EFI, Stanford team release California carbon capture and storage action plan
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Today, the Energy Futures Initiative (EFI) and Stanford University released “An Action Plan for Carbon Capture and Storage in California: Opportunities, Challenges, and Solutions,” a report providing policymakers with options for near-term actions to deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS) to meet the state’s climate goals.
The study, six months in the making, concludes that CCS offers a clean technology pathway for rapidly reducing emissions from economically vital sectors that have few other options to decarbonize. It can also support clean, firm power, an essential enabler of intermittent renewable generation. The report will be introduced in a virtual briefing led by Ernest J. Moniz, former U.S. Secretary of Energy and founder of EFI and Franklin Orr, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University. They will be joined by the report’s co-leads, EFI’s Melanie Kenderdine and Sally Benson, Professor at the Department of Energy Resources Engineering at Stanford University.
“California has the most ambitious carbon reduction goals in the nation,” said Benson. “Our study outlines the vital role that CCS could play in achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.”
EFI, a nonprofit think tank established by former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, previously published “Optionality, Flexibility, and Innovation: Pathways for Deep Decarbonization in California,” which concluded that the targeted use of CCS could be one of the single largest contributors to California’s decarbonization by 2030.
“California has a strong economic base, a skilled workforce, and enviable innovation capacity at its laboratories, universities, and tech companies,” said Kenderdine. “The state is well placed to accelerate its progress on developing the clean energy technologies that will decarbonize industry and the power sector, create jobs, and new industries enabled by CCS, such as a hydrogen economy, and become a global leader in deploying CCS technologies.”
CCS, like all other emission reduction technologies, is not a “silver bullet” technology for decarbonization. Carbon capture paired with permanent geologic storage (i.e. deep saline reservoir) is a viable and important option for reducing emissions from the industrial and electricity sectors that are key contributors to California’s economy and the reliability of its grid.
Technoeconomic analysis done for this study identified 76 existing electricity generation and industrial facilities as candidates for CCS, in total representing nearly 15 percent of the state’s current greenhouse gas emissions.
Successful policy pathways for achieving California’s ambitious emission reduction targets are critical. Additional and accelerated actions are needed to ensure that the state successfully transitions to a carbon neutral economy both economically and equitably. California’s economy would be the fifth largest in the world as a stand-alone entity, so the state’s success in meeting its emissions targets and as a technology leader have significant implications for the global climate solutions.
Some key takeaways from the report:
- California’s economy would see rapid near-term emissions reduction benefits from CCS;
- The state has a strong foundation for supporting CCS projects, and the study has identified 76 facilities suitable for carbon capture;
- California’s geology makes it well suited for safe, permanent CO2 storage; and
- California could prioritize CCS projects that have demonstrable local air quality benefits and local job opportunities in line with the state’s climate and equity goals
###
The report will be released today at a virtual event introduced by Ernest J, Moniz where the team will discuss key findings. Watch the event at https://sccs.stanford.edu/2020-ccs-report-launch from 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. PT, (2:30-4:00 p.m. ET).
You can download the full report and a summary there.
About the Energy Futures Initiative
The Energy Futures Initiative advances technically-grounded solutions to the climate crisis through science-based analysis, thought leadership, and coalition-building. Under the leadership of Ernest J. Moniz, the 13th U.S. Secretary of Energy, EFI conducts rigorous research to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy through innovation in technology, policy, and business models. EFI maintains editorial independence from its public and private sponsors. EFI’s reports are available for download at http://www.energyfuturesinitiative.org
About Stanford Precourt Institute for Energy
Through collaborations across campus, Stanford University’s Precourt Institute for Energy fosters and supports the Stanford energy community. The institute and its programs fund research that has the potential to solve today’s toughest energy challenges and help transform the world’s energy systems. Stanford students can discover energy through the institute’s experiential courses, internships, entrepreneurial activities and a one-week orientation for incoming graduate students. The Precourt Institute works with industry leaders, entrepreneurs and policymakers for the broad deployment of solutions. It also engages a wide range of stakeholders at events like the Global Energy Forum. https://energy.stanford.edu/
About the Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
The Stanford Center for Carbon Storage uses a multidisciplinary approach to conduct fundamental and applied research to address critical questions related to CO2 storage in geologic formations. The center also conducts technoeconomic and policy/regulatory assessment of CCS projects.https://sccs.stanford.edu/
CCS is an expensive unworkable unnecessary boondoggle. The ocean temperature sets the level of atmospheric CO2, regardless of emissions, so whatever CO2 is taken out of the air will be replaced naturally by outgassing via Henry’s Law. No amount of money or technology will stop it.
