In terms of area, far less than several India's required for BECCS or afforestation (several million km²), but still DAC is often sold as having a small footprint.
I can see the NIMBYs already with these vast structures...
5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Scientific studies (eg IPCC Assessment Reports) generally consider CO₂ emissions from 'Net Conversions' as the emissions, while government reporting to the UNFCCC combines the conversions & sink (black line).
The 'sink' is not the total sink, only a part of the forest sink.
There are two facilities (capturing in 2019), but very different stories:
* Boundary Dam: Operates ~60% capacity, used for EOR
* Quest: Operates ~90% capacity, permanent storage, but the generated H₂ is used to upgrade oilsands
1/
Boundary Dam is CCS on coal power, with the goal of capturing CO₂ for Enhanced Oil Recovery.
In short, it has not lived up to expectations. How much CO₂ gets stored is unknown, & in any case, the CO₂ is used for EOR (more CO₂).
Norway is known for its Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) & is best in class.
Even the best in class does not run at capacity. Currently ~80% of capacity is used, but Sleipner has dropped to ~65%.
But, Norwegian CCS is the easy type, removing CO₂ from extracted gas.
1/
The extracted gas at Sleipner Vest contains ~9% CO₂, but has to be reduced to ~2.5% to meet sales specifications.
The extracted gas in the Snøhvit field contains ~5-7.5% CO₂, and this has to be removed to avoid it freezing out in the downstream liquefaction process.
2/
The CO₂ has to be removed for market or technical reasons. You would therefore expect the facilities to run at a high capacity, as they have to!
The CO₂ is captured & stored, presumably to avoid paying the Norwegian CO₂ tax. This is great, but a different issue.
3/
“[Y]ou're absolutely right, that nobody is suggesting that there is a planetary tipping point out there that causes runaway climate change” @jrockstrom
[I used this to make the question in the Twitter poll]
2/
That statement seems clear, but there are ambiguities:
* “a” or many?
* “planetary” or smaller scale?
* “runaway” or a new state?
These issues were common in yesterday’s discussion
"I accept that thanks to human activity... atmospheric CO₂ has increased from ~300ppm [to] ~400ppm, & without appropriate action, it will probably go up to 500ppm in 30-40 years, maybe sooner... I accept that that could have consequences that we would much prefer to avoid."
1/
"I absolutely accept that". For added emphasis.
"[I]t's very hard to disagree with facts, & in the end a fact is a fact is a fact. And we cannot ignore facts just because in the short term, they don't see their argument."
2/
It would seem that Tony Abbott (former Prime Minister of Australia) is quite keen on facts. And climate change is a fact, according to his own words, & action is therefore needed.
Oh, but it is China: "by far the largest source of additional emissions right now" (a fact)
3/