Honestly, it probably will not work eventually. It just feels too close to a thermodynamics violation.
It is just impossible for me to believe you can burn a fossil fuel and capture all of the GHG thus produced for a lower cost than it would’ve been to just use renewable energy in the first place.
Well tbf the idea of carbon capture is to undo damage, and not sustain fossil fuels. We move to clean energy which alone we know is not enough, and then capture to compensate. But i agree with you it shaky and mostly used for green washing and pretending there isn’t a problem.
To power these capture fueling machines we need energy, and there’s no point in doing all that if we can pump clean energy into the capture devices.
It absolutely does matter. This article is not about DAC, it is about carbon capture. They are entirely different processes.
What goes into capturing and storing all of the concentrated GHG at the time of combustion at the site of energy production is entirely different than what goes in to pulling already-dispersed CO2 directly from the air. For one thing, carbon capture is necessarily powered by fossil fuels. DAC is virtually always renewable-powered because it makes zero sense otherwise.
These terms have meaning. I understand they are confusing, which is why I clarified for you. When you said that carbon capture may “work eventually”, I now know you were talking about DAC. But that’s an entirely different thing that isn’t relevant.
Carbon capture is a process for using fossil fuels without releasing GHG. It is not pulling CO2 from the atmosphere; that is a different thing. Almost certainly a total technological dead end not worth pursuing.
What are you talking about, dude? This thread is about US Steel wanting to use CCS. Your post is top-level, you’ve been talking to me the whole time, and the only other thread here is the guy talking about Swiss steel projects that don’t use CCS nor DAC.
Your original comment doesn’t mention DAC. It mentions carbon capture. I replied to you basically agreeing and saying I really didn’t think carbon capture has any actual application, at which point your reply showed you didn’t know that DAC and CCS/carbon capture are different things and has been using carbon capture to talk about DAC, so I explained the difference for you – because I know the terms confuse a lot of people. And you got defensive.
Seriously, I encourage you to take a moment and look through this exchange from the beginning. Clearly it’s not worth continuing, but this is incredibly frustrating for me.
Honestly, it probably will not work eventually. It just feels too close to a thermodynamics violation.
It is just impossible for me to believe you can burn a fossil fuel and capture all of the GHG thus produced for a lower cost than it would’ve been to just use renewable energy in the first place.
Well tbf the idea of carbon capture is to undo damage, and not sustain fossil fuels. We move to clean energy which alone we know is not enough, and then capture to compensate. But i agree with you it shaky and mostly used for green washing and pretending there isn’t a problem.
To power these capture fueling machines we need energy, and there’s no point in doing all that if we can pump clean energy into the capture devices.
We need the remaining coal to reboot society too.
No, carbon capture happens at the smokestack.
You’re thinking of DAC – direct air capture.
It doesn’t matter, it’s carbon capture (from the stack, or air directly). These require energy we don’t have, even where there are smoke stacks.
It absolutely does matter. This article is not about DAC, it is about carbon capture. They are entirely different processes.
What goes into capturing and storing all of the concentrated GHG at the time of combustion at the site of energy production is entirely different than what goes in to pulling already-dispersed CO2 directly from the air. For one thing, carbon capture is necessarily powered by fossil fuels. DAC is virtually always renewable-powered because it makes zero sense otherwise.
These terms have meaning. I understand they are confusing, which is why I clarified for you. When you said that carbon capture may “work eventually”, I now know you were talking about DAC. But that’s an entirely different thing that isn’t relevant.
Carbon capture is a process for using fossil fuels without releasing GHG. It is not pulling CO2 from the atmosphere; that is a different thing. Almost certainly a total technological dead end not worth pursuing.
Bro way to come in late to the conversation like anybody was talking to you.
I responded to a comment that was talking about the technology itself, not the article. What I said still stands, go be pedantic somewhere else.
You didn’t reply to a comment. Your post is top-level.
You’re confused and defensive and don’t know what is going on here.
And the “technology itself” is CCS, not DAC. It’s not the technology you think it is. Try to learn instead of being a jerk.
The comment you replied to is in a thread.
My original commment does not mention the DAC.
What are you talking about, dude? This thread is about US Steel wanting to use CCS. Your post is top-level, you’ve been talking to me the whole time, and the only other thread here is the guy talking about Swiss steel projects that don’t use CCS nor DAC.
Your original comment doesn’t mention DAC. It mentions carbon capture. I replied to you basically agreeing and saying I really didn’t think carbon capture has any actual application, at which point your reply showed you didn’t know that DAC and CCS/carbon capture are different things and has been using carbon capture to talk about DAC, so I explained the difference for you – because I know the terms confuse a lot of people. And you got defensive.
Seriously, I encourage you to take a moment and look through this exchange from the beginning. Clearly it’s not worth continuing, but this is incredibly frustrating for me.