if there is a breakthrough with green hydrogen production, which could significantly cut costs in the coming years and eliminate the need for CCS in blue hydrogen production, Roos said.
Related: EIA Sees WTI Crude Averaging $44 In 2021 Still, the Paris Agreement to limit global warming and the increased pressure from the world's biggest investors on carbon-intensive industries to curb emissions make CCS and CCUS key pillars in all plans for build back greener, both for governments and major oil companies.
It looks like everyone in the oil and gas sector and other heavy industries is now taking carbon capture seriously and working on related technologies, while governments support such technologies because environment-conscious investors and the general public will not have greenwashing anymore and demand decisive actions.
"CCUS Critical To Meeting Net-Zero Goals"
"Reaching net-zero will be virtually impossible without CCUS," the International Energy Agency (IEA) says.
Big Oil includes CCUS in their plans to reduce emissions and become net-zero energy businesses by 2050 or sooner. They are also actively pursuing and promoting various projects that will help them reach their goals.
Last month, BP, Eni, Equinor, Shell, Total, and National Gridformed the Northern Endurance Partnership to develop ‎offshore carbon dioxide infrastructure in the UK North Sea, with BP as an operator. The infrastructure will serve the proposed Net Zero Teesside (NZT) and Zero Carbon Humber (ZCH) ‎projects that aim to establish decarbonized industrial clusters in Teesside and Humberside.‎
"Carbon capture and ‎storage is a crucial technology for reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement and we are committed ‎to working with others to create real change," Grete Tveit, senior vice president for low carbon solutions at Norway's Equinor, said in a statement.
Days after the partnership was announced, the UK governmentincluded investing in CCUS as one of the ten pillars in its Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution. The CCUS plans in the UK could use up to US$1.3 billion (£1 billion) of public investment by 2025 and aim to capture and store by 2030 emissions of CO2 equivalent to taking around 4 million cars off the road.
One of the world's biggest oilfield services provider, Baker Hughes,said earlier this month it is buying Compact Carbon Capture (3C), a technology development company specializing in carbon capture solutions, as part of Baker Hughes' strategic commitment to provide decarbonization solutions for carbon-intensive industries, including oil and gas and broader industrial operations.
Direct Air Capture
Occidental Petroleum, which became the first major U.S. oil firm to announce a net-zero emissions goal this month, is betting big on direct air capture—sucking CO2 directly from the atmosphere—to reduce the carbon intensity of its operations, beginning with the Permian.
"We expect to go from the Permian, the Powder River, DJ and ultimately internationally. So it's something that is going to become a, we believe, a significant business for Oxy over the next few years. And in 10 to 15 years, we expect that the cash flow and earnings from a business of this type could be similar or more than what we get from the chemicals business," Oxy's CEO Vicki Hollubsaid on the conference call.
Related: Growing Crude Inventories Put A Cap On Oil Prices
MIT said last year that its engineers had developed a new way to remove CO2 from the air. The idea is based on passing air through a stack of charged electrochemical plates, and it could work from power plant emissions to open air, and it's cost-effective and quite energy-efficient, MIT says. The researchers have set up a company to commercialize the process, and hope to develop a pilot-scale plant within the next few years, MIT postdoc Sahag Voskian, who created the process, said. The system is very easy to scale up, he added.
Scale Is A Challenge
Still, large-scale cost-efficient CCUS around the world will require much more research, government support, and company investments if the world has a chance to limit global warming anywhere close to the Paris Agreement targets.
Recent research by Jorgen Randers and Ulrich Goluke at BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, Norway, shows in a climate model that the world is already past the point of no return and there would be self-sustained melting of the permafrost for hundreds of years ahead, even if the world stopped all emissions of man-made greenhouse gases immediately.
To avoid self-sustained temperature rise in the centuries ahead, the world will need to build 33,000 big CCS plants and keep them running forever—a technically feasible but hugely expensive endeavor, say the authors of the paper published in Scientific Reports.
Currently, there are just around 60 operational CCS projects of varying capture capacity in the world, Wood Mackenzie said in a recent report on the North Sea potential to net-zero.
CCUS is not the only pathway to curbing global emissions, but it could prove critical—in addition to transport electrification and rising renewables share in the power mix—to limiting global warming to some reasonable degrees. However, CCUS will need a lot more investment and support to become a meaningful solution in the fight against climate change.
By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

You're still not getting it are you, coffin dodger?

