Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vice)   Imagine spending millions building a carbon capture plant, to prove that the technology works, only for it to emit more greenhouse gases than it's capturing   (vice.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Fossil fuel, Carbon dioxide, Shell's Quest carbon capture, Natural gas, Petroleum, Methane, Coal, carbon capture technology  
•       •       •

986 clicks; posted to STEM » on 24 Jan 2022 at 8:18 AM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



25 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-01-24 3:32:29 AM  
It'll improve when Shell upgrades the power plant from coal to diesel.
 
2022-01-24 6:27:47 AM  
Shell?  Working as planned / designed, then.
 
2022-01-24 7:42:10 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

I don't recall saying it would work.
 
2022-01-24 8:28:25 AM  
Just reading... reducing carbon emissions by  40% for the plant is still good.  Not sure what the hubbub is, other than maybe pointing out we have to do better.
 
2022-01-24 8:40:09 AM  
If it paid design engineers, union workers, contractors, subcontractors, paid investors dividends and got executives their bonuses, then it worked as planned.

It might not run efficiently or effectively, but another couple hundred million to repeat the above *might* get another press conference and news article.
 
2022-01-24 8:46:08 AM  
It makes a market for a little bit more of that wonderful tar sands oil, so, working as planned.
 
2022-01-24 8:54:52 AM  
Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture & Storage
Youtube MSZgoFyuHC8
 
2022-01-24 10:16:46 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: [iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/MSZgoFyuHC8?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&widgetid=1]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-24 10:27:14 AM  

covalesj: Just reading... reducing carbon emissions by  40% for the plant is still good.  Not sure what the hubbub is, other than maybe pointing out we have to do better.


The hubbub is for a pretty simple reason - the plant's entire purpose is to capture and sequester carbon. If it is producing more carbon emissions than it is capturing then it is a net negative, and would be better if it had never been built in the first place.

Building carbon capture plants which produce more emissions than they capture is like sticking a finger down your throat and puking up your lunch when you're hungry for dinner.
 
2022-01-24 10:27:39 AM  

covalesj: Just reading... reducing carbon emissions by  40% for the plant is still good.  Not sure what the hubbub is, other than maybe pointing out we have to do better.


Yeah this article seems really misleading. Subby obviously misunderstood it. This is working as intended, it's helping. The plant is there to refine oil into hydrogen and it has a carbon capture component, it is not a "carbon capture plant" on its own. That makes it sound like we're just lighting oil on fire in order to try and capture CO2 but we're capturing less than we're emitting. That's not the situation at all. We were already gonna light all that oil on fire (metaphorically speaking) because it's profitable, and if you add a government subsidy for carbon capture, it becomes less harmful. I honestly don't know if the author of TFA understands this or not. The fact that they never once even mention the only alternative, which would be banning such refinery plants from even existing in the first place, makes me think not.
 
2022-01-24 10:36:27 AM  

covalesj: Just reading... reducing carbon emissions by  40% for the plant is still good.  Not sure what the hubbub is, other than maybe pointing out we have to do better.


mongbiohazard: covalesj: Just reading... reducing carbon emissions by  40% for the plant is still good.  Not sure what the hubbub is, other than maybe pointing out we have to do better.

The hubbub is for a pretty simple reason - the plant's entire purpose is to capture and sequester carbon. If it is producing more carbon emissions than it is capturing then it is a net negative, and would be better if it had never been built in the first place.

Building carbon capture plants which produce more emissions than they capture is like sticking a finger down your throat and puking up your lunch when you're hungry for dinner.


Guy 1: It will never work
Guy 2: Let's try it out and see.
*a few million dollars later*
Guy 2: It's not working
Guy 1: I told you!
Guy 2: But now we have evidence it doesn't work and can move on to another idea, like good lil science guys.

At least I hope that was the point of all of this.
 
2022-01-24 10:52:26 AM  

covalesj: Just reading... reducing carbon emissions by  40% for the plant is still good.  Not sure what the hubbub is, other than maybe pointing out we have to do better.


The plant is indeed sequestering carbon, but it is emitting other greenhouse gases in higher quantities than the carbon it is sequestering.  And some of these other greenhouse gases are considered more harmful to the atmosphere than the carbon they are sequestering, so this may be making the problem worse than doing nothing.
 
2022-01-24 10:56:30 AM  
So heavy crude from oil sands are being refined, 5m tons of carbon was captured, 7.5m emitted.

So w/o carbon capture, 12.5m would have been emitted.

So I'm confused what the article writer thinks is bad.  Carbon capture bad?  That the CC was only around 40% of the total?  That he doesn't understand how math works?

It's articles like this that make it hard to convince people to do "better" as it appears that "carbon capture plants" are bad because they emit more than they captured, when in fact they captured a great deal that would have otherwise been emitted.

Tech still needs work.  But you don't say that with articles like this.
 
2022-01-24 11:57:30 AM  
That would depend entirely on if it was built to a specific required ratio of in/out and if they are finished working out the kinks, or if it was proof of concept for the tech itself and was never intended to be actually carbon negative
 
2022-01-24 12:16:10 PM  

Nonpo: covalesj: Just reading... reducing carbon emissions by  40% for the plant is still good.  Not sure what the hubbub is, other than maybe pointing out we have to do better.

