Carbon Capture Perfectly Captured

September 4, 2021

21 Responses to “Carbon Capture Perfectly Captured”

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    Excellent, excellent, excellent !!!!!

    The Aussies DO know how to tell it like it is.


    • Some Aussie blokes are massive BSers on other topics, though. Here’s an eco sell-out who decided the word “industrial” can never be applied to spiky white elephants: http://ramblingsdc.net/windenergyopposition.html (server may be down unless someone pulled his site)

      Remember, I’m not a climate-denier, just someone who sees the historical panoply of techno-fix blunders, and still cares about open space looking natural, not measured in neo-green terms like “installed capacity.”

      Many a virtue-signaling power plant used to be a mountaintop. You know, those scenic places environmentalists used to respect before they worshiped green growth.

      Whales were inadvertently saved by petroleum replacing their oil, but the planet won’t be saved by inefficient energy sprawl replacing fossil fuels. There’s no simple, infinite line of substitution for energy, per the likes of Julian Simon.

      • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

        and still cares about open space looking natural

        It seems you want visual aesthetics to outweigh (1) reducing pollution that poisons animal life and (2) reducing GHG emissions.

        The power from those icky wind turbines provides safer, cleaner, and less-ecologically damaging power than that from coal, gas or oil. For all but a few animals, the sight and sound of wind turbines does not affect them in the slightest. For the rest (like some raptors or bats), the threat barely compares to the loss of habitat and food sources from climate change, agriculture, industrial sites and residential development, and even that is being reduced by clever researchers and designers who are learning how to warn them off.

        So suck it up, stock up on smelling salts and get your fainting couch ready, because after fighting off the fossil fuel companies for decades, your distress at unsightly wind turbines won’t stop us from supporting them.


        • Yes, I’m wise enough to know that Man has long tried replacing one technology with another, ending up with unintended consequences. In the case of Big Wind, the consequences are not subtle! It’s massive industrialization, hidden only to the blind, dumb and righteously smug (like this whole blog).

          You’re just repeating standard themes (see https://is.gd/wind_canards) that ignore the vast SCALE needed for wind, and also solar panels smothering the countryside. That scale offers no assurance of a climate fix, since fossil fuels make it all possible. Try building just ONE big wind turbine with portable non-fossil energy, starting with mining & smelting, then transport, crane work, etc. All you people do is pretend it might work,then change the subject.

          Wind energy has been correctly described as a “fossil fuel extender” by Gail Tverberg, et al. You’re trying to frame it as a true replacement for fossil fuels, which defies the laws of physics. A general term for the problems I describe is Energy Sprawl: https://www.google.com/search?&q=energy+sprawl+land+use

          Sprawl rivals global warming in terms of total environmental ruin. Pardon some of us for being quaint about wild places, or keeping bats viable. Disregarding all that, you simply assume wind can make a permanent dent in AGW, and it’s never been proved. Peak Oil will eventually solve global warming with painful economic shrinkage. The economy will have to scale down, with much more reliance on small-footprint nuclear, but I don’t see anything as a true fix.

          Elon Musk’s space-invasion w/40,000+ satellites is another case of build first, ask questions later. He’s also someone claiming to be green just because he’s “against” fossil fuels which make all his projects feasible.

          Ask yourself whether Man has earned the right to keep expanding on this planet. I say no. We’ve worn out our welcome with extreme hubris, and Big Wind is the latest trendy icon, typically in cartoon form to mask the scale. Even the Nature Conservancy includes wind in its pipe dreams, claiming we can just “site wind right.” That’s the infinite planet delusion.

          • Mark Mev Says:

            “Sprawl rivals global warming in terms of total environmental ruin.” I try to listen to different perspectives, but when you say shit like that you lose me.

          • jimbills Says:

            So, I’m somewhat loathe to respond to your posts, because I actually agree with your basic concepts about unintended consequences of technology, that renewables will have a far harder time replacing FF than many believe here, that greens do place a blind eye to the environmental destruction from renewables (however, equivalency should also be accounted for – for instance, which is worse, a coal plant or the equivalent number of turbines), that our society is just trying to extend our current mode of living and economic growth with that renewables replacement, which will inevitably lead to disaster, and several other points. I have some quibbles, though, and a question for you that I hope you will answer.

