US launches $3.5 billion gamble on ‘carbon removal’ tech

Posted: May 22, 2022 by oldbrew in climate, Emissions, government, net zero
Tags:

CO2 is not pollution


Carbon removal? Nature does that job. Carbon pollution? Plants and vegetation require carbon dioxide to grow. Investing? They must be joking. Subsidising foolish ideas isn’t much of an investment.
– – –
The US Energy Department launched a program on Thursday to fund four large-scale projects across the country that can remove carbon dioxide from the air, investing $3.5 billion in a nascent technology the Biden administration says is necessary to meet a goal of achieving net zero emissions by mid century, reports msn.com.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report last month that said the world will need “carbon dioxide removal” technologies – ranging from planting trees that soak up carbon to grow, to costly technologies to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air to meet global goals to curb climate change.

“The UN’s latest climate report made clear that removing legacy carbon pollution from the air through direct air capture and safely storing it is an essential weapon in our fight against the climate crisis,” said Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.

Carbon removal technology has gained major attention and investment in recent months. There are three major direct air capture projects under development that have emerged in North America and Europe but they are only sucking up small amounts of CO2 from the air currently.

Earlier this year, technology firms Google, Shopify, Meta, and Stripe launched a $1 billion fund that will buy carbon removal credits over the next decade as a way to incentivize rapid deployment of the technology.

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk last year offered inventors $100 million in prize money to develop new carbon removal technologies.

The DOE said that by midcentury, carbon removal will need to be deployed at the gigaton scale, meaning it would need to be able to sequester the equivalent of emissions from approximately 250 million vehicles driven in one year.

Full report here.

Comments
  1. Philip Mulholland says:

    This study by Bud Bromley says human induced carbon capture is not going to work:

    To give the amounts of CO2 perspective, Earth’s “…forests provide a “carbon sink” that absorbs a net 7.6 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year…” (World Resources Institute, 2021). Cooler surface in the two years following Pinatubo absorbed net 2778 billion metric tons of CO2, and then in the next two years emitted that amount plus an additional increment.

    and in conclusion:

    The environment demonstrated a measured impulse to absorb 239 times the human-produced CO2 impulse when very conservatively calculated. Simply said, the natural environment is controlling CO2 concentration. Human CO2 emissions are not causing the increase in atmospheric CO2. CO2 concentration in the natural environment is controlled primarily by global temperature, most immediately by surface temperature, primarily sea surface temperature. These temperatures are controlled by various natural forces. Since an amount greatly exceeding all possible human CO2 emissions was absorbed rapidly by the environment, then no net warming or net cooling can be attributed to human CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emission is a minor perturbation which is rapidly returned to trend along with the much larger CO2 changes.

    Correcting Misinformation on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    Pinatubo Study Phase 1 Report

    By: Bud Bromley, April 29, 2022

  2. […] US launches $3.5 billion gamble on ‘carbon removal’ tech […]

  3. tallbloke says:

    The Pinatubo cooling was due to particles of SO2 in the upper atmosphere reflecting sunlight back to space instead of it reaching the surface, not the reduction in airborne CO2. The “Cooler surface in the two years following Pinatubo absorbed net 2778 billion metric tons of CO2”, but this didn’t make a dent on the Keeling curve, since it’s a tiny proportion of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Therefore, machines sucking CO2 out of the air (hugely expensive and consuming enormous amounts of power), will make no difference at all to surface temperature, even if the mainstream CO2 warming theory was correct (it isn’t).

  4. Gamecock says:

    Money going to Friends of Joe.

    Obama did this with Solyndra, et al. Indeed, some claim Obama still in charge, Biden just his front man. The pattern persists.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Only in climate models…

    The chances of staying below 1.5C are already vanishingly small. Rapid emissions cuts are needed to prevent temperatures spiralling out of control.

    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/05/20/the-un-needs-a-climate-chief-who-can-name-the-problem-climate-weekly/
    – – –
    As long as such things are believed, ‘carbon removal’ fantasies and vain attempts to implement them will persist.

    Money to burn…

    UK Green Tech Manufacturer Signs $875 Million Decarbonization Deal In The UAE
    May 19, 2022

    The $875 Million project, announced on May 16, will utilize decarbonization devices in reducing CO2 emissions for different industries in the UAE. It will focus on the decarbonization of waste gas on landfills and flare sites.

    https://carbonherald.com/uk-green-tech-manufacturer-signs-875-million-decarbonization-deal-in-the-uae/

    But the US wants its own ‘decarbonization devices’, and doesn’t mind spending $billions in the hope of getting something that might somehow work.

  6. JB says:

    About as good an investment as using that much in currency for fire tinder against the increasing cold. All these “investing” proponents will be long moldering in the dust by the time their ideological heirs are hit with the shortfall.
    To “Build Back Better” first everything must be trashed to its elemental state. Then they will be forced to repeat the cycle, as technology follows immutable physical principles.
    Social engineers…

  7. tallbloke says:

    Talking of investing:

  8. tallbloke says:

    Well worth a watch.

  9. pochas94 says:

    Parasitizing the taxpayer. It’s big business nowadays.

  10. Three Billion spent on carbon capture research is of no consequence!

    They spend Trillions of $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$, PLUS, £££,£££,£££,£££,£££ PLUS other currencies paid to Russia and China maintaining Blatant Lies for Maintaining Peer Reviewed Consensus False Climate Science, False Harm caused by CO2.

    They Ignore all the valid science about the Good Caused by Using Fossil Fuels and the Good Due to More CO2.

    They Ignore all the Harm Caused by Going Green.

    I will post this

  11. Three Billion spent on carbon capture research is of no consequence!
    They spend Trillions of $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$, PLUS, £££,£££,£££,£££,£££ PLUS other currencies paid to Russia and China maintaining Blatant Lies for Maintaining Peer Reviewed Consensus False Climate Science, False Harm caused by CO2.
    They Ignore all the valid science about the Good Caused by Using Fossil Fuels and the Good Due to More CO2.
    They Ignore all the Harm Caused by Going Green.

  12. In a “Court of Law”, deciding the Fate of Someone who is Accused of Murder” in the US Courts, A Jury of Twelve is Selected to Decide! The chosen are expected to be skeptical of all evidence and are expected to listen with an open mind to the proof presented and the opinions presented and are expected to determine the facts of the case, considering the evidence presented in favor for the different sides of the case.
    In “Climate Science”, Everything That is Done is Opposite of any Just System.

  13. dennisambler says:

    Figueres has made loads of money from this whole thing via “carbon trading”. She was a colleague of Nick Stern at the “carbon” consultancy, IdeaCarbon.

    https://www.ideacarbon.com/about-us/index.html
    “On June 25th, 2008, Lord Nicholas Stern launched the Carbon Ratings Agency on the London Stock Exchange, shortly after becoming Vice Chair of the Agency.

    Christiana Figueres played a vital role at The Carbon Ratings Agency as Vice Chair of its Ratings Committee for several years, before being recruited as head of the UNFCCC. She led the negotiations that delivered the Paris agreement, being called by the Guardian as the woman tasked with saving the world from global warming’.

    Lord Stern authored perhaps the key framework “The Economics of Climate Change”, a benchmark for global policy makers and the private sector to translate climate risk to macroeconomics. The work of our group has made contributions at the cutting edge of the 10-year journey which has now culminated in climate risk being the predominant factor being addressed by the private sector”

  14. stpaulchuck says:

    more rent seeking scam artists selling the “NEW” and “IMPROVED” snake oil

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s