LeftieBiker wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:29 am
Trying to decide it's one or the other, as to finance for renewables or finance for cleanup, is missing the point. The message of the IPCC reports is that at least some of both need to happen simultaneously.
I'm saying that we need to expend most of the available resources on preventing carbon emissions, while continuing to research, on a much smaller scale, atmospheric capture and various forms of sequestration - NOT including injection into oilfields and mines. We need to do what we can do right now, RIGHT NOW. The time for assessing science fiction scenarios that may work in 30-50 years is long passed. Biofuels like algae-produced gasoline analogs are worth pursuing. Fighting deforestation is worth doing. E-85 tech, though, was always a sop to the North American corn growers and to US auto makers who wanted to kick the can down the road - and get paid for doing so. It is the filtered cigarettes of climate change modification.
I think there may be some disagreement as to what is do-able right now, and what is advisable to finance with some near-term risk.
A few illustrative points. This article from today highlights that at least some of the technological work is already done, and that finance, not innovation is the hurdle, in some respects. And that if the carbon price is there, in effect, this would create greater demand for the supplying of solutions:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... -or-mirage
Carbon Capture: Silver Bullet or Mirage?
Carbon capture’s prospects are brighter than ever, but carbon pricing remains a major hurdle.
Jason Deign December 07, 2020
"....For carbon capture to take off in a meaningful way, companies will need to have a clear financial incentive. That means having carbon pricing comfortably above the cost of capture, usage and/or storage. And the cost depends on where the carbon is coming from....."
This IEA report page they link seems also helpful, though I haven't read deeply into it yet.
https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-cle ... ransitions
As well, I had forgotten this about Musk, and I don't hang on or agree with his every word, but on this point, it would be difficult to find anything he's ever done or said with which I agree more strongly:
https://insideevs.com/features/458853/t ... nstration/
Could Tesla CEO Elon Musk's Carbon Tax Vision Become A Reality?
Dec 07, 2020 7h ago
"....Driving a gasoline-powered car is a classic example of an "untaxed negative externality." Fossil fuel powered cars create emissions that accelerate climate change and causes all kinds of damage, without paying any kind of penalty.
Musk argued this situation was costing $5.3 trillion a year, citing International Monetary Funds data. For him, the solution was obvious: "We need to move away from this and have a carbon tax."...."
Now this is not focused on pollution cleanup, but is more of a generic comment on carbon taxes and global climate emergency financial flow, but I think it's pretty clear from other links that a meaningful widespread carbon tax of some sort is important to financing the build-out of co2 cleanup services and technologies.
With that said, we also had this week someone else point up the Chile-based project to manufacture drop-in gasoline replacements, including (it would seem) from ambient CO2 feedstock, so that would seem to be another indicator that the relevant technologies are somewhat further along than has in the past been discussed. I do think there is a phenomenon at play here that discussion itself of this topic has been in many climate emergency discussion quarters very stultified for a very long time, and so it has been difficult to find a toe-hold for discussing the importance of pollution cleanup alongside pollution prevention, with some carbon warriors tenaciously arguing that pollution cleanup technology is way-unrealistic and not ready-for-use and the emergency is too great and prevention should be massively prioritized.
https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2020/co ... 23021.html
"....Chile, with its excellent climate conditions for wind power and the associated low cost of electricity, has a very high potential in international terms for producing, exporting and locally using green hydrogen. To generate green hydrogen, electrolysers use wind power to dissociate water into its two components: oxygen and hydrogen. In a second step, plans call for filtering CO2 out of the air and then combining it with the green hydrogen to form synthetic methanol. The result is renewable methanol, which can be converted into climate-friendly fuel using an MTG (methanol to gasoline) technology to be licensed and supported by ExxonMobil....."
In any case, regardless of disagreements or figuring out information relevant to broader climate emergency considerations, I think this last headline was just so welcome, and could have ramifications for the direction of this thread, if indeed it turns out to be legit that drop-in gasoline replacements are coming along.