Nevertheless, CCS would be a way to address emissions from power plants. Would reliable power produced in this manner be less costly than intermittent power from wind and solar?
But what’s the point of using a sizable portion of total energy generation to pump CO2 into the ground that the ocean will always replace anyway, other than to waste time, energy, and money?
It’s a given that we will continue to be forced to do stupid things. The question I raised is about which is least stupid.
Ignoring CCS is the least stupid path.
Any society employing CCS will be at a competitive disadvantage with any society that does not. CCS amounts to throwing away energy.
That is the insanity of current “environmentalism”. It always used to be about consuming less, not consuming WAY more by pointlessly wasting a large proportion of your natural resources.
Hey here’s one “other option” they could use : DON’T “decarbonise” at all. Saves tons of energy, natural resources and money.
Added bonus of not knackering your “economically vital sectors “.
If CCS is the answers, it was a stupid question.
NO,NO, NO! CCS is a STUPID way to deal with emissions of CO2 PLANT FOOD that cannot and does not warm the climate.
Any policy aimed at decreasing emissions of CO2 are based on junk science and lies.
Comparing it with wind and solar is fallacious as they are all crappy and poorly planned efforts to make our energy too expensive to use.
Sure, but it would cost at least 30% more. Done on a large scale would require the construction of a new network of pipelines to transport the CO2 to appropriate wells for re-injection. The only reason the one CCS in Houston does not cost more is that they had an unused pipeline leading to a field that could benefit from CO2 injection. My old companies would love the idea since they make the gas treating chemicals and have the technology. We as consumers would have to pay more.
IIRC it takes about 20% of the power station output to compress the CO2 into a “typical” geostorage reservoir at say 1000 psi. Roughly this means the TIC would be about 140% of powergen only. This is definitely competitive with solar plus batteries and available 24/7….Corrosion problems in the CO2 removal system have NOT been overcome….with possible maintenance costs of double that of wind gens, but all taking up very much less real estate. But just go to natural gas, readily available technology, and it produces much less CO2, and has the huge benefit of being available in the smaller few hundred megawatt sizes that can feed small or existing grids without spending huge dollars on transmission lines.
The only solution to this incessant bickering about chemistry is to repeal Henry’s Law. First, from Omniscient Wiki, I looked up the Law:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Solutions_and_Mixtures/Ideal_Solutions/Dissolving_Gases_In_Liquids%2C_Henry's_Law
Next I looked up repeal of Henry’s Law and this one came out as the top search item:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_Acts
Witchcraft Act 1542 (Henry’s Law). The Law was repealed by Henry’s son, Edward VI, in 1547.[3]
I rest my case. Many of the tenets of Climate Science are indistinguishable from witchcraft. I was thinking about adding a \sarc, but that thought quickly passed.
‘The ocean temperature sets the level of atmospheric CO2, regardless of emissions, so whatever CO2 is taken out of the air will be replaced naturally by outgassing via Henry’s Law. ‘
That’s just fake/junk science.
griff calling something based on facts “fake/junk science”.
ROFL
The REAL fake/junk science is the claim that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem.
griff, the annual change in ML CO2 is driven by the annual insolation cycle, and the trend in CO2 is established by the area of the ocean above 25.6C.
Your comment was worthless.
Griff, sorry you are in denial of real science. We know our massive oceans can outgas CO2 if they warm. We also know the oceans’ mixed layer has been warming. You can object to the degree of outgassing that may be taking place, but denying it is happening is just plain anti-science nonsense.
In addition, the oceans will warm if there is an increase in salinity. That same increase will also increase the outgassing of CO2. According to Thirumalai et al 2018 there is solid evidence of the increase in salinity and ocean warming going back 400 years.
1) I’m willing to bet that griff doesn’t even know what Henry’s Law is.
2) As usual, griff just expects us to except him as an expert witness who doesn’t need to provide proof of their claims.
Poor griff.. Displaying his complete and utter IGNORANCE every time he posts.
He makes a mockery of the AGW farce. !
I consider myself a climate know nothing, but I do appreciate comments like Griff’s, it brings out interesting comments (most of them), from some obviously very climate knowledgable people.
griff says “That’s just fake/junk science.”, shows his belief that the atmosphere and the oceans act independently of each other when it come to dissolved gases. More griff originated anti-science.
Nature determines the atmospheric CO2 level not humans!
Nature determines which way the climate will change not humans!
CCS is just another boondoggle for government funded corruptocrats and their hangers on.