To avoid self-sustained temperature rise in the centuries ahead, the world will need to build 33,000 big CCS plants and keep them running forever—a technically feasible but hugely expensive endeavor

Why not just transition to renewables which are far cheaper, and build electric cars instead of petrol- and diesel-driven ones?

Ah, well just fancy that, that's what sensible countries are already doing.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You're still not getting it are you, coffin dodger?



Why not just transition to renewables which are far cheaper, and build electric cars instead of petrol- and diesel-driven ones?

Ah, well just fancy that, that's what sensible countries are already doing.

Direct air capture: Giant machines that can suck CO2 out of the atmosphere could help control pollution levels

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Direct air capture: Giant machines that can suck CO2 out of the atmosphere could help control pollution levels

What does it actually take to get through your thick, empty skull, and what happens if one succeeds?

You keep post articles that say it will be prohibitively expensive.

Why do you keep defending fossil fuels you numpty?

It is still early stages for DAC – there are only 15 plants in North America and Europe – and the tech remains very expensive. Costs should come down, however, as efficiency improves. Climeworks thinks it can reduce the cost of extracting a ton of carbon dioxide from $1,000 to $100 within a decade.
But DAC is never going to be a cheap option. “The fact is, it is going to be easier to decarbonise a lot of industrial processes than it is to build an entire sector from a standing start,” says Dr Mark Workman, a carbon storage expert at Imperial College London.
There is also fierce debate over who will pay for it. Most experts think governments will have to force the creation of a new market. That could be in the form of a subsidy regime, or with legislation to force fossil-fuel producers to arrange for storage.
A hike in VAT to pay for the pollution caused by goods and services has also been mooted, placing the cost on a public who, Dr Workman argues, are not prepared for the scale of such a challenge. “We are going to remove an invisible gas and store it in invisible storage sites. And we are going to be taking vast quantities of public money – tens, if not hundreds of billions of pounds,” he says. “There really does need to be a much broader social dialogue about this.”

Direct air capture is a bit like deliberately introducing a disease then inventing a vaccine to treat it. Wouldn't it be better to not introduce the "disease" in the first place or in this case stop introducing it.

Carbon capture can help us win the race against climate change | World Economic Forum

2020 may be third hottest year on record, world could hit climate change milestone by 2024

This year is on track to be one of the three hottest on record, completing a run of six years that were all hotter than any year ever measured before, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Wednesday.

The relentless rise of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere – a phenomenon that has continued despite a travel lull during the pandemic – will fuel temperature rise for decades to come.

“The average global temperature in 2020 is set to be about 1.2 °C above the pre-industrial (1850-1900) level. There is at least a one in five chance of it temporarily exceeding 1.5 °C by 2024”, WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said in a statement.

Unwelcome threshold

The 1.5 degree threshold represents a milestone the world is trying not to reach: the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, backed by almost every country on earth, calls for keeping the global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial era levels.

To slow temperature rises, the world needs radical action. Countries must decrease production of fossil fuels by 6 per cent per year between 2020 and 2030 if the world is to avert "catastrophic” global temperature rise, according to the UN-backed Production Gap Report released on Wednesday.

In a landmark speech in New York on Wednesday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the fight against the climate crisis was the top priority for the 21st Century.

Climate records have fallen like dominos in the past decade, so notching up merely the third hottest year on record may seem to suggest some respite. But that would be a false conclusion, because 2020’s heat rose in a year when the world was experiencing a La Niña weather pattern, which normally means lower temperatures.

