Folks not doing right even when incentivized to do right isn't the argument against "people are never going to actually going to do right so we need to engineer our way out of the problem" that you seem to think it is.
Folks not doing right even when incentivized to do right isn't the argument against "people are never going to actually going to do right so we need to engineer our way out of the problem" that you seem to think it is.
Off the top of my head, freight, both air and sea, probably could be reduced or made more expensive (using so called "bio jet fuel" and probably other technologies I don't know about) which assuredly has many trickle down effects and impacts across society.I just want to know what "Quality Of Life" means. What is everyone going to be giving up in the short term, the medium term, and the long term to help fight climate change? What "Quality Of Life" items beyond red meat and fish and off-season fruit and cars and stuff like one-day Amazon shipping are people going to be giving up?
Preventing emissions is another consideration entirely, and that's not what this is attempting to do. Does it cause lower net emissions? If yes, which is the answer, then it's a good thing. Getting mad at any one endeavor because "the energy is better used to reduce emissions" is a fool's errand and is an infinitely scalable, impossible-to-meet demand. That's some effective altruism nonsense that imagines some pretend utopia use case and then gets made at practical reality for not fitting that exact deployment.That's the issue. This is a bad thing. This is a net negative. A huge waste of energy that could have gone to preventing 15 times the emissions this captured. This exists solely to make some VCs rich, nothing else.
Or,you know, use the geothermal energy on things that actually matter and spend it efficiently instead of wasting it?"Don't do anything unless it solves everything immediately. Instead, let's just hope the better angels of human nature prevail and we suddenly snap to the realization that we should probably start doing all that stuff they've been telling us we should do to keep the world from burning for the last 40 years. You know, the stuff we've collectively barely acted upon in those 40 years."
"There are only so many things we can put the literal power of the Earth to use doing at once. This project is taking this clearly limited resource away from better projects such as <blank>"Or,you know, use the geothermal energy on things that actually matter and spend it efficiently instead of wasting it?
It doesn't cause lower net emissions because, once again, all that energy from geothermal could have gone to actual efficient uses. Carbon capture is only ever going to make sense when the world's energy comes 100% from renewable sources.Preventing emissions is another consideration entirely, and that's not what this is attempting to do. Does it cause lower net emissions? If yes, which is the answer, then it's a good thing. Getting mad at any one endeavor because "the energy is better used to reduce emissions" is a fool's errand and is an infinitely scalable, impossible-to-meet demand. That's some effective altruism nonsense that imagines some pretend utopia use case and then gets made at practical reality for not fitting that exact deployment.
Because what happens, as you hem and haw and poo-poo imperfect-but-better-than-literally-nothing, what you will get instead is: literally nothing. You will get literally nothing else better than this in this instance. Which isn't the worse thing, because as much as this isn't that pretend utopia, it's still at least, as I've been saying, an unequivocal good. A very, very, very small good, tackling a very, very, very small part of the problem, but still good. Issues with this specific effort are 100% misplaced. Unless you have a plan how a small private entity can change laws for the entire planet.
In the meantime, how does it make VCs rich? Because I can tell you, this is making no investor rich. Like, genuinely. Climate investing isn't manifesting any actual returns for investors, and won't until it starts to actually bring about the changes people in this thread are asking for.
im confused on how you are struggling to think of projects when the whole world needs energy every day. Literally any thing you can think of that requires power is a better use than this."There are only so many things we can put the literal power of the Earth to use doing at once. This project is taking this clearly limited resource away from better projects such as <blank>"
if that magical hypothetical scenario existed then yes, carbon capture would make sense. As it stands now though, it's a net negative that ends up with more carbon in the atmosphere in the end, not less.All the people shouting that this is a waste of time and resources need to realize that even if we cut all CO2 emissions globally right now, we'd still sail at the very least past 1.5c, probably even higher. Even just 1.5c is devastating to the world, especially to the poorer regions.
We need to actively TAKE carbon out of the atmosphere, not just stop putting more into it.
We need to at least get ideas floated around and projects like this get people brainstorming.
Oh, so because it's not absolutely ideal it's bad. Got it. Does this cause there to be more CO2 in the atmosphere, or less, or are you again referring to some pretend utopia scenario where things are only valid if they're absolutely 100% optimized to the greatest extent of humanity's capacity?It doesn't cause lower net emissions because, once again, all that energy from geothermal could have gone to actual efficient uses. Carbon capture is only ever going to make sense when the world's energy comes 100% from renewable sources.
im confused on how you are struggling to think of projects when the whole world needs energy every day. Literally any thing you can think of that requires power is a better use than this.
