Why is Exxon so interested in Carbon Capture?

[Antiwar]

Ideally the only change for normal people is a different color gas pump handle.

A cornucopian is a futurist who believes that continued progress and provision of material items for mankind can be met by similarly continued advances in technology. Fundamentally they believe that there are enough matter and energy on the Earth to provide for the population of the world.

 

[longview]

A cornucopian is a futurist who believes that continued progress and provision of material items for mankind can be met by similarly continued advances in technology. Fundamentally they believe that there are enough matter and energy on the Earth to provide for the population of the world.

It it not just illusion, we could have enough solar power to provide energy for everyone alive today going on until we find a better energy solution.
The surpluses that will arise can be stored as fuels for transport, heating, and off hours electricity.

 

[PoS]

Can you show me someone who says planting more trees is a bad idea?

Strawman, I never said its a bad idea. My point is that climate cultists hate fossil fuels more than they care about climate change.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Commercial breweries often add extra carbonation. Sometimes their recipes don't produce enough, sometimes processing removes too much. Europe did indeed have a carbon dioxide shortage a few years ago that almost lead to a beer shortage. Which could have been fatal in some areas.

I wouldn't want to drink any of that improperly made beer.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I didn't expect that you could. Stop posting made up crap as if it's a fact. Some would call that "lying".

LOL... Can you find anything that you know on the internet that you may have learned over the last 20 years?

Just stop. If you want to be accurate yourself, loo it up. I'm not a teacher.

 

[longview]

So, yes, randos on the internet. That's what you're basing this on.

Longview, there are anti-AGW people who think global warming is impossible because God wouldn't let that happen. Do you feel obligated to spend time and effort defending these stances? Some of them are even elected officials, so surely that's even more reason for you to be painted with those ideas, right?

Deuce, I am more concerned with the people who advocate the need for urgent actions of some sort.
This is a discussion and debate board, and yes there are people here who push back against the idea of
simply replacing our fuel as part of a solution to a sustainable energy future.
CO2 is not really a factor, because if we solve our energy problem, any issues that may exists with CO2
would be solved as a side effect.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Strawman, I never said its a bad idea. My point is that climate cultists hate fossil fuels more than they care about climate change.

That's an opinion, not a point. It's also a bug, not a feature.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

I wouldn't want to drink any of that improperly made beer.

Look, you can dislike facts you've overlooked all you want. That doesn't change them though.

Beer rationing begins after a carbon dioxide crisis hits Europe

A massive shortage of food-grade carbon dioxide (CO2) has ratcheted up fears of disruption to Europe’s meat and fizzy drink supplies.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Gateman_Wen]

LOL... Can you find anything that you know on the internet that you may have learned over the last 20 years?

Just stop. If you want to be accurate yourself, loo it up. I'm not a teacher.

I love it when you guys try to make it my fault that you can't back up your bullshit.

 

[PoS]

That's an opinion, not a point. It's also a bug, not a feature.

Its is fact. If climate nuts truly cared about the carbon in the air they'd just tell everyone to plant more trees, but instead they want to ban fossil fuels.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Its is fact. If climate nuts truly cared about the carbon in the air they'd just tell everyone to plant more trees, but instead they want to ban fossil fuels.

LOL

 

[Lord of Planar]

I love it when you guys try to make it my fault that you can't back up your bullshit.

Its not bullshit, and if you are going to say so, prove me wrong.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Its not bullshit, and if you are going to say so, prove me wrong.

First you have to prove you're right, which you are incapable of doing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

First you have to prove you're right, which you are incapable of doing.

No I don't. I am perfectly capable of doing so, but will not waste my time for someone who is a self proclaimed disruptive influence. No matter what I say, you will argue just to argue.

That's pretty sad...

 

[Gateman_Wen]

No I don't. I am perfectly capable of doing so, but will not waste my time for someone who is a self proclaimed disruptive influence. No matter what I say, you will argue just to argue.

That's pretty sad...

So you demond I prove you wrong when you won't bother to prove you're right?

Your excuses are getting weaker and weaker. Aren't you embarrassed enough yet?

 

[longview]

So you demond I prove you wrong when you won't bother to prove you're right?

Your excuses are getting weaker and weaker. Aren't you embarrassed enough yet?

Wait, are you arguing weather some beer makers add CO2 to their product?
I sure some do, but what is the point?

 

[Deuce]

Deuce, I am more concerned with the people who advocate the need for urgent actions of some sort.
This is a discussion and debate board, and yes there are people here who push back against the idea of
simply replacing our fuel as part of a solution to a sustainable energy future.
CO2 is not really a factor, because if we solve our energy problem, any issues that may exists with CO2
would be solved as a side effect.

It's not simple and synthetic fuels are nowhere near capable of doing that right now.

Nobody has said synthetic fuels can't be part of a solution either. You linked one page where nobody was saying that, they were just skeptical that the cost effectiveness would get there.

You're attacking a straw man.

Urgent action is needed. If synthetic fuels can be effective enough to be part of that action, that's great. What else are you confused about?

 

[longview]

It's not simple and synthetic fuels are nowhere near capable of doing that right now.

