FrontEnd
EmissionsVille
I fully understand that the best way to slow the rise of atmospheric CO2 is to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
However, at first glance at least, it does seem reasonable to develop mitigating strategies and technologies as tell.
Whether we, the public, should help pay for such strategies and technologies is a more difficult issue, particularly if we are not sharing significantly in the profits*.
One thing I do know for sure is that, if we are going to help pay for such strategies and technologies they darned well better work.
When it comes to 'carbon capture and sequestration', Geoff Dembicki, writing in the Tyee, has thoroughly fisked industry and lickspittle reports going back three decades and makes a solid case that it doesn't work - at least not well enough to justify the cost (and/or the optimism/boosterism of tar sands producers):
So.
...Carbon capture and storage — has a major disqualifying flaw. It may be technically feasible to bury oilsands emissions, but it is also prohibitively expensive, so much so that the technology doesn’t “appear to be economic” and would “achieve a relatively minor impact in reducing CO2 emissions.”
That blunt assessment didn’t come from an environmental group, but rather from a company leading the current carbon capture and storage effort: Imperial Oil.
More than three decades ago, the Exxon-owned oilsands producer undertook one of Canada’s first major studies of “underground carbon dioxide disposal.” The company’s findings, which were published in a newly reviewed 1991 Imperial Oil research paper, were not encouraging. The technology requires massive expenditures, would only mitigate a small fraction of Canada’s carbon output and comes with “large net costs to society,” Imperial concluded...
{snip}
...“Despite years of hype,” a libertarian think tank called the Manhattan Institute concluded in 2018, “CCS still costs too much and cannot come close to matching the scale of growing global carbon-dioxide emissions.” The institute has reportedly received more than $1 million in donations from (Imperial Oil's parent company) Exxon...
So.
If they know it won't work, why do the fine folks running outfits like Imperial Oil keep pushing for this particular strategy?
Gosh.
...That’s simple, (Greanpeace's Keith) Stewart told The Tyee. “It extends the life of fossil fuels,” he said...
Perhaps developing those mitigating technologies and strategies isn't always so reasonable after all.
______
______
*Can't help but wonder if making such decisions would be easier/more straight forward if we had gone all in, Norway style, with the NEP...
Meanwhile...'Record-low price for UK offshore wind is four times cheaper than gas.'.
4 comments:
CCS also provides governments with "green" cover for continuing their handouts and tax breaks to oil companies despite growing public opposition.
Good point Anon-Above--
I could actually see going along with it if it actually worked and made a meaningful dent - it would appear that would not.
.
Not a scientist. Barely got through high school science but it never made sense to me to "bury" carbon. Thought it would work, just sounded stupid. Sort of like holding your breathe after taking a drag on a cig, to hide you did it. You can only hold it so long. The other issue of concern was, what will it do to the earth once the stuff is buried. What if it escapes due to some change in weather, earthquakes, etc.
Always thought it was better to just ensure we didn't have pollution, excess carbon, etc. Its not like we really, really needed it. Its just that we had it and corporations made money off of it and weren't going to stop that.
These oil/gas/etc corporations created the problem and they ought to be the ones paying to solve it. No taxpayer money ought to be involved. These axxholes have already had enough government funding through things like no taxes, hiding taxable income, grants from governments, etc. lets not forget all the orphoned wells they left behind in Alberta.
Absolutely nothing, say it again y’all.
Post a Comment