            My question is this: Given that the world economy is heading to an environmental breakdown, and given that climate change is a main component of that breakdown, are you suggesting that we shouldn’t do anything at all with renewables to limit carbon emissions?

            Okay – the quibbles. I know who Tverberg is, and I remember when she wrote that over a decade ago. At the time, it was a bit of a stretch, but a somewhat accurate statement because of how limited renewables were in the total energy mix and because of how expensive and resource-intensive they were. Also, peak oil supply was strongly forecasted by Tverberg and other to arrive then, and concepts such as EROI held major weight in energy discussions.

            EROI has lost some of its shine since then:
            https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/examining-the-limits-of-energy-return-on-investment

            It’s being replacing by a sort of ‘EROI plus net energy’ consideration – because a solar panel will absolutely cost more in energy (mostly from FF) for a few years, but over time (and this improves as technological efficiencies increase), it produces far more energy than it consumed in its creation. Turbines, ditto. Therefore, the Tverberg comment, a bit flippant even at the time, is now obsolete. Please note the Tverberg quote in the article I just linked.

            A second quibble is about “you simply assume wind can make a permanent dent in AGW, and it’s never been proved” – which isn’t accurate. Britain is doing it now:
            https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-29-per-cent-over-the-past-decade

            Wind power HAS reduced emissions in Great Britain. Denmark is the same. These two countries by themselves are laughably small in the big picture, and I agree that it’d be incredibly difficult to do that globally, but it has been proven that wind power can make a dent in AGW.

          • jimbills Says:

            Re: “Peak Oil will eventually solve global warming with painful economic shrinkage.”

            I’d suggest you re-examine you suppositions there as well. I was once a big peak oil (supply) guy back in the 2010 time frame. In retrospect, we actually did hit conventional peak oil around 2006, but almost no one accounted for how enormous fracking would be. Then, for a few more years, I latched onto the finiteness of fracked oil and how wells deplete rapidly – it’s something of a last hurrah in oil production – but all predictions have proven false in regards to that. Plus, we’ve had several economic downturns from other causes in the past decade that have reduced demand, and who is to say there won’t be several others in the next decade?

            As the next decade proceeds, EVs are going to start to take off, reducing global oil demand. While I’m not willing to completely write off peak oil supply as a possibility yet, it’s highly probable that we’ll hit peak oil demand BEFORE we hit peak oil supply, and the supply side will not be an issue to the overall economy.


        • rhymeswithgoalie wrote: ““Sprawl rivals global warming in terms of total environmental ruin.” I try to listen to different perspectives, but when you say shit like that you lose me.”

          This shows that you’re not a true environmentalist. Many people these days are so obsessed with carbon that they forget the full arc of man-made damage. We gotta control our carbon footprint but all other footprints can run amok? Typical tunnel-vision.

          Remember when environmentalists were (and still are) constantly protesting logging? The response to their aesthetic arguments was always “well, people NEED the timber.” The same thing is happening with Big Wind sprawl. It’s all about “people NEED energy and the economy NEEDS to keep growing,” with nature itself as the constant loser.

          I’m trying to get “100% renewables” fantasists to understand that people drive many types of environmental destruction with new rationalizations at each step. Looking back on a planet festooned with ugly machines, yet still warmer, historians will lament this lack of foresight as nothing new.

          One positive thing about wind energy is that turbines can be removed later (if enough fossil fuels remain to power the equipment). Poland plans to remove all its onshore turbines by 2035 – for the aesthetic reasons you sniff at – and also because they just don’t work reliably.


          • Correction: The above quote was from Mark Mev. I couldn’t directly reply to it for some reason.

            Pro-wind voices end up all looking the same. More development of nature with endless excuses, claiming they’re “different” than the last round of environmental pillaging.

            Are they trying to save the physical planet (far more than just its atmosphere) or just society’s endless growth legacy? It looks a lot more like the latter when you get past the green slogans.


          • The formatting of this site oddly won’t let me reply to others’ posts, so I have to reply below my own. Manipulation for censorship, perhaps?

            —–

            jimbills Says: September 4, 2021 at 11:41 pm

            Re: “Peak Oil will eventually solve global warming with painful economic shrinkage.”

            “I’d suggest you re-examine you suppositions there as well. I was once a big peak oil (supply) guy back in the 2010 time frame. In retrospect, we actually did hit conventional peak oil around 2006, but almost no one accounted for how enormous fracking would be. Then, for a few more years, I latched onto the finiteness of fracked oil and how wells deplete rapidly – it’s something of a last hurrah in oil production – but all predictions have proven false in regards to that.”