Henry’s law is just part of the complex chemistry that describes the solubility of CO2 in water. Henry’s law applies to the solubility of molecular CO2 in water as a function of its concentration in the air. There are three chemical reactions going on as well: one between molecular CO2 dissolved in water and carbonic acid, another between carbonic acid and bicarbonate ion, and the other between bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion. At the pH of the ocean of approximately 8.1, most of the CO2 in the ocean is present as bicarbonate ion. However, the actual equilibrium is dependent on salt concentration, temperature, and biological activity. Nothing is truly at equilibrium since CO2 is constantly being produced and consumed in the ocean. However, if the system is close to equilibrium and the water is warmed, it will outgas CO2. This is fundamental chemistry and cannot be dismissed as junk science. The question is whether we are at those conditions. I don’t have access to the tools to calculate this for a particular set of conditions. ASPEN + OLI is capable of this calculation.
This is also something I could measure given the equipment I used to have access to. I had a nice IR analyzer for the CO2 in the gas phase, and a simple syringe containing a carbonate-free caustic solution to trap all the CO2 in the liquid phase. The strong caustic converts all the CO2 and bicarbonate in the liquid sample to carbonate, which is then measured by ionic HPLC. I have considerable experience performing a similar measurement for CO2 equilibria between the gas phase and gas treating solutions (usually but not always amine-based solutions like MDEA – methy diethanolamine). these measurements were used to determine the performance of gas-treating technologies, which are used to clean up natural gas, flue gas, and CCS among other applications.
Perhaps you have access to some journal articles where this type of study has already been performed. i am not in that industry any more and don’t have the world at my fingertips for free any more. However, don’t dismiss the science, it is on very firm footing.
To say it’s not workable is wrong, it’s old technology that’s been used for decades to remove CO2 from natural gas and then compress it to a super critical state and pump it underground. What is true is that is expensive in both equipment cost and operational energy use and highly questionable if it’s actually suitable for storing CO2 for 1000’s of years. The expense makes it an uneconomic solution, a common problem for all CO2 removal schemes.
To say it’s not workable is wrong,… Yes we agree on why it isn’t practical.
It’s “unworkable” in that it will fail to meet the expected result of reducing atmospheric CO2 because the ocean will replace sequestered CO2, which won’t change the temperature or climate.
Solar panels and windmills “work” but are “unworkable” for baseload w/o storage.
Batteries “work” for storage but are “unworkable” for universal baseload replacement because of insufficient material and environmental destruction, preventing widespread scale up.
“expensive” I believe that’s the whole idea. It increases the cost of electricity generated by fossil fuel to make “green energy” look more affordable. I still wondering why hydroelectric generating is not “green energy”.
Bob: We may have an experiment underway at this very moment with Covid Lockdown to prove your point. So far there seems to be little sign that atmos CO2 is falling. I mentioned the same thing on a posting a couple of months ago that the reduction in emissions would lower the partial pressure which would immediately be responded to by oceans giving off more CO2.
Gee I hope all these professional engineers, scientists, professors at Stanfords lofty research institutes and think tanks are asterisks for refresher courses to requalify if the real life experiment proves to be right.
Eureka! I think they’ve got it. Don’t be green, go green, not Green.
It would be necessary to change the temperature of the sea surface in order to change the CO2 content of the earth’s atmosphere. Henry’s Law determines the equilibrium of oceanic to atmospheric CO2 via temperature. Because a new equilibrium cannot be established at high speed, this process takes time. Therefore, an integration of the temperature with an offset gives the atmospheric CO2 content.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4tr/from:1959/offset:0.57/integral/scale:0.175/offset:315/plot/esrl-co2
The derivation of the atmospheric CO2 gives the rate of change as a function of the temperature.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4tr/from:1959/mean:5/offset:0.57/scale:2/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/mean:6/scale:12
There is no climate change due to anthropogenic CO2.
Very nice Joachim, although ‘equilibrium’ is never achieved. Outgassing occurs above 25.6C, and the integration of the ocean area above 25.6C correlates with ML CO2. MME are just part of the mix not driving anything except madness among climate scientists.
Well Bob,
If your reality is accepted, then griff (& the idiots at ‘EFI, a nonthink profit tank established by former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest J. Monizthe’), will just backtrack and say we need to do this to help the oceans continued offgassing … to keep them from becoming acidic.
Keep up the common sense though, eventually they’ll run out of targets to move around.
…to keep them from becoming acidic.
The ocean is alkaline, not acidic, so it won’t be acidic at all until pH<7. Thanks to buffering the 'basic' ocean can only 'neutralize' until it becomes acidic, then we could talk about acidification, and not until then, which may never happen.