Yeah this article seems really misleading. Subby obviously misunderstood it. This is working as intended, it's helping. The plant is there to refine oil into hydrogen and it has a carbon capture component, it is not a "carbon capture plant" on its own. That makes it sound like we're just lighting oil on fire in order to try and capture CO2 but we're capturing less than we're emitting. That's not the situation at all. We were already gonna light all that oil on fire (metaphorically speaking) because it's profitable, and if you add a government subsidy for carbon capture, it becomes less harmful. I honestly don't know if the author of TFA understands this or not. The fact that they never once even mention the only alternative, which would be banning such refinery plants from even existing in the first place, makes me think not.


Except hydrogen's usefulness is a myth to push further natural gas extraction.  It is hardly a surprise that cracking methane to produce hydrogen makes more CO2 then you'd expect.  Then compare the inherent inefficiencies of hydrogen vs. whatever you were using before and it just gets worse.

It is hardly surprising that they connected it to a hydrogen plant.  They certainly don't want to make another one.
 
2022-01-24 12:16:25 PM  

mongbiohazard: The hubbub is for a pretty simple reason - the plant's entire purpose is to capture and sequester carbon. If it is producing more carbon emissions than it is capturing then it is a net negative, and would be better if it had never been built in the first place.


No. This plant's purpose is to capture carbon. The plant next to it creates hydrogen fuel. The sequestration plant is capturing less than 100% of the emissions of the hydrogen plant.
 
2022-01-24 12:54:32 PM  

covalesj: Just reading... reducing carbon emissions by  40% for the plant is still good.  Not sure what the hubbub is, other than maybe pointing out we have to do better.


Another way of looking at it is (and for everyone else who already answered):

FTA: Global Witness' report also notes that Canada's federal and Alberta governments spent hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds-at least US$654 million-to pay for the billion-dollar Quest project.

In other words the Canadian tax payer footed 65.4% of the bill and made the problem worse.

They'd have had a better return on carbon capture investment if they'd bought up former Brazilian rainforest and replanted.  Even if they'd spent 75% on buying the land, 15% to replant and put the remaining 10% in a trust to hire people to guard it.
 
2022-01-24 1:01:38 PM  

WelldeadLink: mongbiohazard: The hubbub is for a pretty simple reason - the plant's entire purpose is to capture and sequester carbon. If it is producing more carbon emissions than it is capturing then it is a net negative, and would be better if it had never been built in the first place.

No. This plant's purpose is to capture carbon. The plant next to it creates hydrogen fuel. The sequestration plant is capturing less than 100% of the emissions of the hydrogen plant.


So, it's working.

This is like saying because some pollution is still coming out of a car that the pollution controls aren't working, even though the car would pollute a lot more without it.
 
2022-01-24 2:09:58 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: Except hydrogen's usefulness is a myth to push further natural gas extraction.  It is hardly a surprise that cracking methane to produce hydrogen makes more CO2 then you'd expect.  Then compare the inherent inefficiencies of hydrogen vs. whatever you were using before and it just gets worse.


The proper design of a hydrogen fuel plant involves first building a nuclear power plant for it.
 
2022-01-24 2:36:13 PM  

MadHatter500: So heavy crude from oil sands are being refined, 5m tons of carbon was captured, 7.5m emitted.

So w/o carbon capture, 12.5m would have been emitted.

So I'm confused what the article writer thinks is bad.  Carbon capture bad?  That the CC was only around 40% of the total?  That he doesn't understand how math works?

It's articles like this that make it hard to convince people to do "better" as it appears that "carbon capture plants" are bad because they emit more than they captured, when in fact they captured a great deal that would have otherwise been emitted.

Tech still needs work.  But you don't say that with articles like this.



Same video, just queued to the point you need to watch.

Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture & Storage
Youtube MSZgoFyuHC8
 
2022-01-24 3:23:59 PM  
Blue hydrogen isn't green. It's right there in the name.

/Blue hydrogen is produced from natural gas with carbon capture
//Green hydrogen uses water as feedstock and renewable energy for electrolysis
///There's a bunch of colors
 
2022-01-24 5:11:35 PM  

ryebread: Blue hydrogen isn't green. It's right there in the name.

/Blue hydrogen is produced from natural gas with carbon capture
//Green hydrogen uses water as feedstock and renewable energy for electrolysis
///There's a bunch of colors


Yup, and if it isn't green or pink it's crap.
 
2022-01-24 5:45:08 PM  
"a new reportfrom human rights organization Global Witness

Nothing biased, suspicious or self-serving there.
 
2022-01-24 6:02:15 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: ryebread: Blue hydrogen isn't green. It's right there in the name.

/Blue hydrogen is produced from natural gas with carbon capture
//Green hydrogen uses water as feedstock and renewable energy for electrolysis
///There's a bunch of colors

Yup, and if it isn't green or pink it's crap.


I find turquoise interesting. You get your carbon out in a solid form rather than gaseous, which seems to makes the whole "capture" part of carbon capture a whole lot easier.

Get the process to produce carbon nanotubes or something, and you've turned your waste product into something with some real value.

/No idea how feasible that is, but it sounds good
 
2022-01-25 5:05:10 PM  

WelldeadLink: yet_another_wumpus: Except hydrogen's usefulness is a myth to push further natural gas extraction.  It is hardly a surprise that cracking methane to produce hydrogen makes more CO2 then you'd expect.  Then compare the inherent inefficiencies of hydrogen vs. whatever you were using before and it just gets worse.

The proper design of a hydrogen fuel plant involves first building a nuclear power plant for it.


https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-20-million-produce-clean-hydrogen-nuclear-power
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.