• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is Exxon so interested in Carbon Capture?

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
44,395
Reaction score
14,430
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Exxon sees carbon capture market at $4 trillion by 2050
Carbon capture is an important emissions reduction technology, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
It involves the capture of CO2 from fuel combustion or industrial processes, transporting it via ship or pipeline,
to be stored underground in geological formations or used as a resource to create products.
I wonder what kind of products would require that much CO2?
 
Europe had a carbon dioxide shortage a few years back that almost caused a beer crisis.

Also, you can make almost anything you can make from oil with it. oil being hydrocarbon of course. plasticas and polymers, even fuels.
 
Europe had a carbon dioxide shortage a few years back that almost caused a beer crisis.

Also, you can make almost anything you can make from oil with it. oil being hydrocarbon of course. plasticas and polymers, even fuels.
Sorry, I was being a bit ironic. I have been saying that Exxon and the other large oil companies will
transition their operations from oil as a source for fuels, to making fuels from captured CO2, and Hydrogen.
Exxon Baytown is currently refitting one of their unit to do this.
One problem with making hydrocarbon fuel is that each gallon of gasoline, needs about 4 lbs of carbon.
 
Sorry, I was being a bit ironic. I have been saying that Exxon and the other large oil companies will
transition their operations from oil as a source for fuels, to making fuels from captured CO2, and Hydrogen.
Exxon Baytown is currently refitting one of their unit to do this.
One problem with making hydrocarbon fuel is that each gallon of gasoline, needs about 4 lbs of carbon.
And this is a problem because?
 
And this is a problem because?
It is not at all, but many AGW proponents do not like the idea.
I suspect that they have been demonizing the oil companies for so long,
they are unable to come to terms that the oil companies could have the solution to a sustainable energy future.
 
It is not at all, but many AGW proponents do not like the idea.
I suspect that they have been demonizing the oil companies for so long,
they are unable to come to terms that the oil companies could have the solution to a sustainable energy future.
What's not to like? It's not like we wanna keep it as carbon dioxide.
 
What's not to like? It's not like we wanna keep it as carbon dioxide.
I agree, if they can make carbon neutral fuels that sell for less than fuels made from oil, everyone will buy them
and CO2 emissions will drop by 1/3 globally.
Based on published energy storage efficiencies (60 -80%) this should equate to an oil price of about $96 a barrel, or less.
So far we only have numbers from the Naval Research Labs, and Sunfire Energy in Germany.
Exxon, Shell, and BP, all had big research programs, so I suspect they may have more efficient processes.
Sunfire noted that if the plant were located near a CO2 source, the efficiency could go as high as 81%.
The Naval Research Labs noted one sort of limitation to the Power to Liquid technology.
Artificially assembling Carbon and Hydrogen atoms, make very uniform molecules, so it can only make premium fuel.
in Gasoline this means only 100 octane.
 
Sorry, I was being a bit ironic. I have been saying that Exxon and the other large oil companies will
transition their operations from oil as a source for fuels, to making fuels from captured CO2, and Hydrogen.
Exxon Baytown is currently refitting one of their unit to do this.
One problem with making hydrocarbon fuel is that each gallon of gasoline, needs about 4 lbs of carbon.

Doesn't sound absolutely carbon neutral, but it does sound like a step in the right direction.
 
Doesn't sound absolutely carbon neutral, but it does sound like a step in the right direction.
If all the carbon comes from atmospheric CO2, and the energy stored in the process is carbon free,
then the resulting fuel is 100% carbon neutral, zero new CO2 is released when the fuel is burned.
 
I agree, if they can make carbon neutral fuels that sell for less than fuels made from oil, everyone will buy them
and CO2 emissions will drop by 1/3 globally.
Based on published energy storage efficiencies (60 -80%) this should equate to an oil price of about $96 a barrel, or less.
So far we only have numbers from the Naval Research Labs, and Sunfire Energy in Germany.
Exxon, Shell, and BP, all had big research programs, so I suspect they may have more efficient processes.
Sunfire noted that if the plant were located near a CO2 source, the efficiency could go as high as 81%.
The Naval Research Labs noted one sort of limitation to the Power to Liquid technology.
Artificially assembling Carbon and Hydrogen atoms, make very uniform molecules, so it can only make premium fuel.
in Gasoline this means only 100 octane.
Your car will run well on 100 octane fuel. In fact if you drive an old hoopty it might run better, as the higher octane will reduce pre ignition ping.
 
Your car will run well on 100 octane fuel. In fact if you drive an old hoopty it might run better, as the higher octane will reduce pre ignition ping.
I asked a Ford Mechanic this, and he told me that modern cars all can compensate for better gas, just not worse.
 