– EPA
The EPA has entered the orwellian twilight zone with ‘acidification’ terminology.
It’s ocean neutralization not acidification, and it’s very minor, not a problem.
I hope my taxes did not help pay for this.
If “California’s geology makes it well suited for safe, permanent CO2 storage …”
. . . it should also be well suited for nuclear power facilities.
You took the words right out of my mouth
BEWARE! Beware Callyfornia initiatives on climate. This is a racket……huge amounts of money sloshing around…research….schemes and scams. The basic question has never been answered whether any man made CO2 causes any warming of the atmosphere…..furthermore, whether massive economic changes would be justified. Let the wind/solar countries waste their economies…..let the USA build thorium MSRs and thrive economically on cheap electricity.
The even bigger question is who does California think will pay for this. They are already on the ropes financially and it doesn’t look like Pelosi’s black mail plan to get Trump to bail out the blue states is going to work.
I can’t believe these people are paid to produce such drivel. WTF would we even think such a thing is necessary? It’s not rational and really sad.
Total groupthink in action? Or just a scam to keep being funded? Pure BS
EFI, a nonthink profit tank established by former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz
This is oxymoronic as ‘science-based analysis’ shows there is no climate crisis to find a solution to.
I’m not a geologist and may be asking a dunce question: But how can we be assured that a CO2 injection well can’t belch it all back out and kill everything downwind for miles and miles — like a man made Lake Nyos event?
Using the EPA’s published estimate of 181.85 metric tons CO2/railcar of coal, a couple of 800 MWE coal-fired power plants would end up injecting a few hundred tons of CO2 per day. Multiply that by several years of operation, an you realize there is a truly vast amount of gas being injected.
So, when terrorists blow the head off the injection well, what keeps all that from blowing right back out the hole and becoming an extreme disaster?
First off, CO2 is not toxic, so there’s not a downwind calamity to be had. The worst that would happen is the at the grass will grow faster (Californians would approve) and the trees will grow bigger. WIN-WIN
That’s not really true. Although CO2 is not toxic a large leak of concentrated CO2 will displace air and take time to dissipate resulting in asphyxiation of air breathing critters in the area. Same way CO2 extinguishes a fire. See Bro. Steve’s reference to the Lake Nyos event.
A well bore is an awfully small hole in the reservoir. It isn’t going to asphyxiate those for miles around any more that a natural gas well blowout is going to incinerate everyone for miles around…..no just too small…
You’re right, Rick. Everyone should remember the Lake Nyos disaster.
CO2 is heavier than air and will suffocate anything and anyone that needs oxygen to live.
It is not a question of toxicity.
Steve is exactly right and even gave the pertinent example of CO2 causing the rapid death of a large number or people when an overturning volcanic crater lake belched a large volume of it into the air.
It is not a huge lake by any means…less than a square mile, and with an average depth of some 90 meters.
1,746 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages were killed with no chance to escape.
See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster
Front page news around the world the day after it occurred.
Decompressing will make it cold, which also makes it more dense.
No different than underground natural gas storage.
Can anyone say Aliso canyon??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak
Just saying – not sure if anyone else already posted this btw. Underground storage or sequestration clearly has some risks (if you believe the carbon is bad thing of course). It won’t stay there forever an there isn’t enough space to do it in any event for any significant length of time/amount of production. Would cost a fortune and only benefit those that get paid to do the sequestration….rest of us would have to pay for it.
“Stanford students can discover energy through the institute’s experiential courses, internships, entrepreneurial activities and a one-week orientation for incoming graduate students.”
And all that just by walking. The more they walk the more energy used. Of course sitting in the classroom would conserve energy.
CO2 is not a problem, Carbon Capture and Storage is totally without merit.
Steve, not entirely ‘without merit’, many oil companies capture CO2 and inject it into reservoirs to enhance oil recoveries. As a result the CO2 is sequestered in depleted reservoirs. A recently completed project, that I worked on, at the Sturgeon Refinery in Alberta is the CO2 equivalent of taking 200,000 cars off the road. Such projects that sequester CO2 to produce more oil, are however hated by greensters. The technology is transferable to CCS and depleted gasfields across the Western Sedimentary Basin are are potential storage resource that previously held methane for millions of years, and is already tapped by thousands of wellbores….. if we end up forced into CCS…..
If they reckon fracking is causing earthquakes, just wait until they start blowing up huge underground balloons with millions of cubic feet of CO2.
Of course it could be an excuse to regenerate California oil extraction, to give it some space underground to stick their CO2.
