Solving Climate Change.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Atla »

simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:21 pm The Earth is not going away [any time soon].
Actually it probably is, catastrophic climate change, genetically engineered viruses and nuclear holocaust will probably end humanity in this century. We also may soon invent a few new ways to wipe ourselves out. Don't worry about it though Zen buddhist, just don't think at all and all will be fine .
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 12:45 pm
I am trying to solve climate change in the least disruptive, least expensive, most effective way possible - given a scientific understanding of reality and an overview of existing technologies. On that basis, it turns out it's obvious what we need to do. The earth is a big ball of molten rock containing a virtually limitless amount of high grade clean energy. Of course, it's much more complicated when viewed through an ideological lens, but scientifically and technologically, it seems entirely possible to secure a prosperous sustainable future - and in my opinion, it's also our best bet.
simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:21 pmAlthough it would seem ideal to solve all the world's problems, it's not. Things are the way they are because of the infinite number of events leading up to them. Trying to figure out climate change is like trying to figure out what's on the other side of the Universe. There are infinite inputs that affect the climate.
I have narrowed down the action I advocate to key technologies, I think could and should be developed on a monolithic scale as a response to climate change, and thus by way of magma energy, carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation and recycling, we could address the environmental crisis directly while building capacity to one day transition from fossil fuels to what is potentially a more than adequate alternate energy source. It's not solving all the world's problems. It's merely allowing for a sustainable future.

Climate change denial is just as politically motivated as the alarmists you condemn. The environmental debate is polarised, and both left and right are wrong. The right are wrong to engage in climate change denial, because the opportunities that follow from positively addressing climate change and securing a prosperous sustainable future are vast beyond imagining, as will be the suffering if your politically motivated appeal for complacency based on ignorance, is wrong - and the vast coalition of concerned scientists issuing a Code Red for Humanity are right!
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Walker »

Vitruvius wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:17 am ...
You’re fogging the meaning of climate change and from that, assuming a stand on good intentions and superior understanding while projecting bad intentions and lack of comprehension upon others.

The term Climate Change is a political label, not a scientific label.

Obviously, the climate changes.

The term Climate Change is a political label because Climate Change means that the activities of humans on the planet adversely affect the climate, therefore the activities of humans must change so that the planet is not adversely affected by humans.

Those who you call “deniers,” are scientists who disagree with the unproven theories that are concluded from computer modeling* which is based on unproven assumptions and unreliable, inconsistently gathered data and fudge factors. And then there's the aspect of pleasing the entity that signs the paycheck and funds research, an ethical dilemma to be sure.


* in which the slightest error or variance in data can have huge implications over decades.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by simplicity »

Atla wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:39 pm
simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:21 pm The Earth is not going away [any time soon].
Actually it probably is, catastrophic climate change, genetically engineered viruses and nuclear holocaust will probably end humanity in this century. We also may soon invent a few new ways to wipe ourselves out. Don't worry about it though Zen buddhist, just don't think at all and all will be fine .
Maybe [but probably not]. People have been worrying about the end of the world forever. Regardless, the Universe will move forward with or without us [in our present form].

Although human beings see themselves as the center of all creation, we're not.

Live the best life you can and allow the gods and Democrats to worry about existential issues. :)
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by simplicity »

Vitruvius wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:17 am
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 12:45 pm
I am trying to solve climate change in the least disruptive, least expensive, most effective way possible - given a scientific understanding of reality and an overview of existing technologies. On that basis, it turns out it's obvious what we need to do. The earth is a big ball of molten rock containing a virtually limitless amount of high grade clean energy. Of course, it's much more complicated when viewed through an ideological lens, but scientifically and technologically, it seems entirely possible to secure a prosperous sustainable future - and in my opinion, it's also our best bet.
simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:21 pmAlthough it would seem ideal to solve all the world's problems, it's not. Things are the way they are because of the infinite number of events leading up to them. Trying to figure out climate change is like trying to figure out what's on the other side of the Universe. There are infinite inputs that affect the climate.
I have narrowed down the action I advocate to key technologies, I think could and should be developed on a monolithic scale as a response to climate change, and thus by way of magma energy, carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation and recycling, we could address the environmental crisis directly while building capacity to one day transition from fossil fuels to what is potentially a more than adequate alternate energy source. It's not solving all the world's problems. It's merely allowing for a sustainable future.
The great thing about having nearly 8B people on the planet is that there are some really smart ones flittering about, so if any of the above makes a great deal of sense [and they sound good to me], it will most likely happen. Major change takes a long, long time. Think about the fact that The Church still has the power it does some 500+ years past it's peak!
Vitruvius wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:17 amClimate change denial is just as politically motivated as the alarmists you condemn. The environmental debate is polarised, and both left and right are wrong. The right are wrong to engage in climate change denial, because the opportunities that follow from positively addressing climate change and securing a prosperous sustainable future are vast beyond imagining, as will be the suffering if your politically motivated appeal for complacency based on ignorance, is wrong - and the vast coalition of concerned scientists issuing a Code Red for Humanity are right!
The climate is ALWAYS changing. Nobody denies that. The contention is other issues [and the effects the so-called "fixes" proposed to be foisted upon on populations]. The hair-on-fire crowd is proposing some absurd solutions and is not helping their cause by making outlandish predictions of humanity's near-term demise. They're just like the COVID bros who thought [and still believe] the sky is falling.