            —–

            “All predictions” in what time-frame? You think oil is infinite again after getting a clue that it wasn’t? That means you never got what peak oil meant in the first place. Shale fracking is hardly a long-term enterprise, citing this very blog: https://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/04/usa-today-fracking-and-red-queen-syndrome/

            People who support faux-renewables repeatedly demonstrate low comprehension of finitude (finite planet, finite resources) in terms of usable land and resources within.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “The formatting of this site oddly won’t let me reply to others’ posts, so I have to reply below my own. Manipulation for censorship, perhaps?”

            AHA !!! Now FP is raising the question of CENSORSHIP because he is too freaking stupid to figure out how to make replies to specific comments from specific commenters.

            It WOULD be great if FP”s mindless posts WOULD get lost somewhere in the ether so that we wouldn’t have to look at them. We can hope

          • jimbills Says:

            FP – you’ve only answered me once – and only to outright reject my comments about peak oil, and then insult me, which doesn’t bode well for much of a real or honest discussion. However, while you have not really answered any of my questions or comments, I will answers your question.

            What predictions about peak oil? All of the ones regarding a total global oil production peak made by Hubbert and everyone who followed him: Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, Kenneth Deffeyes, and all the dabblers (non-specialists) like James Howard Kunstler. All of them predicted that we’d hit peak oil (supply) in the 2005-2015 time range, and we’d see a crash because of it. All of them were wrong. No one saw how big tight oil (fracking) would be. Heinberg then went into predictions on how fracking would bust by now – it hasn’t happened.

            I know peak oil theory inside and out, and attended one of the last ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas) yearly conventions before the organization finally folded, because even they realized it wasn’t happening any time soon. They don’t even maintain a website any more.

            You don’t want to hear it – and that’s fine, I know why you don’t – but we aren’t far off from peak oil demand instead of peak oil supply. Of course oil isn’t infinite! But, the oil industry has figured out how to extract more than anyone expected using new technologies, and they’ll continue to do so for at the very least for another decade. Meanwhile, EVs will grow in market share at a steady rate.

            It won’t take much share of the market for EVs to cap global oil demand (about a 10% share would do it). And that’s all they have to do to prevent the doomsday economic scenarios regarding peak oil supply. Peak oil supply could, and almost certainly will, top out some time in the next 10-15 years – but IT WON’T MATTER if we’ve already hit peak oil demand before then, because the market will be supplied with the oil it needs to function.

            Dude – I agree with your contention that everyone just wants global resources to go on forever and ever, and how that spells disaster for nature and probably ourselves – but I’m telling you: it’s exactly what we will get, because almost everyone, including the greens, wants that, and because man is a clever little bugger. We figure out how to get what we want. In the end, yes, disaster, but it ain’t happening any time soon unless we get some out of the blue deus ex machina (and that’s very likely NOT going to be peak oil supply), and it’s just wishful thinking to believe it will.

      • ubrew12 Says:

        “Many a virtue-signaling power plant used to be a mountaintop.” A mountain topped with wind turbines can be shorn of them, once you and yours come up with the ‘unobtainium’ that is supposed to green our power grids. Compared to a wind turbine, do you want to know what ‘permanent’ looks like? Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is permanent. Nuclear waste is permanent. Wind turbines? Solar panels? Impermanent. Put em up, take em down. Hope this was helpful (but I doubt it).


        • As mentioned in another reply, a good thing about wind turbines is that they can potentially be removed later, but it takes a lot of energy to do so, invariably from the same fossil fuels that build “clean” projects.

          I can see a post Peak Oil world where millions of turbines stand rusting for lack of energy to uproot them and their concrete slabs. Also, access roads leave permanent scars, especially in the desert, and you can’t un-blast ridges, like this example: https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/laurel-mountain-wind-project/

          The idea of removing wind turbines is hard enough in a world relatively flush with fossil fuels at the moment. They tend to mainly remove them to replace them with bigger models. Poland’s plans to yank all onshore turbines by 2035 is the only large scale plan I’m aware of. They claim they’ll also take out the foundations.