I wonder if any of this stupidity would stop if we put these women back in the nursery & kitchen. It appears to me the more ladies involved the more anxiety & fool ideas.
You noticed that too, huh?
Me too!
CO2 is in “dense phase” at a typical design storage pressure and you can store an awful lot more tons of it at the same pressure that the natural gas that used to be in the depleted reservoir. So your earthquake fears are unfounded.
AND there are PLENTY of women in science who are NOT dingbats and don’t act like that. So stuff it.
Tell ’em, Sara! 🙂
Sounds sketchy especially with all the hyperbolic wording. Reads like marketing department wet dream.
Has anybody thought of just planting some trees? There is a cheap, reliable carbon sequester.
Trump touted his Trillion trees CO2 sequestration program as a solution tonight in his debate with Dementia Joe.
Far more workable proposal than the Democrats GND climate justice reparations nonsense.
Someone got there first I think
LOL!
Those trees grow all on their own as the permafrost line very slowly moves North….and billions of tons of CO2 is sequestered in the boreal forests that grew since since the ice sheets retreated 80 centuries ago.
I knew that. I was being ironic
“California has a strong economic base, a skilled workforce, and enviable innovation capacity at its laboratories, universities, and tech companies” … and it’s all being wasted dreaming up fake solutions to fake problems, instead of helping everyone by doing something useful. If CO2 was really a problem then spread a little iron dust on the oceans and the problem would be fixed in a year and the fishes and the rest of the marine biosphere would love us. How dare they waste time with wind and solar that will never make a dent in the CO2 increase even decades from now? Think of the children!
CCS : Carbon Clowns of Standford ?
no d. Stanford clowns
oops … Stanford of course.
These Stanford IYI’s always champion “capture” technology.
But the other half of the real “hard” issue in CCS is “sequestration.” How they are going to provide for the safe, secure sequestration of millions of metric tonnes of captured liquid or gas CO2 for thousands of years is completely beyond their grasp, both conceptually and engineering wise.
At least their hated petroleum industry has some productive use for captured CO2… use it to produce more petroleum from oil fields. But I doubt that would make the econutters happy.
Hence they are all IYI’s.
What is the energy cost of these “capture” schemes? They can’t be cheap.
Approximately 30% of the power generated by a generating plant would be consumed in a CCS scheme. So now you have to build more plants to recover your lost capacity.
This is insane.
“California’s economy would see rapid near-term emissions reduction benefits from CCS;”
What benefits would they see? There would be no reduction in temperature they could detect. There would be no drop in atmospheric CO2 that could be detected
More government spending and higher taxes is how the leftists quantify “economy”, just like the Green Raw Deal pushed by that idiot Biden: “thousands and millions of new JOBS!”
FFS.. Leave the CO2 in the atmosphere WHERE IT BELONGS
CCS is the most RIDICULOUS idea ever invented !!
True dat!
Not only stupid, but will have ZERO impact ..
The amount the could be C&S’ed would be but a tiny tiny fraction of what is produced.
All it takes is plentiful electrical power and billions in infrastructure investment. The complete dedication of “76 existing electricity generation and industrial facilities as candidates for CCS” in a state with an energy production deficit would capture at best 15% of state carbon output budget. Not at all self-defeating.
this was what ended the Biden campaign tonite…and Biden is trying to walk it back. BEST BIT IS KRISTEN WELKER’S RESPONSE:
VIDEO: 22 Oct: Mediaite: Trump Lock Horns as Ex-Veep Says ‘I Would Transition’ America From the Oil Industry
by Ken Meyer
Near the end of the debate, President Donald Trump overran NBC’s Kristen Welker in order to ask Biden “would you close down the oil industry.”
***“I would transition from the oil industry,” Biden answered, which Trump pronounced a “big statement” as Welker asked “WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?”…
UPDATE – 12:18 a.m. ET: After the debate, Biden sent out a statement to the media clarifying that the ex-veep was directing his remarks toward oil subsidies.
“We’re not getting rid of fossil fuels. We’re getting rid of the subsidies for fossil fuels, but we’re not getting rid of fossil fuels for a long time. It will not be gone [until] probably 2050.”
The ex-veep insisted that people in the oil industry are “not going to lose their jobs,” and that exploring alternative energy will result in a lot more jobs being created.