Counter-intuitive

“Record warm years have usually coincided with a strong El Niño event, as was the case in 2016. We are now experiencing a La Niña, which has a cooling effect on global temperatures, but has not been sufficient to put a brake on this year’s heat. Despite the current La Niña conditions, this year has already shown near record heat comparable to the previous record of 2016,” said Prof. Taalas.

“We saw new extreme temperatures on land, sea and especially in the Arctic. Wildfires consumed vast areas in Australia, Siberia, the US West Coast and South America, sending plumes of smoke circumnavigating the globe”, he added.

“We saw a record number of hurricanes in the Atlantic, including unprecedented back-to-back category 4 hurricanes in Central America in November. Flooding in parts of Africa and South East Asia led to massive population displacement and undermined food security for millions.”

The 2020 temperature report is provisional until a final report is published in March 2021, the WMO said.: 2020 may be third hottest year on record, world could hit climate change milestone by 2024 | | UN News

Forest management could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by billions of tons a year: Study - ABC News

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Carbon capture can help us win the race against climate change | World Economic Forum

You're an illiterate cretin.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Forest management could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by billions of tons a year: Study - ABC News

No shit! You actually understand why we need to stop chopping down forests!

Well you probably don't, but never mind, you tried.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You're an illiterate cretin.

You just canÂ’t get beyond the hate can you.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You just canÂ’t get beyond the hate can you.

The word you seek is "contempt".

And no, I can't get past the fact that you keep posting articles that say:

- Carbon capture is too expensive
- The best approach is to reduce the amount of carbon produced (i.e. fossil fuels)

And then keep claiming that cutting fossil fuels is too expensive.

You're an idiot.

Hey repeater, are you getting the fucking message yet?

Denmark has decided to end all oil and gas offshore activities in the North Sea by 2050 and has cancelled its latest licensing round, saying the country is “putting an end to the fossil era”.

The Danish parliament voted to end the offshore gas and oil extraction that started in 1972 and made it the largest producer in the European Union. Non EU-members Norway and Britain are larger producers.

Denmark makes ‘landmark decision’ to end all oil and gas activities in North Sea

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Hey repeater, are you getting the fucking message yet?



Denmark makes ‘landmark decision’ to end all oil and gas activities in North Sea

The question is are you.


Climate change: pulling CO2 out of the air could be a trillion-dollar business - Vox

NASA Earth - This chart, derived from GRACE, show mass changes for major glaciated regions beyond the poles. The largest mass losses occurred in Alaska.: https://twitter.com/NASAEarth/status...03515857477634 - Grace Mission | NASA - GRACE-FO

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The question is are you.


Climate change: pulling CO2 out of the air could be a trillion-dollar business - Vox

Dumbarse does it again. He really doesn't understand what he's posting.

A 2005 IPCC assessment concluded gloomily that “the scale of the use of captured CO2 in industrial processes is too small, the storage times too short, and the energy balance too unfavourable for industrial uses of CO2 to become significant as a means of mitigating climate change.”

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Dumbarse does it again. He really doesn't understand what he's posting.

So you really don’t get it science has come a long way since 2005.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

So you really don’t get it science has come a long way since 2005.

Everything you've posted says it's too expensive.

Everything you've posted proves that cutting fossil fuels is the way to go.

Dump your Exxon stock you silly fucker. You're not going to convince anyone by cutting and pasting. *




* Alternatively tax the fuck out of Big Oil, Gas and Coal and use that to pay for it.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Everything you've posted says it's too expensive.

Everything you've posted proves that cutting fossil fuels is the way to go.

Dump your Exxon stock you silly fucker. You're not going to convince anyone by cutting and pasting. *




* Alternatively tax the fuck out of Big Oil, Gas and Coal and use that to pay for it.

If you actually read the articles you would see different. Several of the articles I posted show that carbon capture is not only imperative in stopping climate change change but can be a profitable endeavor. But do continue on with your selective quoting.