SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the price-of-putting-your-head-in-the-ground dept.
"The green transition is not easy, but it is possible."
Ultimately, to manage this climate change thingy, we need to put back all the carbon dioxide emitted since about the 1960s somewhere in a deep hole.
Now Norway has taken the first serious step towards that goal.
We've mentioned their industrial scale carbon-capture-and-storage [CCS] project -- dubbed NorthernLights -- earlier before, when it was still in the proof-of-concept phase. Now NorthernLights has turned fully operational.
The first shipment of carbon dioxide left Heidelberg Materials' plant in Brevik in southern Norway this month by ship, and will be injected in reservoirs under the North Sea in August. It is set to store 5mn tonnes of carbon dioxide under the sea, at a cost of $3.4bn, spread out of 10 years. The Norvegian government subsidizes 64% of the costs, while the rest is covered by a consortium of 3 oil companies (Shell, Equinor, and TotalEnergies).
Proponents of CCS argue that it is the most promising solution for so-called hard-to-abate sectors — such as cement, steel and coal-fired power — to eliminate their emissions. But critics contend that it is a costly process, difficult to scale and dependent on massive subsidies. These are often difficult for most cash-strapped governments to provide, except for the likes of Norway, western Europe's largest petroleum producer and home to the world's largest sovereign wealth fund.
To put this in context, the European Union has set a target of capturing and storing 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, by 2050.
The driver to do so is the increasing cost of carbon permits. These are publicly traded in the EUs Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) under a cap-and-trade system. The cap means that the amount of carbon permits given to a company each year are decreasing in time, ending up at 0 in 2050. The scheme currently covers only the largest emitters, i.e. approximately 10,000 companies in the power sector and manufacturing industry as well as airlines operating between airports located in the European Economic Area, covering roughly 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the EU. There are talks going on to extend the system to other companies as well.
The EU ETS market didn't come out of the blue: it was inspired by the USA's Clean Air Act of 1977, which laid down a trading scheme to curb acid rain by capping-and-trading sulphur dioxide emissions. Other countries, as well as separate US states, are now copying this approach for their own carbon dioxide emissions, e.g. China and California. The global value of carbon markets is expected to reach 2.68 trillion dollars by 2028 and 22 trillion by 2050.
Albert Rösti, Switzerland's energy minister, said on Tuesday that CCS was "too expensive" for his landlocked country and that it would be the "last step" to meeting climate targets after easier measures such as cutting transport emissions. Nonetheless, he added: "It is not only theory, but Norway has gone to action."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday July 04, @01:11PM (4 children)
>we need to put back all the carbon dioxide emitted since about the 1960s somewhere in a deep hole.
Or...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology) [wikipedia.org]
With an interesting distincton being: terrestrial primary production biomass stays relatively accessible, passing up the food chain and ultimately digested by fungi (which ended the "carboniferous" period on land - fossilized pre-fungal carbon being a significant source of human carbon emissions...) In contrast: marine primary production biomass passes up the food chain and vast quantities of it are "pooped out" as marine snow, blanketing over 2/3 of our planet in captured carbon residue. "Upwellings" of this energy stored in carbon bonds where ocean currents meet sea-mountians are the most productive centers of biomass in the oceans.
Coincidentally, modern satellite studies of primary ocean production of carbon post-date the mass killings of the great whales, whale poop being a significant source of fertilizer for phytoplankton blooms - something several tech companies have attempted (pitifully) to echo with "iron seeding" and other ocean fertilization strategies to increase primary carbon capture (by photosynthesis) in the oceans.
The earth's ecological systems have many adaptive control mechanisms, adapting to new circumstances and healing the food webs and energy cycles, but our exploitation of stored carboniferous energy is a novel challenge on a scale the those adaptive control mechanisms rarely faced in the past - it was certainly long before the holocene when the last challenge of this scale was experienced.
In other words: a 0.03% increase in long term capture of the net primary production of biomass would outstrip Europe's targets. The land area of Europe is 10 million of the 510 million square kilometers of Earth, 2%. If they could manage a 3% increase in long term capture of their plant growth (throwing corn husks down mineshafts then sealing them with concrete?) that's one way to meet their target. Helping the oceans to produce more phytoplankton, by protecting the large marine mammals, may be even more impactful than the Northern Lights project. Not saying that Northern Lights should be abandoned, just that less resources directed in other areas can be even more positively impactful.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04, @03:16PM
You are one of the top 5 or 10 posters here, and that post deserves a top award. Huge grasp of the situation from a big picture perspective. Much to think about.
In many areas of live we seem to suffer from over-specialization. People tend to specialize in and focus on this or that. Despite the negative publicity, AI should be able to help with that problem, perhaps more than any other problem.
Thank you for your post, for all your interest in and study of the problem, and I nominate you to be top consulting advisor to world leaders.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Saturday July 05, @10:22AM
I might not have expressed this clearly in the submission, but the 300 million tonnes figure is not about in-total capturing of carbon dioxide: it's the annual CO2 injection capacity into geological storage.
By 2030, that capability should be at least 50 million tonnes, annually. This is mandated by the Net Zero Industry Act. By 2040, that number should rise to 280 million tonnes per year, to reach 450 million tonnes by 2050. This last figure is somewhat different from the 300 million tonnes quoted by the Financial Times. The reason for that might be that a superficial scan of the related EU texts all mention something like "the need for 450 million tonnes of CO2 per year to be captured and either stored or utilised by 2050". A lot of carbon dioxide is used to create fizzy drinks and keep the atmosphere in greenhouses at an ideal carbon dioxide level.
If you want to read some more, here's the EU on Industrial Carbon Management [europa.eu], and the Net Zero Industry Act [europa.eu]. As a finer point, note that the Net Zero Act does not fall under climate change, but rather under the internal market and competitiveness department.
(Score: 3, Informative) by quietus on Saturday July 05, @10:32AM (1 child)
Under the 2024 Nature Restoration Law [europa.eu], 20 percent of the EU's land area must be restored (rewilded), at least 25,000 km of rivers must be returned to a freeflowing state, and 20 percent of its sea areas must become free of human disturbance, by 2030. Also by that same date, at least 3 billion additional trees need to be planted.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 05, @11:51PM
>20 percent of the EU's land area must be restored (rewilded)
It's a good start, I am glad some developed governments are moving in a better direction.
https://eowilsonfoundation.org/what-is-the-half-earth-project/ [eowilsonfoundation.org]
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Saturday July 05, @02:36AM (2 children)
I'd like to see the cost/benefit analysis that shows this is a good idea. Or at least a better idea than many others. Or maybe not absurd.
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
(Score: 2) by quietus on Saturday July 05, @10:48AM (1 child)
You can read a review of the business case for CCS here [cleanenergywire.org], but note that this review excludes the [insurance] costs of doing nothing, nor do they take into account the upcoming Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism [europa.eu].
There are between 700 and 1000 CCS projects currently underway, globally, with 45-50 already in commercial operation, capturing more than 50 million tonnes of CO2 per year. According to the International Energy Agency [iea.org], based on the current pipeline, the capacity is set to reach 430 million tonnes CO2 captured per year by 2030, with 615 million tonnes of storage capacity by that same date.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Saturday July 05, @01:55PM
A business case is not a cost/benefit analysis.
There is a business case in the USA for using corn to make ethanol for gasoline. Notwithstanding, more that one cost/benefit analysis shows it is a nett negative for the climate.