Buy Canadian
A community dedicated to buying Canadian products.
Une communauté dédiée à l'achat de produits Canadiens.
Rules:
1. Posts must be related to buying Canadian-made goods and / or using Canadian-owned services
2. Absolutely no bigotry will be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.
3. AI Content Policy
Not allowed: AI-generated images or articles
Tolerated: AI-generated post summaries
4. When discussing a Canadian product that isn't available nationally, please do your best to specify where it can be purchased
5. Only content in French and English is permitted
6. Declare all self-promotion
Users are encouraged to report any content that violates our community guidelines
Règlements :
1. Les poteaux doivent être en lien avec l'achat de produits et / ou de services opérés par des canadiens
2. Aucune bigoterie ne sera tolérée. Ça comprend, mais sans se limiter à, le racisme, le sexisme, l’homophobie, la transphobie, etc.
3. Politique sur le contenu IA
Non permis : Images ou articles générés par l'IA
Toléré : Résumés IA de publications
4. Lors d'une discussion sur un produit canadien qui n'est pas disponible à l'échelle nationale, veuillez faire de votre mieux pour préciser où il peut être acheté
5. Seul le contenu en français et en anglais n'est toléré
6. Déclarez toute auto-promotion
Les utilisateurs sont encouragés à signaler tout contenu qui ne respecte pas nos directives communautaires
Related communities: Communautés connexes :
!buyeuropean@feddit.uk !buyafrican@baraza.africa !boycottus@lemmy.ca !canada@lemmy.ca !canada@lemmy.ml
view the rest of the comments
So far DACC is a scam. The energy costs to capture carbon have always proven near as high or higher than the energy gained from burning fossil fuels. It's always been unviable and treating any of it as anything but research projects is 100% bs.
Fossil fuel companies have vested interests in perpetuating the myth that we can clean up our mess after the fact. Think about how insane this proposition is! How can a world that has to drastically reconfigure itself to run on a renewables eroei of roughly 3 to 1, find the surplus energy to recapture capture carbon when the 100:1 eroei of fossil fuels are no longer available? The superorganism known as human civilization won't have the surplus energy to handle its own metabolic needs and recapture carbon.
A surface gusher of light sweet crude used to give 100:1. The last 30 years have seen eroei decline from 30-1 to 18-1 today as an average with tight oil going as low as 5-1.
This article is false hope. Sickly sweet paliative medicine given to terminal patients. There there dear. Your suffering will soon be over and everything will be beautiful again in the afterlife.
DACC is such a scam I'm legitimately upset that engineers fall for it and work on these technologies trying to help. Chemically speaking most carbon sequestration schemes are essentially burning something but in reverse. Now this should automatically set off alarm bells in terms of thermodynamics because enthalpy is a state function and if you have a net release of energy burning something, there is no possible way to do that reaction in reverse without adding that energy back in. So you have to have renewable energy to make it work. But then, I ask, why not just use the renewable energy to replace a carbon source? It's not big enough? Then it's not big enough to offset that carbon source either.
If you had a magical piece of technology that rapidly converted CO2 into long chain molecules using sunlight andv rain water that would be pretty cool. Oh wait? That tech already exists and it's been in existence for millions of years? Yeah that's right it's a fucking tree. Carbon sequestration is a fucking scam to make you feel better about not decarbonizing
In theory you could run it on excess solar and turn it off the rest of the time, but of course if you're running it only part of the time it'll take you longer to capture CO2, and not every process can actually be easily turned off and on.
Direct carbon capture that runs on solar during the day and automatically shuts down at night.
Like a tree.
Yeah, planting trees (in a place where forest fires aren't going to be a problem) is probably cheaper and less energy intensive.
It took thousands of years for plants to capture the carbon we burn every year. We are so far past 'the trees will help us'.
That doesn't mean that planting more trees can't be a part of the solution.
No, not the entire solution. But a cheap, quick and easy part of it.
That's just using solar power with extra steps.
The extra step of cleaning up CO2 emissions from the past is a rather useful one
I don't disagree, but it is magnitudes of order less effective than reducing pur current spew of greenhouse gasses and only deals with one specific GHG (for example, does nothing for methane release)
Yeah, investing in batteries on the grid would definitely be a better use of capital.
If you have enough solar to waste it capturing carbon you can just stop burning carbon and use solar power to begin with. Catching the sun to catch the carbon you burned to make electricity is just an expensive Rube Goldberg that kills us.
