Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Chalmers University of Technology: Major boost in carbon capture and storage essential to reach 2C climate target
https://www.chalmers.se/en/current/news/see-major-boost-in-carbon-capture-and-storage-essential-to-reach-2-c-climate-target/News article 25 Sep 2024 11:20
Major boost in carbon capture and storage essential to reach 2°C climate target
Large expansion of carbon capture and storage is necessary to fulfill the Paris Climate Agreement. Yet a new study led by Chalmers University of Technology, in Sweden and University of Bergen, in Norway, shows that without major efforts, the technology will not expand fast enough to meet the 2°C target. And even with major efforts it is unlikely to expand fast enough for the 1.5°C target.
…
“CCS is an important technology for achieving negative emissions and also essential for reducing carbon emissions from some of the most carbon-intensive industries. Yet our results show that major efforts are needed to bridge the gap between the demonstration projects in place today and the massive deployment we need to mitigate climate change,” says Jessica Jewell, Associate Professor at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden
A new study titled, ‘Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of climate targets’, conducted a thorough analysis of past and future growth of CCS to forecast whether it can expand fast enough for the Paris Climate Agreement. The study found that over the 21st century, no more than 600 Gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide can be sequestered with CCS.
“Our analysis shows that we are unlikely to capture and store more than 600 Gt over the 21st century. This contrasts with many climate mitigation pathways from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which in some cases require upwards of 1000 Gt of CO2 captured and stored by the end of the century. While this looks at the overall amount, it’s also important to understand when the technology can start operating at a large scale because the later we start using CCS the lower the chances are of keeping temperature rise at 1.5°C or 2°C. This is why most of our research focused on how fast CCS can expand,” says Tsimafei Kazlou, PhD candidate at University of Bergen, Norway, and first author of the study.
…
Kazlou, T., Cherp, A. & Jewell, J. Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of climate targets. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02104-0
Major boost in carbon capture and storage essential to reach 2°C climate target
Large expansion of carbon capture and storage is necessary to fulfill the Paris Climate Agreement. Yet a new study led by Chalmers University of Technology, in Sweden and University of Bergen, in Norway, shows that without major efforts, the technology will not expand fast enough to meet the 2°C target. And even with major efforts it is unlikely to expand fast enough for the 1.5°C target.
…
“CCS is an important technology for achieving negative emissions and also essential for reducing carbon emissions from some of the most carbon-intensive industries. Yet our results show that major efforts are needed to bridge the gap between the demonstration projects in place today and the massive deployment we need to mitigate climate change,” says Jessica Jewell, Associate Professor at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden
A new study titled, ‘Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of climate targets’, conducted a thorough analysis of past and future growth of CCS to forecast whether it can expand fast enough for the Paris Climate Agreement. The study found that over the 21st century, no more than 600 Gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide can be sequestered with CCS.
“Our analysis shows that we are unlikely to capture and store more than 600 Gt over the 21st century. This contrasts with many climate mitigation pathways from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which in some cases require upwards of 1000 Gt of CO2 captured and stored by the end of the century. While this looks at the overall amount, it’s also important to understand when the technology can start operating at a large scale because the later we start using CCS the lower the chances are of keeping temperature rise at 1.5°C or 2°C. This is why most of our research focused on how fast CCS can expand,” says Tsimafei Kazlou, PhD candidate at University of Bergen, Norway, and first author of the study.
…
A reminder for those who are morally opposed to any suggestion of CCS:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/outreach/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Factsheet_CDR.pdf
CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL (CDR) refers to technologies, practices, and approaches that remove and durably store carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) from the atmosphere. CDR is required to achieve global and national targets of net zero CO₂ and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CDR cannot substitute for immediate and deep emissions reductions, but it is part of all modelled scenarios that limit global warming to 2°or lower by 2100. Implementation will require decisions regarding CDR methods, scale and timing of deployment, and how sustainability and feasibility constraints are managed.
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
?w=1024
NEW YORK—Expressing their disappointment and frustration at the current state of technology, citizens across the nation reported Thursday that they figured everything would run on some sort of cubes of blue energy by now.
Americans of all ages and demographic groups explained to reporters that they thought the cubes would be “basically everywhere you looked at this point,” saying they could not understand why translucent, pulsating blue cubes of energy did not yet exist, and why they were not currently being used to power appliances, lighting, various modes of transportation, and all manner of personal electronics.
“All you’d have to do is pick up the cube and put it on a thing you want to have power, and that would give it power—why can’t I do that yet?” said Lawrence Faber of Tampa, FL, one of millions of Americans who was confused that he was currently unable to fully charge his iPhone battery “in, like, 10 seconds” simply by holding the device in the vicinity of a blue cube of energy. “They’d be these cubes and they’d just be there and make everything work, like computers and TVs and stuff.”
“You know, like blue energy cubes,” Faber added. “We should have those.”
Although the majority of people surveyed were unable to verbally describe the cubes beyond “blue” and “glowing,” many pantomimed box-like shapes with their hands to demonstrate their best guess as to the general appearance of the blue cubes of energy, often adding, “like this.”
“I figured there would be a real big cube that would sit in the middle of town that powered all the streetlights and things like that, and then a smaller cube in your house for your refrigerator and your heaters and everything else,” said Youngstown, OH resident Kendra Morgan. “And then you’d have some littler cubes that you could carry around with you in your pocket for whatever else you needed them for, like a blow dryer or a coffee machine, and the cubes would make all of them run.”
Many theorized that the blue cubes of energy would last between 50 years and forever, and that those in need of more cubes would simply be able to pick them up at a local “cube station.” Others speculated that the cubes would be far more powerful than today’s energy sources, including oil, coal, and natural gas, because “they would have so much energy inside of them.”
Most Americans agreed, however, that the cubes would be affordable, noting that every citizen would have “a bunch.”
“You wouldn’t have to plug them in—they would just sit there and make power,” said Stephen Garcia of Mesa, AZ, later adding that everyone would be able to make their car run by simply placing the cube in the automobile’s “cube holder.” “But they would be really quiet, too. And when you carried them around, they wouldn’t zap you or be too hot to hold or anything, even though all the energy would be whirling around inside.”
“The cubes wouldn’t hurt people; they would help people,” Garcia continued.
Additionally, many Americans surveyed said that the blue cubes of energy would be incredibly durable and would never break, even if they were dropped on the ground or a drink was accidentally spilled on them.
But by far the biggest recurrent complaint reportedly stemming from the lack of blue cubes of energy was that further technological advances—namely “even faster” blue cubes of energy—were being held back due to the cubes not yet having been invented.
“How are we all supposed to live in space if we don’t have the blue cubes of energy?” said David Reston of Batavia, NY, later adding that NASA would probably develop its own special “super” blue energy cubes. “We need those cubes for our spaceship boosters to get us around in space. And how are we going to live in our houses up on Mars without those cubes?”
“At this rate, we’ll never have the red, floating spheres that make you live forever,” Reston added.
EDIT
https://theonion.com/nation-figured-everything-would-run-on-some-kind-of-cub-1819578420/