7 thoughts on “Monday Message Board”

1. […] Source: johnquiggin.com […]

2. Bright idea on caron removal

   There is an ongoing spat, esoteric but important, between proponents of CCS – separation of point CO2 streams followed by geological burial – and those of CDR – removal of CO2 by souped-up natural weathering processes, going back to Schuiling’s scheme using olivine. Both face wide opposition from those like our host who see both as a distraction from the need to cut emissions, at worst a scam put up in bad faith by fossil fuel interests. We have been round the block too many times already on the argument and I won’t repeat the case for intensive research on carbon removal.

   A well-backed startup in Brooklyn, Vycarb, has come up with a new approach that combines CCS and CDR. CleanTechnica post here https://cleantechnica.com/2026/08/29/vycarb-successfully-stores-low-purity-co2-in-seawater/ , company site https://vycarb.com/. The chemistry looks to be basically that of Schuiling and other CDR schemes: dissolve CO2 in water, making dilute carbonic acid; weather common silicate rocks with this, releasing dissolved bicarbonate ions; dump the stuff in the sea; let marine diatoms and plankton convert the bicarb back into solid calcium carbonate bone. When these critters die, the skeletons fall to the ocean floor, and over very long periods of time, are compacted into limestone beds with a shelf life of millions of years. Vycarb turn the first two steps into an industrial process plugged in to existing point sources of concentrated CO2. Their big selling point is that the CO2 need not be remotely pure. This reduces or cuts out the expensive first step of regular CCS, purification. They completely avoid chasing the fool’s gold of finding a commercial use for vast quantities of CO2.

   The scheme is of course likely to run into unforeseen problems when scaled up, and these may turn out to be insoluble. But tell me why it’s not worth trying, and trying now, not when net zero is close. Planning beats last-minute panics any day.

3. James,

   Two issues below; a question or two and then a reply to above.

   It would be interesting if you wrote and posted an impression of Europe’s summer (just gone or still ongoing) as a resident of Europe and Spain (IIRC) and with your knowledge of other countries like the UK. Where is climate change taking Europe? How can Europe cope?

   Now, a reply to your above post. This reply is entirely taken from Google AI. The points do give an idea of the nature and magnitude of the problem.

   Finally, I make a short comment.

   “1. The Laws of Thermodynamics (The Entropy Problem)

   The hardest obstacle for carbon capture is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. [1]

   • The Dilution Problem: Carbon dioxide makes up roughly 0.04% of ambient air (420 parts per million). Finding and extracting such a tiny fraction requires moving and processing astronomical volumes of air. [1, 2, 3]
   • The Minimum Energy Requirement: Thermodynamics dictates a strict theoretical minimum energy to separate gases. To capture all global emissions via Direct Air Capture (DAC), a perfectly efficient system would require roughly 18% of all electricity generated on Earth. Real-world systems lose energy as heat, meaning actual energy requirements would demand a massive portion—or even a multiple—of total global electricity. [1]

   2. The “Energy Penalty” Eats the Benefits

   Capturing carbon requires energy to power giant fans, run chemical separation, and heat sorbents to release the captured gas. [1, 2]

   • Parasitic Load: Applying CCS to a fossil fuel power plant introduces an “energy penalty” of 10% to 40%. The plant must burn more coal or gas just to power the carbon capture equipment. [1, 2, 3]
   • Lifecycle Emissions: If the energy powering CCS or CDR comes from a grid containing fossil fuels, the process can easily release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than it removes. [1]

   3. Mind-Boggling Scale and Infrastructure Realities

   To match the scale of the crisis, the carbon disposal industry would have to handle a volume of material larger than the global oil and gas industry. [1]

   • Mass Inversion: When carbon burns, it bonds with oxygen. One ton of solid carbon produces 3.67 tons of gaseous CO₂. Humanity produces roughly 37 billion tons of CO₂ annually. [1]
   • Infrastructure Constraints: Moving and burying billions of tons of compressed gas requires an astronomical network of pipelines, compressors, and injection wells. Estimates show that scaling CDR to meet international targets would require building out a brand-new, highly specialized geological waste site every 4 days for 25 years. [1, 2, 3]

   4. Poor Economic Viability

   Unlike solar or wind power, which produce electricity that can be sold for profit, burying carbon generates no marketable product on its own. [1, 2]