I don't think you've fully understood my admittedly terse post. " Excess solar" is a very loaded term. The long term eroei of solar and wind, accounting for best in class recycling of the materials for turbines and panels gives an eroei just over 3-1. This is the surplus energy that your entire civilization has to do its stuff. All resource extraction. All agriculture, all industrial and technological production. The last 250 years have seen us go from 1000-1 to below 18-1. An explosion of metabolic activity followed by contraction, atrophy and collapse as we shift to 3-1.
At 3-1 eroei, are we driving cars? Are we heating homes? Are we mining crypto? Are we feeding 8-11 billion humans? We will have to make some wildly radical decisions on where to apply limited resources. Everything is too precious to waste.
Under every conceivable option yet discovered, carbon capture makes no sense, and is dwarfed by the obvious and much easier benefits of stopping the use of fossil fuels.
Solar has an EROI of between 1/5 and 1/10 (and improving), not 1/3. Wind is between 1/10 and 1/15. By excess solar, I mean the energy that is generated during the day that otherwise isn't used and is sometimes curtailed by the grid. It's definitely better to charge batteries with that, but you could use it for other things as well if all the batteries are full.
And yes, carbon capture is a PR exercise by the fossil fuel industry, you'll get way better returns doing anything else.
Edit: and gas has an EROI of 30/1, what has 1000/1?
"The EROI for discovering oil and gas in the US has decreased from more than 1000:1 in 1919 to 5:1 in the 2010s, and for production from about 25:1 in the 1970s to approximately 10:1 in 2007 (Guilford et al., 2011)."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856
Edit: from the same source.
An examination of the EROI literature on solar photovoltaic or PV energy generation shows differences in the assumptions and methodologies employed and the EROI values calculated. The values, assumptions, and parameters included are often ambiguous and differ from study to study, making comparisons between PV and other energy EROI values difficult and fraught with potential pitfalls. Nevertheless, we calculated the mean EROI value using data from 45 separate publications spanning several decades. These values resulted in a mean EROI value of roughly 10:1 (n of 79 from 45 publications) (see Lambert et al., 2012 for references) (Fig. 3). It should be noted that several recent studies that have broader boundaries give EROI values of 2 to 3:1 (Prieto and Hall, 2012, Palmer, 2013, Weissbach et al., 2013)
I agree with this. I don't want to expand fossil fuel generation, but with renewable generation proliferating and potential breakthroughs in the long term, using excess available energy to try to reverse the emissions we had already put in the air could be beneficial.
Excess available energy. We've never had that before. Despite all our renewables development is has only supplemented our energy, never displacing fossil fuels.
It all depends on the province you are from. NL, BC, MB, QC have long had massive excesses in energy and nearly zero fossil fuel generation, as still the case today. Canadian provinces keep selling to neighbouring US states for a healthy profit since we have too much here. ON got rid of coal for LNG and are developing wind and solar, so they don't have to rely on their gas peak time plants as hard going forward.
The capacity to deliver energy is one thing but the other is the time and rate at which you do. Fossil fuel is good at ramping up on demand while renewables are beholden to weather changes, and on the other side the power demand rate is relatively predictable in terms of the time of day (I've worked in this industry). Renewable tech including batteries and hydro storage will displace the need to use those LNG plants further.
This is a surplus of electricity while we are still using fossil fuels.
Cut out fossil fuels and power EVERYTHING with electricity and we'll see how much "surplus" we have.
Displacing doesn't necessarily mean cut everything out at once, it can include a gradual reduction/ramp down as the other increases by similar amounts at a time.
It can, but it doesn't.
Hopefully a nano tech evolves where carbon connects to a material and we somehow slough it of in stage 2 of the process
We already have that nanotech, photosynthesis. A process perfected over billions of years to be as efficient as possible. It works so well that gigatons of carbon was captured and then trapped in underground.
The problem is that capturing carbon is literally un-burning it, by plant or by nanobot you have to rip the oxygen off of carbon and make sure they stay that way. That process consumes energy, it is working up hill against entropy. Burning carbon to form CO2 is downhill all the way, you give it a push and it's self sustaining.
Unless you have a power source that exceeds all fossil fuel burning processes, by like 10x, you can never capture carbon at a meaningful rate. (And if you DO have that 10x clean energy source, you already don't need to burn more carbon)
I don't mean biological process, I mean actual nano science, like fuel cell membrane that strips hydrogen on its own
Evolution doesn't necessitate something to be "as efficient as possible".