Elon Musk says he's donating $100 million for carbon-capture tech prize

[Admin]

Elon Musk is putting a big chunk of change into the fight against climate change.

Elon Musk says he's donating $100 million for carbon-capture tech prize : Read more

 

[sam85geo]

Thank you Mr. Musk. Your challenge/offer may actually produce "a light at the end of the tunnel".

 

[Ken Fabian]

I think Musk's EV's and lower cost batteries will be a far more significant contribution to fixing the climate problem than negative emissions. For the most part Carbon Capture and Storage has been used to increase production from oil and gas wells, resulting in overall increase, not reduction of emissions - which should never get "emissions reduction" subsidies IMO.

The principle problem with CCS for enabling ongoing, unrestricted fossil fuel use is intractable - high quality coal burning makes about 2.8 tons of CO2 for every ton used. Above 3 tons for gas and oil. There is always much more CO2 (our single biggest waste product by a huge margin) than fuel burned yet whilst the infrastructure for extracting and using the fuel makes money, any carbon capture and storage costs money. And use more energy. Way more than the holes in the ground the fuels came from could take. As an addition to the transition to zero emissions it offers ways to further reduce climate harms - because stopping emissions doesn't take the world back to how it was; it will remain hotter than pre-industrial, with the unavoidable problems that causes.

Carbon taxes might fund such things as carbon capture although my own view is that a carbon pricing "signal" itself - not the use of the revenue - must be the focus. For one thing carbon taxes need to be designed to be avoidable, through inducing investment in clean energy. When a carbon tax works like it should there is no revenue. Any additional "carbon dioxide removal tax" should be treated a different policy to carbon pricing to induce a shift to zero emissions energy.

I think we will struggle to reach net zero emissions any time soon - although significant emissions reductions do look achievable and likely. Yet real carbon capture would be a valuable addition to clean energy, if only for allowing a way for various high emissions activities to continue. Some essential uses will probably persist but negative emissions is also a way of allowing ongoing freedom of choice; people should still have the choice to drive their beloved fuel guzzling muscle cars - or vintage vehicles - in a zero emissions world, but should have to pay for the negative emissions associated with it. So we do need reliable means to deliver negative emissions.

 

[GeoXXX]

The first step should be planting trees and let forests regrow naturally. It the most effective and indeed the cheapest way to achieve maximum impact.
Along with that build more nuclear plants.
Quit giving China and the third world a free ride on emissions.
While we are doing this work on carbon sequestration technologies.

 

[Ken Fabian]

The first step should be planting trees and let forests regrow naturally. It the most effective and indeed the cheapest way to achieve maximum impact.
Along with that build more nuclear plants.
Quit giving China and the third world a free ride on emissions.
While we are doing this work on carbon sequestration technologies.

Without a clear plan and deep non-partisan commitment planting trees at massive scale won't happen, new nuclear at massive scale won't happen and better international agreements won't happen. Renewable energy will be the dominant solution - because it is capable of growing without that political commitment on the basis that it is lower cost than fossil fuels in most places already, despite fossil fuels having an enduring amnesty on the climate and health costs.

Reforestation is unlikely to ever be able to draw down as much CO2 as was released by deforestation - we simply cannot afford to give up the agricultural land where the best tree growth occurred in the past or can be expected in the future. It will always be way short of taking up the far greater emissions from fossil fuel burning on top.

Nuclear? It needs greater levels of government commitment and willingness to intervene and impose than renewables - it is more expensive, it comes with enduring security and weapons proliferation concerns (and costs) and is not suited to nations that lack stable good governance.

It needs a LOT of development (and money) to get a reliable, safe, small modular reactor that can be mass produced. It is not going to be able to win away the support of people who are optimistic about renewable energy, especially as RE beats fossil fuels AND nuclear as the most built new forms of electricity generation. And did I mention it is more expensive?

When the Wall of Denial comes down more support for nuclear can come out of hiding - yet assumptions of nuclear being the best and only solution are unlikely to survive the reassessment of the options that using nuclear for other purposes than as a rhetorical blunt instrument requires.

The politics around climate and nuclear are especially problematic for nuclear - and my own view is Doubt, Deny, Delay politics preventing the largest bloc of support for nuclear energy from being mobilised in any useful way is a greater problem than Enviro opposition; the politics of opposition to climate action uses nuclear to attack environmentalists and renewable energy, but fails to use it to fix the climate problem.

If the climate problem is seen as Environmental rather than a mainstream problem affecting societies and economies it is because mainstream politics abrogated their responsibility and effectively told the Green Left "You care so much, you fix it." Followed closely by "Not like that!". Should have made the issue their own and shown leadership.

Better, stronger international agreements will come when nations like the USA argue from a position of superiority - from taking action - not from recalcitrance that seeks to do no more than the least that other nations do. "I won't if you don't first" - when both want excuses for their failures more than they want to succeed just means neither do it.