Nobody has said synthetic fuels can't be part of a solution either. You linked one page where nobody was saying that, they were just skeptical that the cost effectiveness would get there.

You're attacking a straw man.

Urgent action is needed. If synthetic fuels can be effective enough to be part of that action, that's great. What else are you confused about?

We do not know how far along the oil companies are with Power to liquid fuels, only that Norway in building a jet fuel plant,
and that Exxon in refitting one of it's Baytown Units to make fuel from harvested CO2.
What we do know is that the difficult part is getting the correct number of hydrogens to carbons, something
modern refineries already do.
I am not saying this is the only solution, but it is the only one with existing technology that can fully replace liquid fossil fuels.
I am sure some people will do just fine with battery electric cars, myself, I am looking at a Ford Maverick hybrid, when I can order it.
If as you claim, urgent action is needed, then you should be encouraging carbon neutral fuels, as that is the fastest path to reduce emissions.

 

[Deuce]

We do not know how far along the oil companies are with Power to liquid fuels, only that Norway in building a jet fuel plant,
and that Exxon in refitting one of it's Baytown Units to make fuel from harvested CO2.
What we do know is that the difficult part is getting the correct number of hydrogens to carbons, something
modern refineries already do.
I am not saying this is the only solution, but it is the only one with existing technology that can fully replace liquid fossil fuels.
I am sure some people will do just fine with battery electric cars, myself, I am looking at a Ford Maverick hybrid, when I can order it.
If as you claim, urgent action is needed, then you should be encouraging carbon neutral fuels, as that is the fastest path to reduce emissions.

I am encouraging carbon neutral fuels. If you repeat this lie one more time you're going on the ignore list.

 

[longview]

I am encouraging carbon neutral fuels. If you repeat this lie one more time you're going on the ignore list.

Did I say you were not encouraging carbon neutral fuels? I think I said,

If as you claim, urgent action is needed, then you should be encouraging carbon neutral fuels, as that is the fastest path to reduce emissions.

which is not saying you are not encouraging something.

 

[Deuce]

Did I say you were not encouraging carbon neutral fuels? I think I said,

which is not saying you are not encouraging something.

You've claimed more than once that there's some sort of widespread opposition to carbon neutral fuels, there's not. Most of that resistance comes from right wingers who reflexively oppose anything that would reduce carbon emissions, because they think climate change is part of a culture war instead of a scientific question

 

[longview]

You've claimed more than once that there's some sort of widespread opposition to carbon neutral fuels, there's not. Most of that resistance comes from right wingers who reflexively oppose anything that would reduce carbon emissions, because they think climate change is part of a culture war instead of a scientific question

In discussions going back to about 2014, the resistance seems to have mostly come from AGW proponents.
Starting with it is not possible, to, it is not feasible, to well it may be possible but never at scale, to currently it will not happen fast enough to do any good. I contend that because of the large demand, and existing infrastructure, manmade carbon neutral fuels
are the most likely path to significant emissions reductions.

 

[Deuce]

In discussions going back to about 2014, the resistance seems to have mostly come from AGW proponents.

It's not "resistance" to point out ongoing issues with cost effectiveness and scalability.

 

[longview]

It's not "resistance" to point out ongoing issues with cost effectiveness and scalability.

Except that pointing out a may be is quite different than a real reason.
I have said all along that the price of oil would need to be about $96 a barrel for this to become viable.
Some of that of course depends on the price of electricity.
As for scalability, both hydrogen and CO2 can be sourced elsewhere and piped in,
after that the process of making the olefins that feed the existing cracker units is straight forward.

 

[phoenix2020]

In discussions going back to about 2014, the resistance seems to have mostly come from AGW proponents.
Starting with it is not possible, to, it is not feasible, to well it may be possible but never at scale, to currently it will not happen fast enough to do any good. I contend that because of the large demand, and existing infrastructure, manmade carbon neutral fuels
are the most likely path to significant emissions reductions.

Please, let's call a spade a spade. You're not advocating for carbon neutral fuels. Instead, in discussions about topics like electrification, you pop in to declare that carbon neutral fuels are better than electrification, that they are faster, that they are the most likely path to emissions reductions, as a way to push back on any alternatives to carbon neutral fuels. Of course you do not back this up with data, you just state that this as your opinion. And when challenged as to why you believe carbon neutrals fuels are preferred to electrification, you come up with this schlock about AGW proponents hating carbon neutral fuels, like you're doing here.

The reality is that people like me have been saying the trend lines for carbon neutral fuels are slowly improving for a lot longer than the mere 8 years you've been at it. And, we've also been saying the trend lines for electrification have also been improving--and at a much greater clip--for as long. And, we've also been saying that the key challenge for carbon neutral fuels is whether, by the time they are viable, anyone will be making combustion power plants. Finally, we're seeing all this play out in reality, where electrification has hit the hockey stick curve now and is taking off, while carbon neutral fuels are maybe a decade and change away but are going to run head first into being a solution in search of a problem unless the efficiency issues are substantially addressed a lot more quickly than your 'trend lines' have suggested to-date.