At this point in the climate emergency, we need more constructive conversations. Simply stating that carbon capture is a scam deflects the conversation from productive avenues. How about: "Carbon capture is an unproven technology, which hasn't stopped companies like X from trying to make a buck doing it. We should be focusing more on Y, because it can help today."
Just curious, how are companies such Noya [1] scammers? I would like to know more about the technical due diligence part. Thinking about Theranos story and how easy was to realize the company was an scam.
I agree to the general idea that we need to plant trees and create technologies to solve the problem.
The main problem is there is simply too much carbon for us to be physically able to pull enough carbon out of the air to make a dent in our emissions.
Carbon capture might be able to help if we land on some breakthrough, but it cannot save us.
Remember that carbon is *heavy* (carbon dioxide is actually almost twice the weight of the fossil fuels that were burned to make it -- though hopefully you can avoid capturing the oxygen)
We currently emit something like 15 billion tons of carbon each year.
That is more than 3x the amount of cement made each year (4.5 billion tons). More than 3x the amount of food that's made each year (about 4 billion tons). About 8x the amount of steel made each year (2 billion tons). About 30x the amount of plastic made each year (about 0.5 billion tons)
Can we build a logistic system capable of processing, transporting, and storing carbon -- a completely useless material -- in quantities that exceed the global food, cement, steel, and plastic production combined?
I doubt they are scammers in the traditional sense. But it's worth thinking about the total carbon cost to 'capture' and 'store' a given amount of carbon.
What I would be surprised to find is that there was a massive differential between the cost (in carbon) for raw materials, manufacturing, distribution/transportation and running (energy + people costs) and the amount of carbon captured.
It's a bit like perpetual motion machines. If you zoom in enough, they can seem to move forever. But if you zoom out they are getting energy from somewhere.
On the small scale they transform money into sequestered carbon. But how much of that money goes (directly or indirectly) into generating carbon?
The amount of money invested in systems that emit carbon is massive. Those companies are happy to bet a few million here or there on the slight possibility that carbon capture might work. So it’s a good little revenue earner if you can create a few nice diagrams.