The bottom-line is that anything [everything] that takes place becomes politicized to the point where all credibility has been lost and the corruption becomes quite apparent for all but the most brainwashed to see. Unfortunately, this is the mechanism by which our species moves forward.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Walker wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:53 pmYou’re fogging the meaning of climate change and from that, assuming a stand on good intentions and superior understanding while projecting bad intentions and lack of comprehension upon others.

The term Climate Change is a political label, not a scientific label.

Obviously, the climate changes.

The term Climate Change is a political label because Climate Change means that the activities of humans on the planet adversely affect the climate, therefore the activities of humans must change so that the planet is not adversely affected by humans.

Those who you call “deniers,” are scientists who disagree with the unproven theories that are concluded from computer modeling* which is based on unproven assumptions and unreliable, inconsistently gathered data and fudge factors. And then there's the aspect of pleasing the entity that signs the paycheck and funds research, an ethical dilemma to be sure.

* in which the slightest error or variance in data can have huge implications over decades.
With all due respect to you as... a guy on the internet, I'm going to go with the vast majority of world scientists on this! I'm reasonably capable of discerning where the science ends and the politics begins. I write on the subject, and you have my politically motivated antenna twitching. Certainly the subject is politicised, but you are unreasonably seeking to flush the science baby with the political bathwater; and suggesting that the whole thing is a giant conspiracy to fraudulently claim funding - but more than that, you also think science is stupid and wrong. In this thread, we assume climate change is real, and is a serious threat, and consider different approaches to tackling it. That's a debate that can go somewhere, and reflects on what's happening in the world. Debating your opinion/psychological condition cannot go anywhere. Surely you see that. Thanks for your interest.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Boris Johnson has forgone Conservative party principles with his climate change tactics
Noah Khogali 23 hrs ago

Governments that set ambitious targets — with no intention or realistic plan to meet them — are fundamentally deceptive and intrinsically anti conservative. This is especially apparent when it comes to UK efforts to combat climate change.

A true conservative is pragmatic and has realistic plans for the future. They understand gradual change is preferable and the relative success of societies is based on the ingenuity and empowerment of their people. Conservatives have also typically adopted a market-based approach on the belief that this is the most effective way to boost our quality of life and achieve policy aims.

Boris Johnson’s Government has seemingly abandoned these principles in the environmental space. Instead, the state is demanding substantial behaviour change from individuals, using taxes and bans ranging from nappies to gas boilers, plastic straws to polystyrene cups. The messaging has been mixed and the proposals extremely costly: Rishi Sunak has suggested Net Zero could cost over a trillion pounds. It is this cost that has backed the Government into a corner.

As they find themselves in a financial black hole, the solution has been to shift that burden of cost onto the consumer, with ineffective and immoral taxes on the most basic of supplies. Any policy which unnecessarily burdens the most vulnerable to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds is simply unjustifiable. If nothing else, it is politically unviable. Anyone who truly cares about realistic and effective solutions to environmental challenges should be concerned about an approach that is inevitably going to lead to a large backlash.

The nanny statism that has boomed over the past decade is unfit for the 21st century. Our country is awash with sharp minds and ingenious solutions to the world’s problems that conservatism is perfectly poised to harness, yet, at its current rate, that colour of thought and innovation is being dulled by a government comfortable to pick it’s own winners, in an act of dangerous self deification. The Conservatives appear to have forgotten their own core principle: the solutions we are looking for are more often to be found in the people rather than in Whitehall.

