Carbon capture con job

[GregLocock]

Climeworksâ capture fails to cover its own emissions

The carbon capture company Climeworks only captures a fraction of the CO2 it promises its machines can capture. The company is failing to carbon offset the emissions resulting from its operations â which have grown rapidly in recent years.

heimildin.is

They need 5000 kWh of electricity to capture 1 tonne of CO2. They are #2 on Time's list of green companies.

 

[LittleInch]

Direct carbon capture is truly bonkers. Just shows that money talks a LOT louder that engineering knowledge unfortunately.

Would be a bit more interesting to have a technical view on their technology being used.

 

[dik]

There will be a few 'wrong ways' and snake oil salesmen coming up.

 

[LittleInch]

So this appears to be some sort of mysterious absorption technique which then needs heat, steam and loads of power for remarkably little CO2 sequestration using basically carbonic acid.

Amazed no one has managed to join the dots here about power required per tonne and how few tonnes are actually removed.

 

[TugboatEng]

Dik, nobody else here bought the snake oil...

 

[georgeverghese]

Here's another bizarre one, this time sponsored by His Majesty's Govt

Could taking carbon out of the sea cool down the planet?

A pilot project will test whether it is a useful way of fighting climate change.

www.bbc.com

 

[dik]

Dik, nobody else here bought the snake oil...

I'm just cautioning anyone that it's likely out there.

 

[TugboatEng]

You're going to need to be more clear. What exactly are you cautioning against? You always speak in vagueries like a snake oil salesman. It's time to put your money where your mouth is.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Dik: There will be a few 'wrong ways' and snake oil salesmen coming up.

Unfortunately, it looks to me like it's almost entirely snake oil salesmen.

As far as I'm aware, the only "direct" capture of CO2 that actually work is:
a) plants
b) capturing it from Fossil fuel plants where the concentration of CO2 is much, much higher than it is in the atmosphere.

 

[dik]

Unfortunately, it looks to me like it's almost entirely snake oil salesmen.

You have to be careful on the material you review. It's not all snake oil.

 

[dik]

As far as I'm aware, the only "direct" capture of CO2 that actually work

Maybe reduce the quantity that's being used?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Dik: Maybe reduce the quantity that's being used?

I was referring to the snake oil salesmen that are trying to sell us on carbon capture.

There are entirely different snake oil salesmen that are trying to convince us that solar and wind are cheap an reliable while refusing to acknowledge nuclear as being cheap, reliable and safe... Neither of which are true.

Yet another type of snake oil salesman that's trying to convince us that the doomsday scenarios they've been preaching are imminent for 30+ years are real and just around the corner despite no real evidence of catastrophe.

The reality, as is usually the case, is much more boring and nuanced. Yes, the earth is warming. Yes, this is occurring rapidly in a geologic sense. Yes, man made influence is almost certainly a good part of this warming. And, yes CO2 emission are a good part of it as well....

However, the most efficient solution to our problem is likely a long series of incremental solutions and adaptations:
a) Reduce our dependence on the forms of power (i.e. Coal) that produce the most CO2 per MegaWatt of energy.
b) Stop with practices that are detrimental to our plants ability to absorb CO2.... Like clear cutting rain forests or old growth forests.
c) Stop buying products that are produced primarily with power derived from coal.
d) Increase and subsidize the number of CO2 free (or nearly free) forms of power. Nuclear power, Hydro, Geothermal, Solar, Wind, even Fuel Cells.
e) Expand the use of "waste product" energy.... like methane capture from waste water processing.

We're never going to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels for cars and airplanes and such. But, we can move towards being more EFFICIENT with our use of power and our CO2 emissions.

 

[TugboatEng]

You have to be careful on the material you review. It's not all snake oil.

Do provide an example that isn't snake oil.

 

[LittleInch]

The in between technology to keep doing your last point though is CCS by flue gas CO2 stripping and sequestration. Second is Blue Hydrogen, but that's equally nuts in terms of energy in to energy out. I'm though enjoying designing all these hydrogen pipelines which will never get built.... and that's for Industrial sized flue gas - power stations, cement plants, fertiliser plants etc

At the moment I think the penny has dropped here and only the CO2 capture programs are getting the green light from the government to continue and all the fancy Hydrogen ones being deferred.

Atmosphere processing though is plainly bonkers and planting trees and other plants far more effective than trying to remove C02 from air or water in the quantities they are talking about.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

LittleInch: The in between technology to keep doing your last point though is CCS by flue gas CO2 stripping and sequestration.

Is this passing exhaust gas (which has higher CO2 concentration) through some solution of chemicals that react with the CO2 to strip out (and later store) the CO2.

Atmosphere processing though is plainly bonkers and planting trees and other plants far more effective than trying to remove C02 from air or water in the quantities they are talking about.

Thanks for saying that. I was guessing that this was true, but it helps to have someone who works in petroleum / energy sector to confirm it with your knowledge / expertise.

 

[btrueblood]

"Stop with practices that are detrimental to our plants ability to absorb CO2.... Like clear cutting rain forests or old growth forests."

Not sure that old growth forests are such great absorbers of CO2. At some point, old growth trees get diseased and blow down, to rot and release their stored carbon, essentially operating at a steady state, and not absorbing any further carbon on a net basis.* A managed, harvested forest can supply wood for building that is essentially sequestered for up to a century or more, and new, replanted trees start absorbing more carbon. Possibly the best carbon (RE-?)sequestration would be to bury the harvested wood in a deep coal mine shafts, wrapped in saran wrap, where it can't decay by oxidation, but instead slowy recarbonize to coal seams.

NOT replanting harvested forests is the bad idea...

 

[LittleInch]

Is this passing exhaust gas (which has higher CO2 concentration) through some solution of chemicals that react with the CO2 to strip out (and later store) the CO2.


Thanks for saying that. I was guessing that this was true, but it helps to have someone who works in petroleum / energy sector to confirm it with your knowledge / expertise.

Yes in answer to the first point. CCS is all about stripping CO2 out of the flue gas and shoving it into mainly old gas fields or aquifers. So it's basically waste processing. No value other than carbon credits or just making it acceptable to burn methane or coal.

The fact you can't find any technical information on these atmospheric processing units tells me they are basically the same as ask these gravity storage units. Sounds great and you can generate some nice videos but actually snake oil..

 

[JoshPlumSE]

BtrueBlood: NOT replanting harvested forests is the bad idea...

Thanks for the correction / education. Yes, you're correct.

FWIW: I'm a big fan of "engineered" wood products that are made from smaller wood chips from fast growing trees / bushes along with an resin to bind it all together. Even the "engineered decking" which is often recycled paper and plastic products (though this one isn't really "structural" except as planks to walk or sit on).

 

[GregLocock]

Some percentage of the carbon from the fallen trees is taken down into the soil, and effectively sequestered. One gummint scheme pays farmers for increasing the carbon content of their soils, by using dung bettels and similar animals, and less insecticide.