          Ironically, rural conservatives stuck living around wind turbines tend to drive opposition while urban quasi-environmentalists crow about “gigawatts of installed capacity” as they tool around in Teslas, also built with fossil fuels. This photo is classic: https://reneweconomy.com.au/australian-tesla-model-s-driver-taps-wind-energy-on-queensland-road-trip-99968/

          I’m for (safer but not perfect) nuclear but I don’t think there “must” be a solution to overpopulation and economic growth without major shrinkage and austerity. The “100% renewables” crowd approaches the whole thing like it HAS to be fixable, which is part of their delusional nature. Look into documentaries like Bright Green Lies if you haven’t already dismissed that as pessimism.


  2. Mark Mev wrote: “Sprawl rivals global warming in terms of total environmental ruin.” I try to listen to different perspectives, but when you say shit like that you lose me. [mistakenly attributed to another poster earlier]

    Honestly tell yourself it’s worth it just to drop the temperatures a fraction of a degree; realistic when you understand fossil fuel ERoI. You’re operating on two false assumptions: 1) Faux renewables can actually solve AGW, and 2) A planet ravaged by FAR more industrial sprawl is desirable to live in. Do you spend your vacations in downtown canyons or real ones? Some zealots even want wind blight on the Grand Canyon’s rim if it’s workable.

    In detail, explain the QUALITY of life in a world littered with giant wind machines and artificial glass solar lakes where the natural world used to be. Far more birds, bats & insects will be killed by spinning blades, and local winds are also stifled, creating surface warming. Solar “farms” have already obliterated tortoise habitat, etc. and solar thermal plants like Ivanpah literally cook flying birds. You people just yabut any evidence of cumulative environmental harm because you’re mostly technophiles.

    Again, it’s highly unlikely this will be a world where climate change is solved as partial compensation for other losses. It will be an uglier world with less nature, and it already is.

    • jimbills Says:

      FP – you are angered because of the hypocrisies you see in the environmental movement (namely the desire to maintain the world economy with all its rapacity), and that’s fine, a lot of that is deserved, but you have three false premises:

      1) The environmental destruction from renewables is the same (or worse) as that from fossil fuels. It’s easy to show a photo of wind turbines on a mountain range. It’s as easy to show a photo of a coal slurry pond. Please show any study at all that shows the total environmental effect from renewables is worse than that from fossil fuels. You’re very concerned about bird deaths from turbines, and that is bad, but it should also be put into context:
      https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds.php

      2) EROI explains why renewables won’t work. However, as Tverberg herself has acknowledged, EROI doesn’t apply cleanly to renewables as it does to coal/oil/ng/nuclear, because it’s apples and oranges. One is burned away immediately, and the other provides less power at any given time, but it does so for a much longer time frame. Multiple studies, when accounting for this added time, show the EROI of renewables to be higher than the original estimates by Charles Hall in 2010. Additionally, as those estimates were made over a decade ago, and technological advances in solar and wind have further increased that capability.

      It can be argued, though, that the EROI of renewables (especially biomass) with the added time frame is still not close enough to FF to replace it 100%. However, this is a straw man argument in three ways:

      a) It’s highly probable that as limits to renewables become better known, and they will as they become a greater percentage of the grid, other sources such as advanced nuclear will be added to offset those deficiencies.

      b) Storage and technological advances will increase the EROI of renewables further.

      c) Any added renewables now will subtract from the total global emissions in the future (as well as air and water pollution). Even one degree less of warming better than adding that degree. Therefore, although the term ‘green energy’ might be considered a misnomer, renewables are still far preferable to doing nothing at all.

      3) A deus ex machina event like peak oil will prevent future growth in the near term (say, the next 30 years). I wrote above why I think it’s more probable that peak oil demand will arrive before peak oil supply. But besides that, humans do adapt to changing systems if they are forced to do so. Newer sources are developed to replace declining ones – new technologies augment failing ones. I’m familiar with Julian Simon, and I’m not an acolyte of his by any stretch, but the reasons why Ehrlich’s and others’ many predictions have not come true is because of this adaptive human dynamic. It’s foolish to discount it.

      I know from personal experience that the psychological want for a deus ex machina comes from the understanding that man won’t change, that this will lead to dark places in our future, and hoping that some big event will come along and prevent it.

