New Carbon Capture Technology

(edited)

Any thoughts on $500 million dollar plants capturing carbon and injecting it back in the ground or using it to make carbon neutral fuels? The link below claims that each plant would be the equivalent of taking 250,000 vehicles off the road every year.

https://www.inc.com/magazine/201905/kevin-j-ryan/carbon-engineering-capture-offset-neutral-fuel.html

Let's be conservative on the technology capabilities and say that it can do half of what it does, so 125,000 vehicles off the road every year for every $500 million dollar plant.

This would be a much cheaper alternative than replacing 125,000 ICEs with 125,000 EVs.

125,000 EVs x $40,000 (average - ish) per EV = $5 billion

A couple things that the article doesn't talk about is operating costs and the emissions associated with the process. It seems those barriers must be large enough to prevent companies and governments from jumping in. In any case though, would companies see this as a way to show their shareholders that they are working on greener initiatives while keeping demand for their oil as high as possible? Could this be part of the climate change solution people and governments are chasing? 

Edited by nathan_john
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nathan - the article is light on details including, as you note, any costings so its difficult to say anything at all ab out it beyond the guesses you've made. My only other thought is that reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere would require an excrement tonne of these plants. Total industrial emissions, after all, fit inside the error estimations of natural CO2 flows between ocean-atmosphere-ground and so on. Interesting article. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nathan - the article is light on details including, as you note, any costings so its difficult to say anything at all ab out it beyond the guesses you've made. My only other thought is that reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere would require an excrement tonne of these plants. Total industrial emissions, after all, fit inside the error estimations of natural CO2 flows between ocean-atmosphere-ground and so on. Interesting article. 

Agreed. The video states that "1 full-sized plant would remove 1 million metric tons of carbon from the air each year. At that rate, 40,000 plants would bring the earth back to pre-industrial carbon levels within 1 year." 

My thinking was that we wouldn't need to do it in 1 year. Why not 20 years? Then we would only need 2,000 of these plants.

2,000 plants x $500 million per plant = $1 trillion

Mainly just interested to see if it turns into anything. I like seeing companies getting involved in things like this. I think by them taking steps it could help us avoid massive regulation bills that end up destroying the industry, among many other things. Some people will obviously find faults in this and say that it isn't eliminating the root cause and yell that 20 years is too long and we'll all be dead, but in my mind it could be part of the bridge.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO it is a massive waste of time and energy compared to ending coal use by replacing it with natural gas and renewables. China has increased its coal use over the last few years. Probably India has too. Germany is still burning coal. 

So called environmentalists are condemning natural gas as a Fossil Fuel while it has enabled America to have the best air pollution reductions of all major countries. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only Carbon capture method that is really worth doing is biochar on poor soils. The incorporation of large quantities of carbon into the soil significantly improves its water retention capacity. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NickW said:

The only Carbon capture method that is really worth doing is biochar on poor soils. The incorporation of large quantities of carbon into the soil significantly improves its water retention capacity. 

Biochar has many other benefits also.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this may seem far fetched, the piping of CO2 to the coldest parts of the antarctic in order to turn it into dry ice may help to eventually cool down the planet and reverse global warming in different ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Biochar has many other benefits also.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar

We are not talking about your steaks again are we?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people actually eat "activated" charcoal or take pills to cleanse their system. I haven't. I will get it from my burned meat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Some people actually eat "activated" charcoal or take pills to cleanse their system. I haven't. I will get it from my burned meat. 

Well yes you can buy charcoal biscuits for humans and windy dogs. 

Carbon itself is not that harmful but it is an extremely good sponge (its used in respiratory masks and filters) so is a great carrier of all sorts of other nasties - PAH's, Formaldehyde, Nitrosamines etc. Thats the issue with Diesel particulate - and your burny steaks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, canadas canadas said:

While this may seem far fetched, the piping of CO2 to the coldest parts of the antarctic in order to turn it into dry ice may help to eventually cool down the planet and reverse global warming in different ways. 

Sounds like a "pipe dream". Sarcasm intended. Let me know how you would do it and at what cost. I am sounding like an engineer which scares me. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, canadas canadas said:

While this may seem far fetched, the piping of CO2 to the coldest parts of the antarctic in order to turn it into dry ice may help to eventually cool down the planet and reverse global warming in different ways. 

The term 'pump' and 'compressor' are interchangeable when the material being pumped is a gas. 'Pumping' CO2 to Antarctica would involve more effort than simply 'compressing' it wherever it is extracted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plants scrub CO2 for free.

Plant trees, make lumber out of them, re plant more trees.

 

Why isn't the lumber industry getting carbon credits for their tree farms anyway? They are indeed sinking carbon very effectively.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Sounds like a "pipe dream". Sarcasm intended. Let me know how you would do it and at what cost. I am sounding like an engineer which scares me. 

Sounds like those old tales of towing icebergs to the Middle East!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, NickW said:

Sounds like those old tales of towing icebergs to the Middle East!

Everyone was fired up about it back then the icebergs being towed over to the MIDEAST

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 5/2/2019 at 4:35 PM, ronwagn said:

Sounds like a "pipe dream". Sarcasm intended. Let me know how you would do it and at what cost. I am sounding like an engineer which scares me. 

It is just that there are still some parts of Antarctica where the temperature is cold enough to turn CO2 into dry ice and to keep it in this solid state.  It may be possible that the more CO2 is changed into dry ice and stored there, the more possible that it could eventually have a cooling effect on Antarctica to store even more CO2 and even cool the planet. I do not know what CO2 amount would be necessary to make such a change.  Like I said, this may seem foolish to many but so are many long shots.

Edited by canadas canadas
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2019 at 4:13 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

Everyone was fired up about it back then the icebergs being towed over to the MIDEAST

How much of it would be lost on the way as it encountered warmer waters floating to there?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2019 at 11:00 PM, Keith boyd said:

Plants scrub CO2 for free.

Plant trees, make lumber out of them, re plant more trees.

 

Why isn't the lumber industry getting carbon credits for their tree farms anyway? They are indeed sinking carbon very effectively.

That has been an excellent idea....... B|

But there has been a reason........... as shown below......... 

 

zoo.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites