• Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Just fucking put a carbon tax on everything it isn’t hard.

    Oh you want to burn coal because you are going to develop some great carbon technology and extract the carbon out of the air. Brilliant do it. If you fail you are going to get taxed out of existence.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    But boy, did they score some sweet taxpayer dollars from the Canadian government! We literally are paying for a faulty carbon capture facility. Literally throwing money into the garbage.

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      That’s a slight misreading of the headline. It’s not saying the that the carbon capture machinery emitted more emissions than it captured. It’s saying the hydrogen refining plant as a whole released more emissions than was captured by the carbon capture machinery in the process of refining hydrogen. So the hydrogen produced had less co2 emissions associated with it than was typical, but some co2 was still released. This makes sense because it would be basically impossible from a chemistry standpoint to make a machine that captured 100% of the carbon emitted.

      Fta:

      At best, it prevents some carbon dioxide from polluting facilities from reaching the atmosphere, but it is not a negative emissions technology

      I think the best use of these technologies for the time being is to lessen the harms of already running sources of emissions where co2 is highly concentrated and some of it can be captured, if it’s some kind of situation where a greener technology can’t just replace it outright for some reason, which obviously should be the preferred route.

      Shell is misrepresenting this as removing co2 already in the atmosphere, when in reality it’s just lessening new emissions somewhat. And they’re trying to use this to argue for the creation of even more fossil fuel facilities, when this technology is only reducing the harms, not taking it away, so creating more polluting sources than already exist is the last thing we need. And I totally agree using taxpayer money to help fossil fuel companies greenwash is asinine.

      This is also different than those projects where they’re just trying to pull it out of the air, which are totally ridiculous with any current technology but theoretically would result in negative emissions (and which Shell is hoping people think of when they say “carbon capture”).

  • Deebster@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    “Quest was originally designed as a demonstration project to prove (carbon capture) technology and overall has met or exceeded our expectations,” said Shell

    So they knew it wouldn’t work, but they got the government to subsidise it at least.

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It worked perfectly but the purpose is not what you think it is. This facility in Alberta captures Carbon produced by the Scotford Complex, a Petrol Oil Refinery. It was never, ever, going to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, it was just going to make the adjacent facility produce slightly less. The problem is, of course, that the Hydrogen being used in operations is from a source that puts off more greenhouse gasses than the facility can sequester. We do have the technology to produce Hydrogen more cleanly, but clearly that isn’t in the budget.

      • wildcherry@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Why would we trust the people who are putting us in this mess to put us out of it? It’s stupid. Confiscate their profit and fund clean energy research with that money

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m not trusting them to do anything, I’m explaining how the facility works. We can understand things without advocating for them and vice versa.