Exxon doubles down on carbon capture, this time with direct air capture of CO2 on top of CCS.

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Exxon working on direct air capture of CO2, stays out of EV charging stations

Nia Williams
Tue, September 19, 2023 at 4:12 PM EDT·2 min read

CALGARY, Alberta, Sept 19 (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp is working on developing technology for direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide, and sees a clear place for it in a net-zero future, an Exxon executive said on Tuesday, but the largest U.S. oil company has no plans to invest in building electric vehicle charging stations.

The company could become a major player in the nascent DAC industry if high costs come down and the technology gets to a point where it can work efficiently at scale, Matthew Crocker, senior vice president of product, strategy and new assets in Exxon's low carbon solutions business, said in an interview.

Direct air capture involves extracting carbon directly from the atmosphere. It is considered essential to limiting global warming, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but costs are extremely high and currently range from $600 to $1,000 per ton of carbon removed.

The technology could be developed on the back of Exxon's carbon capture and storage (CCS) business which will also involve trapping emissions underground, Crocker said.

-snip-

Read more: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exxon-working-direct-air-capture-201232420.html

[NickB79]

1. The CO2 is being used to repressurize oil fields

In previous instances, the revitalized fields then pumped so much extra oil that it more than offset the carbon captured, making the climate catastrophe WORSE, not better.

It's a greenwashing scam.

[Brenda]

2. Carbon capture won't fix our climate problem

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/03/20/opinion/carbon-capture-wont-fix-our-climate-problem#:~:text=Email%20

Expect lots of spin about carbon capture and storage (CCS): the machinery and chemicals that aim to capture CO2 as it emerges from the smokestacks of factories and power plants burning fossil fuels. Theoretically, the idea is to reduce the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere and store it underground or use it elsewhere. Don’t be misled when fossil lobbyists once again push the message that UN scientists say it’s a technology we must rely on to limit climate change.

snip

I’ve spent several years studying carbon capture and my research is cited in the IPCC Working Group III report. I can tell you that when you look at the details of the IPCC’s findings, the scientists say something quite different.

According to the IPCC’s Working Group III report, carbon capture is one of the least-effective, most-expensive climate change mitigation options on Earth. Scientists rank it close to the bottom of a long list of options, easily outstripped by more affordable solutions like wind and solar energy. And it scores fire-alarm red for cost.

snip

Carbon capture, on the other hand, is a placebo. It gives oil and gas companies a story to tell about acting on emissions while they keep extracting, and we keep burning, fossil fuels.

[Think. Again.]

3. Carbon capture is strictly...

...a clean-up method.

Eliminating CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is a must, and in addition to that, we must also remove as much of the carbon that we have already pumped into the atmosphere as we can, and that's where Direct Carbon Capture comes in.

It isn't about reducing CO2 emissions only to maintain atmospheric CO2 at the level it's at now (AKA 'net zero'), it's about completely ending any new emissions into the atmosphere AND going even further to reduce what's already there.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

4. I'd throw in being more efficient

and reduce energy consumption as well.

[Think. Again.]

5. ABSOLUTELY!!!

We could easily make huge reductions in our energy use without any inconvenience at all (I personally don't need 5 digital clocks constantly burning on my kitchen appliances and those huge roadside television sets haven't convinced me to buy one thing yet) and then, go even further and accept some inconvenience.

Ultimately our wasteful overuse of relatively cheap electricity will have to end, one way or the other.

[hatrack]

6. Downthread, a new TX DAC plant will remove a whole 500,000 tons/year of CO2 . . . .they claim . . .

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127168465

So, yeah, anthropogenic CO2 output is about 36 billion tons a year, so this bold new technology investment will (if it works, of course) capture .00138% of this year's total output. Next year, of course, we'll be producing more.

Exxon's project will, of course be much more effective at sucking up taxpayer subsidies.