Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's just a weird thing to be up at a podium announcing to an international audience. We aren't going to import their CO2. Basically this is good for domestic industry only. Sell Alberta as a place to process goods that produce a lot of CO2, sure, but they way he did it is just kinda goofy.


That, and I'm not really sure we have this proven success story to tell yet.

These are both fair criticisms.

However, carbon doesn't respect borders. And if you have the technology to pull it out of the air, it doesn't really matter whether it was oil sands carbon or Chinese carbon. Yes this tech is expensive, but if it's cheaper to put it underground in AB for geological and/or regulatory reasons, then that contributes to a reduction in the total cost.

Obviously it's also cheaper to strap carbon capture to a flare stack. It's probably a stretch right now, but you could imagine a business investing in CCUS in AB as a form of credit on their emissions elsewhere in the world.

IDK. I'd prefer to see the UCP offering solutions rather than sticking their head in the sand. I'm not awarding participation ribbons either, but it seems pretty tribal to jump on them for something we need more of.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's just a weird thing to be up at a podium announcing to an international audience. We aren't going to import their CO2. Basically this is good for domestic industry only. Sell Alberta as a place to process goods that produce a lot of CO2, sure, but they way he did it is just kinda goofy.


That, and I'm not really sure we have this proven success story to tell yet.

I don't have a problem with it - there's a lot of things I think the UCP and Brian Jean are out to lunch on, but carbon storage is an area that we should be pursuing given the province's geology* and technical/engineering skillset that's available in the workforce.

*I am not a geologist.


What I think is absurd though, is that on one hand they're arguing to pushing back timelines on renewables and investments towards net zero (in part because they argue that the technology isn't there yet), and on the other advocating for investment and how we're the greatest. Can't have it both ways.

[Fuzz]

We should absolutely be pursuing it if we want to still be able to extract hydrocarbons in the future, which I assume we do. This just feels a little "cart before the horse", since we haven't proven this works well in Alberta at large scales. Sure, the reservoir engineers can say they think it will, but we don't know until we really ramp up. And we are making some pretty big bets it will work, mostly because there isn't a viable path forward otherwise.

[Superflyer]

Just out of my own curiosity, how would other places ship us CO2 for us to store?

[surferguy]

Jabba the Hut has that market cornered. It’s gonna be costly dealing with that oversized slug.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

Just out of my own curiosity, how would other places ship us CO2 for us to store?

Pump it into the atmosphere wherever you are, and then we can capture it with DAC(Direct Air Capture) and store it. Also a fairly unproven technology. But that would probably still be more economical than shipping it from Eritrea.

[Ozy_Flame]

Shall we vacuum all the air to Alberta to store it? After all, we have the best geology.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Shall we vacuum all the air to Alberta to store it? After all, we have the best geology.

Mega Maid, the time is now.

[Fuzz]

Perhaps a giant chimney? A Space Chimney? Then we could submit the moon to our coal rolling, and finally get it back for being so damned bright. All sides of the moon will be dark sides by the time we are done.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Perhaps a giant chimney? A Space Chimney? Then we could submit the moon to our coal rolling, and finally get it back for being so damned bright. All sides of the moon will be dark sides by the time we are done.

You're not thinking big enough. If we could get greenhouse gasses to Mars that would be very helpful for future colonization. Especially if someone figures out a way to get them to stay as atmosphere

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You're not thinking big enough. If we could get greenhouse gasses to Mars that would be very helpful for future colonization. Especially if someone figures out a way to get them to stay as atmosphere

Mars atmosphere is already 95% CO2. I don't think it needs any more.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Mars atmosphere is already 95% CO2. I don't think it needs any more.

You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

OK I'll be the first to jump on the UCP. And that was a pretty rambly statement from Jean...

But I'm not sure attacking them for pitching carbon sequestration projects is really fair. Sure it evokes images of China taking on plastic waste, or other jurisdictions taking on toxic/radioactive waste. But storing carbon is a good thing, no? These are the kinds of complex engineering projects and investment that we should want.

Hhow many public dollars should go to it, and whether CCUS is capable of solving global warming are fair questions, but saying "we're open to CCUS" kind of seems like a good thing to me.

No - using less carbon is a good thing.
Spending billions to hide it under the bed is not a good thing.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by craigwd

No - using less carbon is a good thing.
Spending billions to hide it under the bed is not a good thing.

Can we turn it into diamonds?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

Just out of my own curiosity, how would other places ship us CO2 for us to store?

No. Perhaps pipelines from regions that can't store it, but reality is it's very expensive to pull the carbon out already, adding shipping costs would just make whatever process unviable.

[TheIronMaiden]

I think we should store the carbon at Bryan Jean's house

[Ozy_Flame]

Brian Jean's house has the best geology, top three in the world definitely.

[Superflyer]

So just to clarify, there is no way for places to ship us CO2 but we are open for places to send it to us to store? Makes sense

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

So just to clarify, there is no way for places to ship us CO2 but we are open for places to send it to us to store? Makes sense

That’s how politicians talk science. Vote for Brian Jean he will be here for a long time if not forever.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

No. Perhaps pipelines from regions that can't store it, but reality is it's very expensive to pull the carbon out already, adding shipping costs would just make whatever process unviable.

This is an interesting question.

So the question is really is the cost difference between Dirext Air Carbon Capture and the cost of source based carbon capture less than or greater than the cost of shipping.

LNG cost about $2 per MCF to ship. CO2 will be cheaper to ship as you only need to maintain -60C instead of -160C. Though you will need about 100psi of pressure to keep it liquid. Oil costs 2-5$ per barrel. So that would give a range of 14-50$ per m^3. A m^3 of CO2 is 1100kgs.

So somewhere between 14-50 per m^3. At $50 per CCS cost off of concentrated streams and $100 for DAC you’d likely have a market. At the napkin level it’s worth more investigating.