Watch above, via CNN.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/biden-trump-lock-horns-as-ex-veep-says-i-would-transition-america-from-the-oil-industry/
23 Oct: Daily Mail: Joe Biden promises he WILL start transition away from oil industry by 2050 as he and Donald Trump clash over climate with president saying: ‘I know more about wind than you do – windmills kill all the birds’
Democratic nominee Joe Biden vowed at the debate Thursday to move away from the oil industry toward solar and wind to achieve zero emissions by 2050
‘That’s a big statement,’ Donald Trump said, then called the idea a ‘pipe dream’
By KATELYN CARALLE
‘Would you close down the oil industry?’ Trump asked Biden during a back-and-forth on the environment and energy sources at the debate in Nashville, Tennessee Thursday evening.
‘I would transition from the oil industry, yes,’ Biden affirmed, vowing to put a process in place to do so by 2050 if he were elected.
‘Oh, a transition. That’s a big statement,’ Trump said.
Biden shot back: ‘It is a big statement.’
‘WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?’ the debate moderator, NBC News’ Kristen Welker, cut in.
‘Because the oil industry pollutes it significantly,’ Biden said. ‘Because it has to be replaced by renewable energy – over time, over time. And I’ve stopped giving to the oil industry, I would stop giving them federal subsidies. You won’t give federal subsidies to the gas — excuse me, to solar and wind. Why are we giving them to the oil industry?’
‘We actually do give them (SUBSIDIES) to solar and wind and that is the biggest statement in terms of business, that is the biggest statement because basically what you’re saying – he is destroying the oil industry. Will you remember that, Texas? Will you remember that, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Ohio?’ Trump lamented.
Biden assured reporters before boarding his plane at the Nashville airport after the debate that people in the oil industry would not lose their jobs because there would be more created in the transition toward renewable energy.
‘Eventually we’re going to have to go to oil, but we’re not getting rid of fossil fuels,’ Biden clarified from his debate remarks. ‘We’re getting rid of the subsidies for fossil fuels, but we’re not getting rid of fossil fuels for a long time.’
When pushed on if people would lose their jobs, Biden said, ‘Well, they’re not going to lose their jobs. And besides, they’re gonna…there are a lot more jobs that are gonna be created in other alternatives.’…
‘We are energy independent,’ Trump assured after Biden claimed the ‘fastest growing industry in America’ is solar energy and wind…
The former vice president vowed while remaining on the topic of the environment and energy, that his plan would bring the total emissions to zero by 2050.
‘We have to move toward a net zero emissions,’ Biden said. ‘The first place to do that by the year 2035 is an energy production. By 2050, totally.’…
As Trump went all in against wind energy, he praised solar for being the better option of the two, but claimed it’s not ‘quite there yet.’
‘It’s not powerful yet to really run our big, beautiful factories that we need to compete with the world,’ Trump claimed.
‘False,’ Biden cut-in.
Trump also railed against Biden for his vow to ban fracking, which the former vice president has claimed was taken out of context.
‘He takes everything out of context, but the point is, we have to move toward a net zero emissions,’ Biden said.
Trump slammed the idea as a ‘pipe dream.’…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8870851/Biden-promises-transition-away-oil-2050-Trump-says-Windmills-kill-birds.html
All those people in the oil industry will find new jobs using hammers and saws to break up all the wind turbine blades being processed for land fills.
“UPDATE – 12:18 a.m. ET: After the debate, Biden sent out a statement to the media clarifying that the ex-veep was directing his remarks toward oil subsidies.
“We’re not getting rid of fossil fuels. We’re getting rid of the subsidies for fossil fuels, but we’re not getting rid of fossil fuels”
Well, the moderator asked Mister BIG why he would want to phase out oil and Biden said because oil causes pollution.
So Biden claiming he was really talking about phasing out the oil subsidies is a lie because oil subsidies don’t cause pollution.
If there are “gonna be a lot more jobs” for the “alternative” that of course means much more labor for the same amount of energy and therefore the “alternative” by definition will be more costly.
That also assumes Joe understands how to rapidly scale up from 2-3 % of total energy to near 100%.
(BTW, of course it is a lot easier to be “rapidly growing” when you are a miniscule portion of a total. One can easily double from 3% to 6% – but you are still a small portion of the total.)
Biden family –
fossil fuels for “we”, but not for thee:
Wikipedia: Burisma
In 2016, Burisma was the second largest privately owned natural gas producer in Ukraine after DTEK, accounting for 26% of all natural gas produced by privately owned companies and more than 5% of total gas production in Ukraine. According to the company, it produced 1.3 billion cubic metres (4.6×1010 cubic feet) of natural gas in Ukraine in 2018…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma
Wikipedia: CEFC China Energy
In March 2020 the company was declared bankrupt as well as its subsidiaries CEFC Shanghai International and CEFC Hainan International…
In 2014 the company generated revenue mainly from oil and gas (60%)…
In September 2017 CEFC announced the purchase of a 14.16% stake in Rosneft, Russia’s largest oil producer, for about $9 billion. However, CEFC was unable complete the acquisition and paid a break fee of about $257 million to the sellers, a consortium of Qatar Investment Authority and Glencore…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEFC_China_Energy
at one point in the debate, Biden claimed he would capture fracking emissions.