More, because, once again, you just wasted a gigantic amount of energy that would infinitely better used elsewhere, and that elsewhere os going to put more CO2 in the atmosphere.Oh, so because it's not absolutely ideal it's bad. Got it. Does this cause there to be more CO2 in the atmosphere, or less?
"I don't know how you can't fill in the blanks for my non-specific hypothetical. If we ignore the limitations of physical distance and methods of transmission then anything is a better use. And also, as I said before, we obviously can't put the literal power of the planet upon which we live to more than one use at once."im confused on how you are struggling to think of projects when the whole world needs energy every day. Literally any thing you can think of that requires power is a better use than this.
Oh, so pretend utopia scenario where the only things that matter are things that solve everything all at once, got it.More, because, once again, you just wasted a gigantic amount of energy that would infinitely better used elsewhere, and that elsewhere os going to put more CO2 in the atmosphere.
No. Don't you understand? It just needs to be used elsewhere. Elsewhere is always better. Where elsewhere? What a silly question! Everyone knows a better elsewhere right off the top of their head. Which is why she hasn't given a single example.Oh, so pretend utopia scenario where the only things that matter are things that solve everything all at once, got it.
Folks not doing right even when incentivized to do right isn't the argument against "people are never going to actually going to do right so we need to engineer our way out of the problem" that you seem to think it is.
Does building this plant prevent anyone from putting 100 buses on the road?Yet somehow "this giant plant has now done what putting approximately 100 buses on the road around the world would have done" is an achievement great enough to defend using the worst strawmen ever because now it might decrease the net emissions in like 0.01% when it reaches full capacity in 2050?
Well I should know better than to expect better
Those 100 more buses aren't on the road because no one wants to put them there.
Iceland has far more geothermal energy than they have use for, and it's not an appreciably finite resource on a human timescale. Iceland already gets 100% of its grid energy from renewables, including about 2/3rds from geothermal. It's not like they can export it elsewhere. So what should this Icelandic geothermal energy be spent on?Or,you know, use the geothermal energy on things that actually matter and spend it efficiently instead of wasting it?
Gah! I forgot about elsewhere; boy is my face red. Personally, I don't know why any company spends any effort at all on "not perfect from the start". All this time and money where we knowwww that it's just so simple to solve. They forgot to hit the "perfect" button! Stupid engineers. Honestly, what really gets me annoyed is how this company also insisted all other climate efforts should completely stop and also that oil companies should drill more. I guess their global powers of persuasion work in the negative sense - they must be in cahoots with those dastardly Investors!No. Don't you understand? It just needs to be used elsewhere. Elsewhere is always better. Where elsewhere? What a silly question! Everyone knows a better elsewhere right off the top of their head. Which is why she hasn't given a single example.
Bitching about something making a measurable, yet insufficient difference is certainly a much better tact and far more likely to get us those buses.It's a shame there's nothing we can do about it but cheer for a company doing something that might save a plot of land in Antarctica for a billionaire to lease :/
The Adder: "This is actually really cool 😎 now I'll paraphrase something no one said 😎"
Bitching about something making a measurable, yet insufficient difference is certainly a much better tact and far more likely to get us those buses.
Palas: "I'm only happy when we're doing nothing and whining about nothing being done. Now let me poorly emulate The Adder's format because it clearly does its job of getting under the skin."
if that magical hypothetical scenario existed then yes, carbon capture would make sense. As it stands now though, it's a net negative that ends up with more carbon in the atmosphere in the end, not less.
My city has a robust (for America) hybrid public transport system, thank you very much. Waiting for a bus as we speak. Furthermore, "this thing that does good thing is bad actually" isn't a normal position to hold. It is peak cyniscism for the sake of internet cool points. When you run out of actual reason, just call the other person a shill.I mean speak for yourself? If you can't be politically involved in your city's development plan or can't be arsed to organize in your local community for one single bus line to be implemented then I can't relate. Then the best thing you'll be able to do is nothing/shilling, yeah
My city has a robust (for America) hybrid public transport system, thank you very much. Waiting for a bus as we speak. Furthermore, "this thing that does good thing is bad actually" isn't a normal position to hold. It is peak cyniscism for the sake of internet cool points. When you run out of actual reason, just call the other person a shill.
Off the top of my head, freight, both air and sea, probably could be reduced or made more expensive (using so called "bio jet fuel" and probably other technologies I don't know about) which assuredly has many trickle down effects and impacts across society.
Shifting away from meat production (good old cow farts/burps) and car use as well are fundamental life choices that most people will refuse to sacrifice. Countless things that are unsustainable now because we're over producing/consuming.