Unfortunately, the loudest voices in opposition to Government policy have been those who believe that smearing blood over the streets of London, dumping rubbish outside Downing Street and abusing members of the public are the most sure fire way of dealing with climate change – by all accounts all they are doing is distracting from debate and turning the general public away from environmental affairs at all.

That is why the Adam Smith Institute and British Conservation Alliance’s new report, It’s Easy Being Green, is such a breath of fresh air. It is a reminder that we are already in possession of the framework through which climate change can be best dealt with – the free market. We need not rip up society by its roots, nor live in some depressing socialist dystopia of international squalor and poverty. All we need to do is put faith in the systems that have given us virtually every innovative technology and solution throughout all of human history. We need to simply provide profit incentives for environmental responsibility – positive affirmation for behaviours that safeguard, not only the existence of the companies themselves, but also our survival as a species.

Even in the current space, wherein innovative companies are hamstrung by the defacto subsidy of fossil fuels all over the world through tax breaks and lower rates of VAT, sustainable companies already perform better than damaging ones. One need only imagine what could be done if that balance was tipped in their favour. A carbon tax that is offset with tax breaks in other, eco friendly, areas could offset the heightened costs of being an innovator or the huge costs currently projected to hit every household in the UK as they endeavour to be more green.

To conservatives up and down the country, these policies are simply common sense. Yet, for a government that has consistently chosen the easy option that absolves themselves of responsibility, they seem a world away. The Government must remember what it means to be truly Conservative and put their faith back in the British people.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/b ... d=msedgntp

Sympathetic though I am, the argument that the free market can solve the problem is moot, in the sense that it's not a free market. Energy particularly, is profoundly political. I do not quite ascribe to the Treaty of Versailles mindset that very directly relates energy resources to the ability to prosecute war; but energy is nonetheless a matter of national security. Then, fossil fuel resources are geographically located, and national economies are heavily reliant on those revenues. Then, there's the operation of cartels - less of an issue in todays market, but still, the energy market is not free, and so any solution will necessarily be political.

In my view, the only way to successfully address climate change and avoid trillion pound costs shifted largely onto the tax payer/end consumer is to harness magma energy on a very large scale, and attack the problem from the supply side. Without limitless clean energy to spend, the burden inevitably falls on the tax payer/end consumer - raising costs to reduce demand of goods produced with fossil fuel energy. Aside from politically difficult and unprofitable, this makes green policies inherently regressive; hitting harder those who spend a greater proportion of their incomes on food, heating, travel, clothing - such that it's something the left shouldn't support either.

We can only overcome that limits to resources calculus by multiplying resources, by developing magma energy as a global good, for the purpose of directly addressing climate change, by sequestering carbon, desalinating, irrigating and recycling, and this obviates many of those conflicts of interest in sustainability. Because magma energy would not compete directly with fossil fuels right away, economies heavily dependent on fossil fuel resources would have time to diversify, while capacity was built to cushion the transition - to what I believe, could be a much more healthy and wealthy global economy.
Last edited by Vitruvius on Wed Sep 08, 2021 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Walker »

Vitruvius wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:19 pm In this thread, we assume climate change is real, and is a serious threat, and consider different approaches to tackling it.
Ahhh, an academic exercise.

Reality is far more satisfying.

Guess I'll just mosey along away from the "what if" game.
(Hope you win, you've got some fun ideas!)

Shucks, I know when I'm not wanted ... :cry:

... SOMETIMES :lol:
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Floating wind turbines could open up vast ocean tracts for renewable power
Paola Rosa-Aquino 29/08/2021

In the stormy waters of the North Sea, 15 miles off the coast of Aberdeenshire, in Scotland, five floating offshore wind turbines stretch 574 feet (175 metres) above the water. The world’s first floating windfarm, a 30 megawatt facility run by the Norwegian company Equinor, has only been in operation since 2017 but has already broken UK records for energy output.

The ability to install turbines in deeper waters, where winds tend to be stronger, opens up huge amounts of the ocean to generate renewable wind power: close to 80% of potential offshore wind power is found in deeper waters. In addition, positioning floating turbines much further off the coast helps avoid conflicts with those who object to their impact on coastal views.

