Carbon emissions industry is evolving experts have explained the problems that we need to be resolved

in hive-175254 •  3 months ago  (edited)

A carbon removal industry is evolving, each of its carbon-absorbing components is about the size of a ship's container, yet the world's most accurate satellite imagery - the Orca plant in Iceland - only absorbs and stores about 4,000 tons of CO₂ a year. That's about three seconds of global release.

However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that technology that removes CO₂ from the air in this way will be needed along with deep cuts in emissions to reduce global warming.

In fact, meteorologists who emulate thermal stabilization at a temperature of 1.5 ° C (the target of the Paris agreement) think that a single-carbon emissions industry would need to be around 40% of the current fuel industry.

There are many ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. One is called bioenergy by carbon capture and storage, or Beccs. Here, hundreds of acres of high-yielding crops are planted and harvested and burned to generate electricity or to generate automotive biofuels. Beccs can even use waste from farms or timber fields.


Image source

The carbon that is usually extracted during the burning or fermentation process is captured and dumped underground in old oil and gas wells or deep rock formations called saline aquifers. These latter sites may be underground (which is common in the US) or at sea. There are more than 20 years of experience in maintaining CO₂ under the Norwegian North Sea, for example.

Attempts to calculate how much carbon emissions are likely to be affected by how much it will cost, or how much carbon can actually be emitted into space.1 This can be done by exploring the earth's available space for the production of biomass plants, or the size of underground gas storage dams.

But what scientists often overlook when predicting the future power of this technology is how society will need to change to embrace it.

For example, how will the sudden change in land use mean communities and health? How can the growing global demand for food security or restitution be linked to the need to produce more Beccs biomass? And who should even be able to make such decisions in order to be considered morally upright?

If world leaders at the UN climate summit in Glasgow fail to answer these questions, they run the risk of making more optimistic decisions about how much CO₂ can be released.

If it turns out that the international community has no confidence in this technology as climate modeling suggests we need it, then the public will need to make decarbonise as soon as possible to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Social and political issues


Image source

There is only one Beccs project in the world today, in Illinois, USA. Along with other researchers, we spoke to experts working in fields such as forestry and energy to understand what is needed to keep the new industry afloat.
These experts are familiar with large-scale hydroelectric projects, such as those cultivating ethanol sugarcane in Brazil, stripping the local people of their land, and destroying indigenous habitats.

Many of them worry that the Beccs' global industry that has grown into these practices will increase inequality by, for example, reducing food access and ultimately failing to remove carbon from the atmosphere by increasing deforestation. The UK's largest biomass power plant, Drax, mainly imports wood chips from North America.

While UK farmers grow grass for use in a few low-energy areas. But as the UK launches the Beccs industry, rising bioenergy demand could mean cheaper and more exploitative resources are more effective.

Some experts are skeptical that there is enough political support - which can surpass the interim election cycles - to unleash the new necessary elements to build a carbon footprint and final power in the UK.

This technology is not only needed for Beccs, but to make a heavy industry decarbonize, including metal and chemical production.

Experts were not even sure if there was even enough land to provide growing bioenergy plants. Many have expressed concern about the impact on the rights of people living and working on land reserved for the Beccs.

They have found that these social and political constraints were rarely represented, in that case, in the global energy emissions models. Of course, some of these things are immeasurable.

Models are often designed to incorporate nuances of decision-making at national, regional and local levels, or the importance of cultural and spiritual values that people give to local beauty.

Looking forward to your responses : )


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

The problem of carbon dioxide is a global problem and the whole world must join hands to fight it. If the satellite imagery can only absorb approximately 3sec carbon dioxide released in the world it might not be a better options because even if a bigger one is built it will still not solved the problem. I think the best solution is that all of us should go back to agriculture and plant we don't need a big land, that space at the back of our house can be turn to a garden and deforestation should be avoided at all cost and if we should cut a tree, three tree must be planted to replace it. The government should make a law that all carbon dioxide releasing company should have a way to solved it by either converting it to something less harmful or look for a better way of disposing it.

@jennyvic09 Indeed ,Its a global problem and everyone must understand the situation we going in ,

Thank you : )