Adam Something
3 HN recommenders · recommended in 3 months, 2022–2024
3:51 · 988K views · Nov 1, 2022
Adam Something gives a short, sarcastic argument that carbon capture does not live up to its promises. He says the energy it uses would be better spent replacing fossil sources directly.
HN commenters cite it to argue carbon capture is a distraction from stopping emissions at the source.
3 comments from Hacker News
At this point, my smell test is "how much does the 'solution' smell of gas money." and if it does, I assume they don't want to do the hard work required cause it's not in their interests, and it hasn't been for decades. ( ahem Carbon offsets) In practice it's so much harder to debunk these solutions because we don't have good ways of dealing with bad-faith actors. The non-dismissive way to view Carbon Capture is this: Carbon Capture will be relevant when we actually reach zero emissions, and not a minute sooner. Until then, it is at best, creative accounting that does nothing, and at worst actively preventing electrification. The thought experiment I remember giving me clarity on this is: Imagine you have a solar plant that is fully dedicated to removing carbon from the atmosphere. 100 times out of 100, you would rather just stop the emissions at the source by making the emitter use the green energy. [1] this video
From a logical standpoint carbon capture is a scam [0]. The argument is "if you don't have spare energy, why are you spending it on carbon capture? And if you have spare energy (you don't), why not spend the money you usee to build the over capacity to bring clean energy somewhere else?" That is all assuming your entire power grid is 100% clean (it isn't) because otherwise you fall in case 0 where you spend energy that could be spent on offsetting non-clean energy usage. [0] this video
Carbon capture isn't real (as advertised). If you take green energy out of the supply to capture carbon, a carbon producing power plant will have to make up for it. [1] this video