Floating offshore wind is still in its early stages: only about 80 megawatts of a total of about 32 gigawatts (0.25%) of installed offshore wind capacity is floating. But some experts say the relatively new technology could become an important part of the renewables mix, if it can overcome hurdles including cost, design and opposition from the fishing industry.

The US has traditionally lagged behind Europe when it comes to offshore wind power, but that may be changing. Joe Biden has pledged to build more than 30GW of offshore wind by 2030. The Department of Energy says it has invested more than $100m in researching and developing floating offshore wind technology in an attempt to establish itself as a leader in the sector.

While the reliable winds and relatively shallow waters of the US east coast have made it the favored target for offshore wind projects, such as the recently approved large-scale Vineyard Wind off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, on the west coast the waters are mostly too deep for fixed-platform turbines. It’s here that advocates hope floating wind will take off.

In May, the Biden administration and California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, announced a plan to bring floating offshore wind to California. They have identified two sites: a nearly 400-square mile area north-west of Morro Bay, which could host 380 floating wind turbines, and another further north off Humboldt Bay. Together these projects could bring up to 4.6GW of clean energy to the grid, enough to power 1.6m homes.

“[The announcement] was a real breakthrough,” said Adam Stern, executive director of the trade association Offshore Wind California. “At a time when the effects of climate change are evident in California every day, in the form of wildfires and drought conditions,” he said, “offshore wind can provide clean, reliable electricity for millions of California residents.”


The International Energy Agency estimates that for the world to stay on the pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050 it needs to add 390GW of wind power (80GW of which would be offshore) every year between 2030 and 2050. It’s a big jump from current numbers, especially for the offshore wind industry, which installed just over 6GW of new capacity in 2020. But wind power has been growing as costs fall and countries look to move away from fossil fuels to meet climate goals.

How much floating wind will factor in is unclear. Countries including Norway, Portugal, South Korea and Japan are installing or planning floating wind projects, with more than 26GW of capacity estimated to be in the pipeline, according to one estimate.

“Without a doubt wind is a big part of the solution for going to zero,” said Michael Webber, an energy expert and engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin. But he believes floating wind is likely to take time to scale up, predicting that onshore wind and fixed-bottom offshore wind would dominate for the next decade.

Big hurdles certainly remain. Cost is a significant one. Floating offshore wind generation costs are about double those of fixed offshore wind, although these are expected to fall as technology advances and supply chains improve. Estimates by the research body the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) suggest floating turbine projects could achieve cost parity with their fixed-bottom counterparts around 2030.

One wrinkle is the number of designs to anchor the floating turbines, which some experts believe will make it harder to drive down costs.

There are three main designs. The spar-buoy – the design of the Hywind floating turbines in Scotland – has a long, weighted cylinder tube which extends down from the turbine and below the ocean’s surface to balance it. Semi-submersible platforms, which are the most common for installed and planned projects, are modular and made up of floating cylindrical structures secured by mooring lines. The tension-leg structure has a smaller platform anchored to the seabed with taut mooring lines.

“I’ve lost count of how many concepts are actually out there,” said Po Wen Cheng, head of wind energy at the University of Stuttgart in Germany. “Ford didn’t make the car affordable for the big masses by making 30 different types of car – they just made a Model T. If we really want to lower the cost, we cannot tolerate so many different concepts,” he said.

Parts of the fishing industry have also expressed concerns that offshore wind could interfere with their equipment, obstruct fishing areas and negatively affect their livelihoods.

The first floating windfarm in the US may end up in Maine, where the University of Maine, RWE Renewables and the Mitsubishi subsidiary Diamond Offshore Wind are developing a small demonstration project that would generate 12MW of energy.

It has faced enormous opposition from lobster fishers who say the turbines interfere with their business. They reached a compromise in July: this pilot project will go ahead but the state legislature approved a ban on new industrial wind projects in state waters until March 2031.

Fishermen have rung alarm bells about California’s projects, too. “Far too many questions remain unanswered regarding potential impacts to marine life,” said Mike Conroy, the executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations in a May statement about plans for floating wind in the state.

Walt Musial, NREL’s lead of offshore wind research, said even a large-scale deployment of offshore wind along the east or west coast would take up only a tiny portion of the ocean and turbines would be carefully sited. But he stressed the continued need for good communication “to ensure optimal coexistence and to help the fishing community adapt and continue to access the space within the turbines for fishing”.