The easiest way to reduce carbon is just plant more trees. It's funny that climate cultists dont advocate this and want to ban meat and fossil fuels instead.
 
The easiest way to reduce carbon is just plant more trees. It's funny that climate cultists dont advocate this and want to ban meat and fossil fuels instead.
Can you show me someone who says planting more trees is a bad idea?
 
Can you show me someone who says planting more trees is a bad idea?
It is not that anyone says it is a bad idea, only that it will not solve climate change.
Implying that a solution is actually needed.
Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change
I frankly think the carbon uptake amounts for trees is way too low.
The Power of One Tree - The Very Air We Breathe
According to the Arbor Day Foundation, in one year a mature tree will absorb more than 48 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen in exchange.
Each pound of biomass, requires about 3 lbs of CO2, and I think I get about 100 lbs of leaves each year off of my small oak tree,
not to mention how much wood mass is added.
A pine tree can grow to telephone pole size in about 25 years, and could weigh as much as 2000 lbs (80 lbs per year) but
all the branches could add another 200 lbs.
 
It is not that anyone says it is a bad idea, only that it will not solve climate change.
Implying that a solution is actually needed.
Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change
I frankly think the carbon uptake amounts for trees is way too low.
The Power of One Tree - The Very Air We Breathe

Each pound of biomass, requires about 3 lbs of CO2, and I think I get about 100 lbs of leaves each year off of my small oak tree,
not to mention how much wood mass is added.
A pine tree can grow to telephone pole size in about 25 years, and could weigh as much as 2000 lbs (80 lbs per year) but
all the branches could add another 200 lbs.
That's all cool and stuff, but can you show us how many trees we would have to plant to stop climate change?
 
That's all cool and stuff, but can you show us how many trees we would have to plant to stop climate change?
I am not sure we have to plant them, nature spreads out forests where it can,
and Earth has greened up quite a bit in the last 40 years.
Not cutting down rainforest would help quite a bit, but we have more pressing issues than CO2.
We do not have enough energy to allow everyone alive to live a first world lifestyle, should they choose to.
Oil and Coal would run out fairly quickly, if everyone used the energy used in the first world.
To move forward, we need a sustainable supply of energy, and I think solar is the long term option that looks the best.
I think it would take 200 million acres of solar panels to replace what we get from oil and coal.
 
It is not at all, but many AGW proponents do not like the idea.
I suspect that they have been demonizing the oil companies for so long,
they are unable to come to terms that the oil companies could have the solution to a sustainable energy future.
longview once again making up bullshit straw man arguments
 
longview once again making up bullshit straw man arguments
So what is your reason to not use hydrocarbon energy storage as a path to energy sustainability?
 
So what is your reason to not use hydrocarbon energy storage as a path to energy sustainability?
He also doesn't know what straw man means.

News flash: AGW proponents are the ones promoting carbon capture technology. Right wingers are opposing it.
 
He also doesn't know what straw man means.

News flash: AGW proponents are the ones promoting carbon capture technology. Right wingers are opposing it.
Not if Exxon is planning a massive carbon capturing plan.
But again, do you have a viable alternative plan for future energy sustainability?
It is an important question, because fossil fuels will only become more expensive in the long term,
and without a viable replacement, perhaps 80% of our population will starve.
 
Not if Exxon is planning a massive carbon capturing plan.
But again, do you have a viable alternative plan for future energy sustainability?
It is an important question, because fossil fuels will only become more expensive in the long term,
and without a viable replacement, perhaps 80% of our population will starve.
Again, AGW proponents promote carbon capture. Any post you make on the premise that AGW proponents are 100% against carbon capture is a lie and is not going to get a response.
 
Again, AGW proponents promote carbon capture. Any post you make on the premise that AGW proponents are 100% against carbon capture is a lie and is not going to get a response.
I am not saying anyone is against carbon capture, it is you who are making that up.
What I am saying is that quite a few AGW proponents seem to be against the idea of making carbon neutral
hydrocarbon fuels with that captured CO2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
I am not saying anyone is against carbon capture, it is you who are making that up.
What I am saying is that quite a few AGW proponents seem to be against the idea of making carbon neutral
hydrocarbon fuels with that captured CO2.
I've never once seen an AGW proponent say they are against carbon neutral energy. Are you basing all this on some rando you found on Twitter? Because I also don't care about that.
 
Then you are not looking very close!
Show me one of any significance. Note: Some rando on Twitter is going to get you laughed at.
 
Back
Top Bottom