   • Stagnant Cost Curves: While solar and battery costs have plummeted over the decades, CCS costs have remained stubbornly high for 50 years because each plant requires complex, customized engineering. [1, 2]
   • The Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Paradox: To make a profit, the vast majority of operational CCS plants sell their captured CO₂ to oil companies. The oil companies inject the gas into aging wells to pump out more crude oil. This loop creates a self-defeating cycle where carbon capture actively drives more oil production. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

   5. Storage Risks and Impermanence

   Capturing CO₂ is pointless if it does not stay contained for thousands of years. [1, 2]

   • Geological Leaks: Compressed CO₂ is highly buoyant and corrosive. Over centuries, it can corrode old well casings, escape through unmapped fault lines, or trigger micro-earthquakes that crack the subterranean caprock holding it in. [1, 2, 3, 4]
   • Nature-Based Removals are Temporary: Nature-based CDR options like afforestation (planting trees) are highly vulnerable. Wildfires, droughts, diseases, and future land-use changes can instantly release decades of stored forest carbon back into the atmosphere. [1, 2]

   6. Systemic Mitigation Deterrence

   Many climate scientists and economists argue that the primary reason CCS/CDR “doesn’t work” is because it functions as an industry smokescreen. By promising a future technological fix, it creates a loophole that allows governments and fossil fuel companies to delay the phase-out of oil, coal, and gas, ultimately locking in higher atmospheric emissions. [1, 2, 3]

   CCS vs. CDR: A Quick ComparisonFeatureCarbon Capture & Storage (CCS)Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)The ConceptCapture CO₂ directly from smokestacks before it enters the air.Extract existing CO₂ directly from ambient atmosphere.Thermodynamic HurdleModerate (Flue gas has a relatively high concentration of CO₂).Extreme (CO₂ is highly diluted in the general atmosphere).Current ScaleCaptures less than 0.1% of global annual emissions.Vast majority is natural forestry; technological removal is statistically negligible.Financial DriversTied almost entirely to Enhanced Oil Recovery and government subsidies.High reliance on corporate voluntary carbon offset credits.

   Summary

   Ultimately, while specialized reports from organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest CCS and CDR may be required as a niche tool to handle “hard-to-abate” sectors like cement and steel manufacturing, treating them as a blanket replacement for a clean energy transition violates the physical realities of energy and scale. [1, 2, 3, 4]” – Google AI.

   Final Comment.

   Political, social and economic change are considered notoriously difficult to achieve. That is why people seek technological and engineering changes to solve climate change problems. However as the laws of thermodynamics and relativities of scale indicate indicate that EFFECTIVE CCS and DDR at scale are straight-out physically impossible, then we need to consider radical political, social and economic changes which will be very difficult but not prima facie impossible. Humans, societies and economies can change and can be induced to change.

4. James, it is worth trying.
   May take a while to return to what we called normal…

   Vino, weva, & global heating.

   13 days early [1.], and “Almost no fauna was found in the triage – the world of insects had to find different places for refuge and water this year.”. [2.] That bugs me..

   [1.] “Burgundy: Earliest Harvest in 500 Years
   “This week, there are really only two things on producers’ minds: early harvests and climate change.
   Oliver Styles 16-Aug-2026
   …
   “”It’s incredible,” grower Lucile Rousseau at Touraine Noble Joué winery Domaine Rousseau told La Nouvelle République this week.
   “Last year we started [harvest] on August 25,” she said. “That was the earliest harvest we’d ever seen.”
   …
   “Burgundy breaks record for earliest harvest ever
   Grape pickers were out in the Grand Cru Montrachet vineyard on Thursday August 13, breaking a record that has stood for almost 500 years, making 2026 the earliest harvest ever in the history of the Burgundy wine region.
   “The previous earliest harvest on record was set in 1556 when picking began on August 15. Although other estates have been bringing in grapes across the region for at least a week, these were primarily for sparkling wines.
   “As pointed out by climate scientist Thomas Labbé in an interview with news agency AFP (see below) earlier this week, the 1556 record had so far been safe as it applied to the harvest of still wines.”
   …
   https://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2026/08/burgundy-earliest-harvest-in-500-years