The thing is I'm in the camp that banning single use plastics is also stupid if we're fine letting everyone single person in the world own their own car. At that point we might as well just give up if we're not going to address that issue. And switching to EVs isn't the answer if you believe that using human slavery to mine Cobalt is wrong. (If you don't, then I suppose EVs are a solution).I was thinking about things like prescription contact lenses. Or items made with memory foam such as memory foam pillows, mattresses, earplugs, or shoe inserts. Are there mass-produced items made with materials such as plastics and foams that we'd be seeing less of or have less access to over time as part of trying to move away from overproduction of goods and a shrinking of the global supply chain?
I'm trying to get a grasp of like… what is a middle-class American's day going to look like, from morning routine to work to evening-time recreation in an economy and society that's become geared toward mitigating climate change and hyperconsumption?
The problem with EVs is that individually owned passenger cars are terribly inefficient in terms of the resources needed to transport people. Ride-hailing passenger cars are somewhat more efficient. But both are much worse than public transportation of pretty much any form.The thing is I'm in the camp that banning single use plastics is also stupid if we're fine letting everyone single person in the world own their own car. At that point we might as well just give up if we're not going to address that issue. And switching to EVs isn't the answer if you believe that using human slavery to mine Cobalt is wrong. (If you don't, then I suppose EVs are a solution).
Electronics is such a complicated mess that I just assume we're not really going to change. Even if you fix the materials sourcing, there's still the manufacturing and recycling ends to deal with.The problem with EVs is that individually owned passenger cars are terribly inefficient in terms of the resources needed to transport people. Ride-hailing passenger cars are somewhat more efficient. But both are much worse than public transportation of pretty much any form.
The cobalt problem (for EVs) is solving itself. Roughly 1/3 of EVs sold today are cobalt-free, because lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries are cheaper to make than cobalt-containing batteries. Sodium batteries will further reduce the use of cobalt. Cobalt is still being mined, but electronics is the bigger problem.
doesn't cause lower net emissions because, once again, all that energy from geothermal could have gone to actual efficient uses. Carbon capture is only ever going to make sense when the world's energy comes 100% from renewable sources.
Does building this plant prevent anyone from putting 100 buses on the road?
Nope.
Those 100 more buses aren't on the road because no one wants to put them there.
Your options aren't "plant or more busses." It's "plant or continue to do nothing at all."
I hate people who whine about "better" when all they do is complain anytime something better isn't better enough.
Y'all have a serious reading comprehension problem. I'm advocating doing something in lieu of continuing to do nothing.You're advocating fighting entrophy in place of doing literally anything else
No, it couldn't. Because the geothermal energy cannot be used for transportation because it does not transport. The things that it can be used for? Iceland is already using it for that.The resource and energy cost over the lifetime of that plant could have put 500-1000 buses on the road keeping 25000-50000 cars off the road, almost an order of magnitude greater than their hypothetical peak capacity.
Certainly the post of a reasonable person with something worthwhile to say and not a grown ass child trying to win an internet argument.But if you just want to feel good about yourself and believe you're the Reasonable one, go ahead.
And we're trying to point out, that something is worse than literally nothing, which jungius has helpfully shown.Y'all have a serious reading comprehension problem. I'm advocating doing something in lieu of continuing to do nothing.
So you read neither the article in the OP nor the article jungius posted. Just felt like shooting off at the mouth. Check.And we're trying to point out, that something is worse than literally nothing, which jungius has helpfully shown.
The Quest Carbon Capture is attached to an Upgrader facility and touted as mitigating the output of that particular facility. It doesn't. It captures a bunch of carbon from that facility (which is why its numbers are so high compared to the modest numbers of the plant in the OP), but raw numbers don't tell the story when you look at how much more carbon that place had been putting out since the unit was built.Shell’s ‘Milestone’ CCS Plant Emits More Carbon Than It Captures, Independent Analysis Finds
The federal government is looking into independent analysis claiming that carbon capture at a highly-touted Shell Canada demonstration project in Alberta is producing more greenhouse gas emissions than it prevents, The Energy Mix has learned.www.theenergymix.com
this is from 2022 one, im curious tbh what make this one better than that one?
More, because, once again, you just wasted a gigantic amount of energy that would infinitely better used elsewhere, and that elsewhere os going to put more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Certainly the post of a reasonable person with something worthwhile to say and not a grown ass child trying to win an internet argument.
Iceland's energy *ALREADY* comes from >99% renewable resources. It's one of the reasons it's a great place for these kinds of technologies to develop as they have easy access to geothermal energy that can't easily be moved elsewhere.
It is hard to fathom how much money a billion dollars truly is. It's a ridiculous number.