The goal is to build a new facility capable of drawing down 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030.
5 million tonnes is 0.0125% of what we need to cut annually by 2025 to achieve 1.5c under the vast majority of modelling. Then you need to factor in the energy/carbon needed to build and operate it, and the probability that they’ll actually even achieve 5 million tonnes (probably low).
This would have been great 20 years ago. Today, lol.
The point isn’t whether or not to invest in carbon capture tech. The point is that carbon capture tech is inconsequential to the climate crisis on any relevant timescale, and the #1 reason used to justify continued emissions by every major contributing industry, even though THEY KNOW that it is at least 30+ years away from being economically viable on any scale that could justify it as a solution (when we’re already at 2–3c).
The ONLY way we have a reasonable chance to avoid a 2+ c world is to dramatically reduce emissionsthis decade, by an order of 50+% at least using existing, proven solutions — distant, non-existent, unproven, future-tech can not save us from the present, so don’t even bother getting your hopes up.
5 million tonnes is 0.0125% of what we need to cut annually by 2025 to achieve 1.5c under the vast majority of modelling. Then you need to factor in the energy/carbon needed to build and operate it, and the probability that they’ll actually even achieve 5 million tonnes (probably low).
This would have been great 20 years ago. Today, lol.
It’s modular, they can make it larger in the future. They can also build more than one plant. For example I could see them building another one in Kemmerer, Wyoming and powering it with TerraPower’s Natrium SMR.
Just like planting a tree. If it wasn’t done in the past then you can either do it now or never. Which would you prefer?
The point isn’t whether or not to invest in carbon capture tech. The point is that carbon capture tech is inconsequential to the climate crisis on any relevant timescale, and the #1 reason used to justify continued emissions by every major contributing industry, even though THEY KNOW that it is at least 30+ years away from being economically viable on any scale that could justify it as a solution (when we’re already at 2–3c).
The ONLY way we have a reasonable chance to avoid a 2+ c world is to dramatically reduce emissions this decade, by an order of 50+% at least using existing, proven solutions — distant, non-existent, unproven, future-tech can not save us from the present, so don’t even bother getting your hopes up.
This Al Gore TED talk should help you understand why.