The California government foresees offering commercial leases for Morro Bay and Humboldt Bay next year. Stern is hopeful that floating offshore wind would create thousands of well-paying clean energy jobs in the state, as well as accelerating the retirement of natural gas plants, reducing pollution in communities that disproportionately bear the burden of environmental impacts.

“There are a lot of challenges to get floating wind turbines running in US waters,” said Po Wen Cheng, “but there’s no doubt about the potential.”
Last edited by Vitruvius on Wed Sep 08, 2021 4:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Sculptor »

Walker wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:26 am
Vitruvius wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:19 pm In this thread, we assume climate change is real, and is a serious threat, and consider different approaches to tackling it.
Ahhh, an academic exercise.

Reality is far more satisfying.

Guess I'll just mosey along away from the "what if" game.
(Hope you win, you've got some fun ideas!)

Shucks, I know when I'm not wanted ... :cry:

... SOMETIMES :lol:
Yeah, you know all about "reality", your best buddy Trump thinks that windmills give you cancer.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

UK-led Cop26 talks at risk of failure over China’s refusal to cut emissions
Emma Gatten 4 hrs ago

International climate talks led by the UK are at risk of “failure” over China’s refusal to slash its emissions, revealed in leaked documents seen by the Telegraph. China’s provinces have approved dozens of new coal-fired power plants this year, and analysts say a new deadline is crucial to keeping the aims of the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5C on track and ensuring success at the Cop26 summit in Glasgow.

But a source on the Cop26 team yesterday acknowledged in the wake of talks that it was clear that “we won’t get everything in Glasgow. There's a growing understanding that if we come to Glasgow and there remains a gap to get closer to 1.5C we will need to work on that together,” the source said.

Mr Sharma said he had “constructive discussions... but time is running out to prevent a climate catastrophe".

In leaked documents outlining their negotiating position seen by the Telegraph, Beijing says its current climate commitments represent its “utmost efforts” and are “consistent” with the Paris Agreement.

'A fight is inevitable in Glasgow'

The documents, which have been seen by Mr Sharma’s team and No 10, reveal the gulf between China and the West, just two months before the summit. One Chinese observer of the talks said “a fight is inevitable in Glasgow”.

Mr Sharma visited the city of Tianjin shortly after US climate envoy John Kerry made his own visit to meet their Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua. The two trips prompted an editorial in the Chinese state-run Global Times warning the UK not to “allow Washington to hijack the summit for its ill geopolitical intentions” and saying Beijing would “stick to its own pace” on emissions reductions.

The row risks embarrassing the UK as the hosts of Cop26 if it is unable to secure a clear win in its first big post-Brexit diplomatic role. It also risks undermining the UK’s own net zero plans if it cannot secure ambitious commitments from China, by far the world’s biggest carbon emitter. Diplomatic observers acknowledge that getting a new emissions target from China ahead of the November climate summit in Glasgow is unlikely, putting clear victory in doubt. Instead the UK and US are pursuing a commitment from China to end its funding of overseas coal projects and new policies to back their 2030 pledge. But in the leaked documents Beijing argues it is providing necessary funding to developing countries that cannot afford to switch to renewable energy.

The UK has little negotiating leverage over Beijing, which is likely to move based on its own domestic calculations, and which has been frustrated in recent months by Western condemnation of its human rights record. 'China does care what other people think. It will be decided on Chinese interests,” said Peter Betts, a former EU and UK lead climate negotiator. “But if we go into the COP without the Chinese making a significant move then it does make it much harder to keep temperature goals within reach.” But Mr Betts said China may move because of a risk to its international standing, particularly among vulnerable developing countries over whom it is vying for influence.

Negotiations have therefore been set back by a failure to deliver promised $100billion annual funding to help developing countries. Boris Johnson has recently pushed Joe Biden to double its commitment, as a “make or break” move ahead of the talks.

“It is clear that for geopolitical reasons neither the US or China want to be blamed for failure in Glasgow by the rest of the world,” said Nick Mabey, the CEO of climate think tank E3G. "The US needs to step up with more money to help developing countries in the next few months which will turn attention on China’s willingness to increase its 2030 targets and stop building new coal power stations.”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/uk ... hp&pc=U531
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

The Independent
World’s biggest factory to suck carbon from the sky turns on in Iceland
Vishwam Sankaran 15 hrs ago

The world’s first and largest factory to capture and convert carbon dioxide from the air into stone began operations in Iceland on Wednesday.

