Study casts doubt on carbon capture

Posted: October 25, 2019 by oldbrew in climate, Emissions, propaganda
Tags: ,

Photosynthesis: nature requires carbon dioxide

There was plenty of doubt already. Here they once again try to conflate life-giving CO2 with air pollution. This kind of crude and highly misleading propaganda intended to demonise an important trace gas has to be called out.

One proposed method for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere—and reducing the risk of climate change (claims—is to capture carbon from the air or prevent it from getting there in the first place.

However, research from Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University, published in Energy and Environmental Science, suggests that carbon capture technologies can cause more harm than good.

“All sorts of scenarios have been developed under the assumption that carbon capture actually reduces substantial amounts of carbon. However, this research finds that it reduces only a small fraction of carbon emissions, and it usually increases air pollution,” said Jacobson, who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering.

“Even if you have 100 percent capture from the capture equipment, it is still worse, from a social cost perspective, than replacing a coal or gas plant with a wind farm because carbon capture never reduces air pollution and always has a capture equipment cost. Wind replacing fossil fuels always reduces air pollution and never has a capture equipment cost.”

Jacobson, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, examined public data from a coal with carbon capture electric power plant and a plant that removes carbon from the air directly. In both cases, electricity to run the carbon capture came from natural gas.

He calculated the net CO2 reduction and total cost of the carbon capture process in each case, accounting for the electricity needed to run the carbon capture equipment, the combustion and upstream emissions resulting from that electricity, and, in the case of the coal plant, its upstream emissions. (Upstream emissions are emissions, including from leaks and combustion, from mining and transporting a fuel such as coal or natural gas.)

Common estimates of carbon capture technologies—which only look at the carbon captured from energy production at a fossil fuel plant itself and not upstream emissions—say carbon capture can remediate 85-90 percent of carbon emissions.

Once Jacobson calculated all the emissions associated with these plants that could contribute to global warming, he converted them to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide in order to compare his data with the standard estimate.

He found that in both cases the equipment captured the equivalent of only 10-11 percent of the emissions they produced, averaged over 20 years.

Full article here.

  1. ivan says:

    suggests that carbon capture technologies can cause more harm than good.

    The primary question is ‘how do we get across to the blockhead climate,so called, scientists, that eliminating CO2 from the air will remove plant life from the planet closely followed by all humans.

    CO2 is necessary for life on this planet the idiots that demonised it should be hung, drawn and quartered.

    [reply] let’s not get carried away here 🙂

  2. hunterson7 says:

    Perhaps the difficulty in actually reducing CO2 without hurting people or the environment is so hard because it is so stupid to worry about in the first place.

  3. tom0mason says:

    The crass ignorance.
    The atmosphere is NOT an isolated bio-system, it is part of the structural and biological global system of this beautiful planet.
    If you ‘decarbonize’ the atmosphere then the CO2 partial pressure differential with the oceans/seas/lakes/etc. would increase, and CO2 would vent from them to reestablish an atmospheric equilibrium!
    If at the current oceanic SST (sea surface temperature) and global atmospheric temperatures, the atmospheric CO2 level must be 410ppm, then that is where it will be.
    NO AMOUNT of CO2 sequestration will prevent it.

  4. Phoenix44 says:

    Well yes. You can’t get more out than you put in.

  5. Dave Ward says:

    “Capture carbon from the air”

    Once more, so called “experts” don’t seem to know the difference between carbon & carbon dioxide…

  6. oldbrew says:

    Having adopted an absurd theory of how planetary atmospheres work, everything flowing from that will mirror the absurdity.

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    humans contribute some 3.5% of atmospheric CO2. So even if we wiped out humanity the planet would hardly notice. For some reason I can’t seem to get warmists to recognize that simple fact when they think CO2 will set the planet on fire and we will all die from it.

    When you tell them that the CO2 temperature (supposed) relationship is logarithmic they get that glassy deer in the headlights look and then start respewing end of the world tripe. It’s a religion subscribed to by high IQ (Idiot Quotient) sheeple who are unable to see past the rent seeking BS by “climate scientists”.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Including water vapour, which is the major radiative ‘gas’ player, with CO2, the percentage of man-made greenhouse (so-called) gases is indeed very small.

    Fooling around with methods of extracting or capturing harmless CO2 is an obvious nonsense. Double counting solar input by pretending radiative gases equate to an original energy source is never going to work either.

  9. Graeme No.3 says:

    The cheapest way to reduce carbon dioxide is to grow more plants.
    The gullibles ‘think’ that chopping down forests and burning some of the wood would actually remove CO2.