Are we capturing atmospheric CO2? China’s and India’s? Big job, eh?”
So, it took 6 months to conclude/decide that digging a hole and burying something is not only a good way of getting rid something but also, such task requires a skilled viable workforce plus universities and tech laboratories.
Any one of us here might have spent an afternoon, tops, to come to that conclusion.
The biggest reservation any would have would be the large amounts of energy neede to do this burying, especially in California, *the* Western World leader in Rolling Blackouts
Yours truly does however have ‘an inside track’ and might have spent less time thinking than it’s taking to write this post.
As a (now retired) farmer, I know that nigh on 20 years ago in the UK at least, it became illegal to bury *anything*
Lest it should leak/escape/contaminate some/any/ known/unknown thing/person/critter/planet at any time in any future.
Lest I be hit with an insanely punitive fine that would have certainly bankrupted my pathetic little farming enterprise
‘some’ are more equal than others eh, or, as history tells anyone who knows any, Good Intentions and High Ideals pave the road to…… somewhere generally regarded to be hot.
I’d assert it is a desperately cold place
Oxygen causes fires in California and makes metal rust.
So it must be a bad right wing molecule like CO2.
So when we’ve finished removing CO2 from the atmosphere, bad oxygen will be the next target.
What could possibly go wrong?
(They make bombs out of nitrogen, don’t they? Them trrrrrrrists I mean… )
Phil:
..(They make bombs out of nitrogen, don’t they?
Nitrogen. The atmosphere is full of it (79%).
Pretty much inert except when excited by lightning to make NO2 which doubles as a plant fertilizer (as a nitrate) or a good fuel oxidizer for rockets like the Titan 2.
For a big bang we have Tri Nitro Toluene, Nitrogen tri Iodide, Nitro cellulose ( gun cotton), and my favorite Tri Nitro Glycerine which Alfred Nobel mixed with diatomaceous earth to stop it exploding when you looked at it, called the stuff dynamite, made a fortune and funded the Nobel Peace prize… Go figure!
Then there’s the dual purpose Ammonium Nitrate a plant fertilizer or explosive depending on whether you mix it with water or fuel oil. ..
#7 on the Periodic Table almost inert, essential to life and highly destructive all in one little molecule!
Cheers
Mike
Even then, if I read the report correctly, it would only tackle 15% of emissions. What about the rest?
“a report providing policymakers with options for near-term actions to deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS) to meet the state’s climate goals.” – Why deploy CCS and what can it possibly do for the State’s climate? How much extra energy will be needed to capture, transport and pump the CO2 underground?
“The study, six months in the making,” – What were they doing, obviously not looking at the atmospheric CO2 absorption of photons emitted from the Earth’s surface.
The near-surface atmospheric density is about 2.78 x 10^+19 molecules per cubic centimetre. On 21 October 2020, the CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory was 411.78 ppm. Hence the CO2 density would have been about 1.145 x 10^+16 molecules per cubic centimetre. The Earth’s surface at 15 degrees Celsius radiates about 6.929 x 10^+7 photons per cubic centimetre in the four main CO2 absorption bands. That is, there are about 165,200,000 CO2 molecules for every photon in each near-surface cubic centimetre which, in turn, means that all of the photons available for CO2 absorption are absorbed within a few hundred metres of the Earth’s surface. Reducing the CO2 concentration by half will only double the altitude at which complete absorption is achieved. What is that supposed to do to the climate? The same amount of photons are going to be absorbed near the Earth’s surface regardless of whether or not the CO2 concentration is halved or doubled because that is all that is available.
And what does the absorption of those photons achieve? Apparently they do not know that 99.8% of the photons are in the 15 micron band which is the peak of radiation from a source at -80 degrees Celsius. That is not going to warm the surface anywhere other than occasionally at the South Pole. Do they think that this will affect California’s climate ?
So :
fracturing rocks for no reason = good
fracturing rocks to get useful natural gas = bad.
Yes?
Confession – I really couldn’t be bothered to read this ‘research news’ closely, so I may have missed something. But, on scanning, it seems that the entire document is based on the existence of an economically viable CCS technology; IF that technology existed, then all the lovely benefits (yes, that would be sarcasm; can’t be too careful) would follow. So it really is unicorns. Astonishing. Does nobody at seminars and press conferences ever dare ask the question? What has happened to universities, which used to be places where difficult questions were encouraged?