   [2.] “24 Aug 2026 – Beaune harvest day 1
   24.8.2026
   …
   “Day 1 learnings:
   Very small grapes rather than a lack of grapes are defining the vintage volume here.
   Impressively dry on the triage tables – very little lost juice – probably just because there is so little juice.
   Almost no fauna was found in the triage – the world of insects had to find different places for refuge and water this year.
   Even the dried/drying grapes showed zero ‘off-flavours’ – that’s a first for me, since I started to triage in 2004. It’s a shame that I can’t compare to 2003…
   The pinot-fruit is ripe-flavoured but pure; I see no prune or overdone flavours at this early stage”
   https://www.burgundy-report.com/2026/08/24-aug-2026-beaune-harvest-day-1/

   Hi all. Cheers, KT2.
   John, James Ikon… present.
   Where is rhe great Ernestine?
   Hope you are well.
   P.S. JQ, the link back, comment 1, seems to have no attribution nor company… “Monday Message Board – Pentagon Defence News says:
   AUGUST 24, 2026 AT 8:05 AM
   […] Source: johnquiggin.com […]”
   If it is free (of beneficiaries) you are the product.

5. Iko: I’ll think about a your request for a post on Europe’s hot summer and its political effects. It’s a tall order, but an interesting challenge. It would take some time.

   Your critique s sound but like many others you seem to accept CCS as the canonical form of CDR not as a dead end. Take enhanced weathering ofbasalt on farmland, on trial in Brazil by InPlanet https://www.inplanet.earth/insight/why-brazil : This is at a worthwhile scale, about 200,000 tonnes over tens of thousands of hectares. It does not rely on separation or concentration of CO2. The CO2 is in the rain as very dilute carbonic acid, and reacts with the grains of rock unaided. The human work involved is all in mining, grinding and spreading the basalt, and – the more difficult bit – in monitoring results. Large scale enhanced rock weathering would involve equally large-scale mining. The world cement industry currently mines 5 bn mt of limestone a year, the coal industry about 9 bn mt. Big numbers are technically quite feasible.

   On costs, it does not make much sense to worry to much about these at the current early stage of CCS and CDR technologies, before predictable economies of scale can kick in. It does make sense to ask if there is at least a plausible pathway to securing them.

   I’ve been pointing out for some time that carbon removal is fundamentally different from emissions reduction in its compatibility with markets and capitalism. Energy is separably valuable, whether in the form of electricity or combustible fuels. If renewable electricity is cheap, standard economic incentives will ensure renewables are adopted, as in happening today. The role of the state is ideally to fund education, training research, as knowledge is a public good, and to correct prices for externalities through taxes and subsidies. But today even absent, incompetent and corrupt governments can’t stop the energy transition.

   Carbon removal to repair the climate in contrast is a pure public good, and its provision almost entirely dependent on governments. These can create artificial markets to generate competition and innovation, but basically the enterprise will be inherently socialist. The burden-sharing problem that went away for emissions reduction about the time of the Paris Protocol will return in full force for Giga-CDR. In today’s intellectual and political climate, this is a big problem. Things will certainly be different in 2036, after many more killer heatwaves, hurricanes and floods, though not necessarily for the better. There will be a thriving market in flashy nostrums and blame-shifting. We can say that the battle is not doomed in advance.

6. Legal requirements were alway pretty much stuck before Markowitz here. Now there wass a reform in 2023. One would think a reform that improved things. Oh no: In the past, a legal guardian was allowed to invest in bank deposits, government bonds or the rather conservative regulate german real estate backed bonds.

   Fast forward after 2023: Now technically, there is more leeway to allow other investments. Unfortunately ,ever investment beyond bank deposits, including the old government bonds – which would be a blessing compared to the deposit conditions of banks that take money from ppl under legal guardianship here, require permit from a court employee. Usually someone with prood ignorance of finances: Read you now have to sue even to get a permit to invest in government bonds because. I was so foolish to even ask for a permit to invest in a money market etf…. which according to the court employee is speculating with my fathers money and not sufficiently diversified…. ugh. I should add, since my father is not poor, most of his money is in excess of the governments guarantee for bank deposits. So those are actually far far more risky than government bonds or moneymarket etfs.

   Which brings me back to my old hobbyhorse of we need a government run standard index fund…. and that one should be automatically allowed for people under legal guardianship too.

7. Oh i lost part of the post: This about the nightmare of investing the money of someone under legal guardianship in Germany.