Quote:

One proposed method for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere - and reducing the risk of climate change - is to capture carbon from the air or prevent it from getting there in the first place. However, research from Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University, published in Energy and Environmental Science, suggests that carbon capture technologies can cause more harm than good. "All sorts of scenarios have been developed under the assumption that carbon capture actually reduces substantial amounts of carbon. However, this research finds that it reduces only a small fraction of carbon emissions, and it usually increases air pollution," said Jacobson, who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "Even if you have 100 percent capture from the capture equipment, it is still worse, from a social cost perspective, than replacing a coal or gas plant with a wind farm because carbon capture never reduces air pollution and always has a capture equipment cost. Wind replacing fossil fuels always reduces air pollution and never has a capture equipment cost."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-10/su-ssc102519.php

I would disagree with his assessment of wind replacing fossil fuels however.

Wind energy (and Solar) does not provide the necessary load factor to manufacture new wind turbines etc. And the making of those wind generators would have a component of CCS costs.

lee wrote on Oct 27^th, 2019 at 12:55pm:

Quote: One proposed method for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere - and reducing the risk of climate change - is to capture carbon from the air or prevent it from getting there in the first place. However, research from Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University, published in Energy and Environmental Science, suggests that carbon capture technologies can cause more harm than good. "All sorts of scenarios have been developed under the assumption that carbon capture actually reduces substantial amounts of carbon. However, this research finds that it reduces only a small fraction of carbon emissions, and it usually increases air pollution," said Jacobson, who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "Even if you have 100 percent capture from the capture equipment, it is still worse, from a social cost perspective, than replacing a coal or gas plant with a wind farm because carbon capture never reduces air pollution and always has a capture equipment cost. Wind replacing fossil fuels always reduces air pollution and never has a capture equipment cost." https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-10/su-ssc102519.php I would disagree with his assessment of wind replacing fossil fuels however. Wind energy (and Solar) does not provide the necessary load factor to manufacture new wind turbines etc. And the making of those wind generators would have a component of CCS costs.

By that are you saying a wind generator can not produce enough power to produce more wind generators?

Do these wind generators generate wind!

Johnnie wrote on Oct 27^th, 2019 at 3:30pm:

Do these wind generators generate wind!

No. I leave that to you. ;)

lee wrote on Oct 27^th, 2019 at 5:03pm:

Johnnie wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 3:30pm: Do these wind generators generate wind! No. I leave that to you. ;)

You probably should call them wind turbines or windy mills then.
A windy mill can produce enough energy to power a small city and make more wind turbines.