Since we are sequestering 2 parts of O2 for every Carbon, Are we making much gain if any in the percentage? Will we ever need all that sequestered oxygen?
Unless the gas is used to produce more fossil fuels CC is a total waste of energy.
I worked on the mechanical contraption for a Carbon Capture project a few years ago and it seemed as though there were a lot of debates about science and thermodynamics let alone cost.
Unfortunately people like Representative Dan Crenshaw think this is a good idea. He is in favor of it in Texas. Some of our representatives have been carbon captured.
Thanks for calling out Crenshaw. He is a media darling in the John McCain mode.
He wrote an article on the need for a Conservative Climate Change plan for National Review. I responded by suggesting he check the Antarctic ice core data that show temperature change precedes CO2 change before he goes off to write his plan.
I guess there are people with money in Texas who are looking to jump on the “Clean Energy” subsidy wagon. One angle is to get the government to pay them for what they already do: strip the CO2 out of the natural gas and pump it back down into the field to force more gas up. If you call it “carbon sequestration” you win a subsidy.
Pleeease. They ALL are.
It’s 50 shades of John McCain.
Unless you plan on storing the Carbon as some kind of stable rock, trying to store carbon is one of the dumbest and dangerous experiments I can think of. Let’s say you pump hundreds of gigatons of CO2 under the ground in hopes it will slowly turn into carbonate rock. Then let’s say there is a major earthquake leading to higher pressures and new cracks to the surface. Where do you supposed all that high pressure CO2 goes?
Being heavier than air and likely cold to boot, it spreads out killing all air breathing lifeforms in an invisible tsunami. No thanks, I would rather it be left as plant food lightly distributed in the atmosphere.
CCS is a dead horse, a corpse, a fossile, and they insist in riding it. It is perfect plan to stop economic progress. Now it is just to enforce it on the whole globe i.e. Russia, China etc. Is it not so WEF, UN, WHO and your rather your sponsors?
The primary greenhouse gas that is emitted in California is H2O and not CO2. Molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger absorber of IR radiation then is CO2 and there is on average roughly 50 times more H2O in our atmosphere than is CO2. For those that believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, the contribution of CO2 is trivial. The best place to store CO2 is in the atmosphere where it can be used to feed plant life and where it can be absorbed by cold bodies of water. Of course the reality is that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero so in terms of climate, sequestering CO2 will have no effect.
Hey why don’t we all go plant some trees? I think that was where our illustrious site owner started off on his climate journey. Let’s go full circle.
But Stanford! What’s this got to do with néomarxiste тоталiтагуаиisм. They won’t be denied by CCS. This is the biggest carbon tax route of them all but it doesn’t put money in elitist pockets. I’m afraid you haven’t read the grant requirements.
Are people still pumping the CCS scam? Worse, are people still buying it?
The wonderful thing about this idea is that it would reduce CO2 emissions, while allowing particulate and NO2 emissions to continue at present levels, or even rise substantially. It would mean there is no reason to limit cars and mall culture, shopping can continue just as it does. Everything will carry on as before, its just that somewhere out of sight there will be plants extracting the CO2 from the air. Not the particulates and NO2, just the CO2.
So we extract the one exhaust gas that has never been shown to have any local health effects, while allowing the proliferation of exhaust products that make our cities unhealthy and unpleasant.
The current environmental movement has moved through various stages on the way here.
It started out demanding we do things, such as install wind and solar, or turn off standby, that have little or no effect on CO2 emissions.
Some of these things are seriously destructive both to the environment and human welfare. As for instance when we convert corn, which is food, into ethanol, thus raising food prices globally and eliminating agricultural surpluses which can feed people. As when we raze huge areas of tropical forest and habitat to plant palm oil crops, to generate ‘renewable’ energy. None of them actually reduce CO2 emissions.
The next step is to refuse to advocate doing things which would actually reduce emissions. Like, for instance, move populations into dense urban housing served by mass transit. Like, to get China to commit to real tonnage reductions.
Both of these suggest that the real problem to environmentalists is not CO2 emissions. I leave it to readers to figure out what the real problem might be in that case.
And here to help is another piece of the puzzle, which is actually quite logical in view of the underlying approach, its do things which will reduce CO2 while leaving all other pollution and all other lifestyle features exactly the same.
This is not about reducing CO2 emissions. Its not about safeguarding or improving wildlife habitats, ecologically important landscapes or human environments.
So what could it be about?