The Orca plant set up by Swiss startup Climeworks AG to reduce the effects of the greenhouse gas on the planet represents a milestone in the direct air capture industry.

While Climeworks has built 16 installations across Europe, the Orca plant is the only one that permanently captures and stores CO2 rather than recycling it.

According to Climeworks, every year the factory has a capacity to capture 4,000 tons of CO2, which is safely and permanently stored via a chemical process developed by Carbfix, an academic-industrial partnership in Iceland.

In this process, CO2 captured from the atmosphere is mineralised underground and converted into stones.

The air-captured CO2 is mixed with water and pumped deep underground, where it is trapped in stone through a natural mineralization process that takes under two years, Carbfix noted.

While the plant is capable of capturing only a tiny fraction of the global annual emissions of about 35 billion tons of CO2, the nonprofit believes it is a steppingstone for its expansion to megaton removal capacity by the second part of this decade.

The factory is the first direct air capture and storage service with a validated process - awarded mid-June 2021 by independent third-party DNV.


With a recent report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warning that the world could see more frequent extreme weather events in the years to come due to global warming, experts have stressed on the importance of reducing greenhouse gas levels drastically and removing carbon dioxide emissions from the air permanently.

Construction of the Orca plant began in May 2020 based on advanced modular technology, Climateworks says, adding that innovative container-size compact air collector units were stacked together to build the factory.

Due to its strategic location adjacent to ON Power’s Hellisheiði Geothermal Power Plant, Orca runs fully on renewable energy.

“This has made it possible for Orca to be operational in under 15 months. Compared to the previous technology generation, the use of steel in the collector units has been reduced by roughly half per output unit,” it noted in a statement.

According to Climeworks, the technology can easily be replicated at different locations worldwide and on ever larger scales, in a flexible manner wherever ample renewable energy and storage conditions are available.

The nonprofit says its advanced technology is optimised to capture more CO2 capture capacity per module than ever before, helping the factory store unprecedented levels of the greenhouse gas.

It believes the innovation in its plant design can help scale up this climate technology in the years to come and ramp up its capture capacity significantly.

While investment is pouring into companies developing carbon capture solutions to tame global warming, climate experts have also highlighted the drawbacks of these technologies, describing expectations placed on them as “seriously over-optimistic”.

“Orca, as a milestone in the direct air capture industry, has provided a scalable, flexible and replicable blueprint for Climeworks’ future expansion,” Christoph Gebald, co-CEO and co-founder of Climeworks, noted in a statement.

“Achieving global net-zero emissions is still a long way to go, but with Orca, we believe that Climeworks has taken one significant step closer to achieving that goal,” Mr Gebald added.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/wo ... d=msedgntp
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Image
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Net-Zero Business Daily News Research & Analysis
One of world’s largest carbon sequestration projects begins permitting process

22 November 2020
Gulf Coast Sequestration (GCS) announced on 13 October 2020 that it initiated the process for obtaining a Class VI Underground Injection Control permit from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Designed to permanently store more than 80 million tons of carbon in deep geologic formations, GCS is planning one of the largest carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects in the world. "With the capacity to sequester 2,700,000 tons of CO₂ annually, it will be equivalent to removing about 600,000 passenger vehicles from the road every year or the equivalent annual carbon avoided from 2,000 wind turbines," the company said.

GCS controls both the surface and subsurface rights for a large, contiguous landholding in southwest Louisiana, and it said it has determined that the area's geologic pore space is ideally suited to build and operate a world-class carbon sequestration project.

"This filing is a long time coming and an exciting moment for GCS," said Gray Stream, president of Matilda Stream Management, Inc., the owner of GCS. "We have done our homework, and our permit application reflects our commitment to robust environmental compliance. We look forward to working with EPA to secure the approvals needed to develop, construct, and operate one of the leading carbon sequestration projects in the world."

"At GCS, we believe that CCS is the best way to tackle industrial greenhouse gas emissions," said GCS Principal Benjamin Heard. "By providing safe and secure storage for carbon dioxide, GCS will assist industrial customers in achieving their sustainability goals. Working together, we can help to steer the United States toward a more economically and environmentally sustainable future."

In addition to superior geology, the site is close to the Louisiana petrochemical and refining complex, thus making it ideally situated for serving facilities that are emission large amounts of CO2, the company said.

https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis ... egins.html
Post Reply