back to article Google bets on carbon capture tech to clean up its mess – in the 2030s

Google intends to purchase carbon removal credits from a direct air capture provider to help offset its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, although the initiative isn't expected to kick off until the next decade. The Mountain View megacorp says it is following this approach with its chosen provider, Holocene, due to cost. While …

  1. Snowy Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Carbon removal credits

    Sounds like another version of Carbon credits.

    Direct air capture (DAC) is promising, but then so is the promise of fusion, they need to start delivering something rather just breaking promises.

    1. elsergiovolador Silver badge

      Re: Carbon removal credits

      So how are they going to keep feeling their brochures and public relations materials? You have to keep the green thing cooking as long as the gullible love the smell of it.

    2. UnknownUnknown

      Re: Carbon removal credits

      CCS doesn’t work.

      Trees, wetlands, swamps, peatbogs, mangroves - with their natural DAC - do.

      https://www.highland.gov.uk/news/article/16161/scotland_s_flow_country_secures_world_heritage_status

    3. cyberdemon Silver badge

      Re: Carbon removal credits

      There are billions-per-year in bungs available, so of course they are going to at least pretend they are doing something, to collect said bungs..

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/12/fossil-fuel-companies-environment-greenwashing

      But no, DAC is not "promising", it's a waste of time, money, and energy.

      Great if you're a greenwashing startup who can collect free money based on nothing more than marketing bilge and a few screenshots from "Train Simulator" though! (https://www.co2rail.com/)

  2. DS999 Silver badge

    Direct air capture is dumb

    Putting it in a smokestack to catch the CO2 being emitted by a natural gas plant, sure. Grabbing it out of the low concentrations (.04%) from the air, stupid. Surely planting types of plants/trees that grow quickly then burying them somewhere they won't decay when mature would far more efficient than direct air capture ever could be.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Direct air capture is dumb

      Yep, capturing out of air is dumb. Currently popular is capture at source (i.e. the smokestack) and embedding in concrete.

      1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

        Re: Direct air capture is dumb

        Concrete? Have you seen how much CO2 is emitted to make that stuff?

        1. VonDutch

          Re: Direct air capture is dumb

          It also wants to suck it up again but never as much as was emitted to make it.

          People keep wanting to build things with the stuff so they keep making it.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Direct air capture is dumb

          > Concrete? Have you seen how much CO2 is emitted to make that stuff?

          I don't disagree. But currently carbon capture into concrete is a thing because it ticks the "captured for more than 100 years" box whereas trees don't.

    2. DJO Silver badge

      Re: Direct air capture is dumb

      Also what's the betting on the energy requirements of the CO₂ extraction causes more CO₂ emissions than they soak up. And don't give me crap about using renewables, it would be more efficient just to put power this would use straight on the grid and not bother with the stupid greenwashing.

      Burying organic matter is not a very good move, it will decay and emit worse gases, better to use wood where suitable for construction, instead of more polluting materials, where it can stay locked up for decades.

    3. UnknownUnknown

      Re: Direct air capture is dumb

      Don’t emit it at source in the first place in the best way to fix the CO2.

    4. JLV Silver badge

      Re: Direct air capture is dumb

      Hmmm, depends under what assumptions and what timescale.

      Right now? Not the way to go - we don't have the energy to power it without displacing other, more efficient, emissions-lessening usage.

      But consider that CO2 sticks around for millennia. If we reach zero emissions at some point in the future, we are still stuck with whatever's already in the air, driving on things like icemelts or permafrost thawing. At the rate we're going, what's going to be the ppm by then?

      At that point, it will be most useful to be able to clean the stuff up.

      The key thing is to keep as many options open as possible, while avoiding overcommitting at scale before the tech is shown to work: we can't afford to chase too many other corn-ethanol boondoggle$. Or indeed pumping too much methane into the air from our new gas-fired generators while patting ourselves on the back about how much cleaner they are than coal.

      Now, as to the worthiness of Google's motivations...

  3. elsergiovolador Silver badge

    Monogas

    Why do they focus only on CO2?

    1. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: Monogas

      Because that's the only greenhouse gas found at ground level in any quantity (if you consider .04% "quantity")

      Stuff like methane may be worse (though shorter lived) but its concentrations are far far lower and it quickly rises and won't remain at ground level for long. To capture it you have to capture it when it is being emitted, like oil/gas wells. Even flaring it is better than letting it escape. But emissions like melting permafrost or undersea eruptions of frozen methane are a bigger source and can't be captured because the sources are so diverse and unpredictable.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Monogas

        N2O ?

        My personal unsung fav.

  4. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    This sounds very effective...as a distraction. Stop using so much energy on junk ads and AI features that aren't yet providing value.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      word!

      You’re logged in as Ozymandias. You can do as you please. Not you? Better leave quickly.

  5. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

    It buys credits

    Social media credits.

    Nothing will be done of any great consequence, that's not the point.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cnuts don't give a shi!

    They sell your personal data and are killing your grand kids, just junk their junk.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Too much money being made

    Too many struggling to live to change behaviour.

    The planet is fucked.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. IGotOut Silver badge

      Re: Too much money being made

      The planet will be fine. Unfortunately for a lot of the things that live on it....yup they're fucked.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like