      I’d invite you to consider the worst outcome: we won’t change, there will be no immediate deus ex machina, and we’ll get the worst of all possible outcomes – a greatly reduced biosphere with man’s fingerprint over every square inch of the globe (and beyond). The growth imperative in humanity cannot be stopped – 99% of humans desire personal and societal growth and are unable to comprehend life without it, the world economy as it is currently structured demands it, and there will be no sudden collapse due to man’s adaptivity. You fight renewables because you fear this future – perhaps you worry that our adaptivity might indeed win out (seeing renewables as just a another type of that adaptivity) – but you’re one man, and no one is listening. I understand the anger there, but it won’t change anything. Maybe some virus will come along or something, but it’s pretty much just faith born from personal desire to believe it will any time soon.

      (This isn’t to say there won’t be some catastrophic fall at some point. I believe humans can delay it, and for quite some time, but I lean more towards Joseph Tainter’s theory that diminishing returns on investment and social complexity eventually yields to collapse.)

      • jimbills Says:

        “man won’t change” – meaning “humanity won’t change in its desire for constant growth and expansion”. Man WILL change the means or resources to attain that constant growth, however. EVs are a way to be ‘greener’, for instance, but they’re also a way to offset oil production limits. The timing for them becoming prevalent in the market isn’t coincidence.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      PLEASE !!!! PLEASE !!!! PLEASE !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      PLEASE take your OCD elsewhere and find something real to obsess about—-I for one am getting quite tired of your endless ranting that RE will somehow “destroy” something about the planet. Yes, it may be a bit ugly, but the actual damage it does to the environment is limited compared to the good it can do.

      (Or go read a good book about something other than climate change—-a good one would be Stamped From The Beginning, which is THE defining book on racism, white supremacy, discrimination, and Critical Race Theory—-all of which have done far more damage to the planet than windmills and solar farms.

      PS I CANNOT believe that you keep bringing up the very rare bird that gets cooked by a solar thermal farm—talk about grasping at straws when you have no real arguments to make…..


      • I know as much about AGW as your smug a–. I just understand that the last remaining open spaces in windy areas should not be sacrificed for something that might drop global temps by 1/10th degree at most. Electricity is just one part of bulk energy. You are surely aware that wind turbines never live up to their rated capacity (wind is fickle) yet energy forecasts keep hyping it to the max.

        “Yes, it may be a bit ugly, but the actual damage it does to the environment is limited compared to the good it can do.”

        No, it’s far more than a bit ugly, and it won’t do much good. We’ll end up with a warmer world riddled with giant machines and limited ability to remove them with less fossil fuel energy. Even small-footprint nuclear is no real solution, but at least the world won’t look like a pincushion around every corner.

        I favor nuclear because I think nature should look like nature and flying creatures have a right to fly unimpeded in the countryside. Call me quaint, but that’s what environmentalism used to be about, you dummy. Most “green growth” yammering is a desperate attempt to keep creature comforts and not admit to large-scale human errors.

        Revisit environmental complaints at the dawn of the fossil fuel age, and you’ll find the same mantra of “people NEED this….” (no, they WANT it so they can keep wrecking nature for their own convenience). The main difference now is that less visible smoke comes out of the savior machinery. See “fossil fuel extenders.”

        “Saving the Planet” is a Lost Cause (Anthropocentric Growthism Prevails)

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Oh, looky !! FP is now getting personal and insulting with his “…your smug ass” and “…you dummy”. Having grown up in NJ and being a member of the USMC, i must say that these are not exactly earth-shaking insults (they are delivered by a “pussy” who doesn’t have the balls to really “get down”.

          The conversation is about to take a huge change in direction away from AGW anyway. I looked at FP’s website and read some of the posts—in particular, this one:

          “It’s Not Racist To Defend Your Quality Of Life From Different Cultures”

          Read it and see that FP demonstrates there that he is a racist and white supremacist of the first order as defined by Critical Race Theory. He was even banned on social media for his remarks. It’s actually quite shocking that he claims to have credibility re: AGW when he is so far off the mark here. How many FP’s are we dealing with?

        • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

          You are surely aware that wind turbines never live up to their rated capacity (wind is fickle) yet energy forecasts keep hyping it to the max.

          A wind turbine only has to produce more energy over time than it costs to produce to be worth it. Do you have evidence that wind turbines being installed today will not on net far out-produce the amount of energy needed to make them? (I want to get consulting money from wind farm owners who don’t have these secret calculations.)


Leave a Reply to False Progress Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: