Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)  (Read 2968 times)

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #50 on: June 19, 2019, 06:49:52 PM »
Floating solar islands to turn CO2 into alternate fuel:
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-06-18-floating-islands-solar-carbon-methanol:
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-06-18-floating-islands-solar-carbon-methanol

Sounds expensive.  More likely we'll see wind and solar electricity used for electrolysis to generate hydrogen which will then be converted into a more usable fuel form.

Having lived a few years floating on oceans I have an appreciation of how corrosive salt water can be.  Floating solar farms on fresh water is something entirely different.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 915
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #51 on: June 19, 2019, 06:51:51 PM »
The Great Lakes covered in solar panels and wind turbines, the price of the future?

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #52 on: June 19, 2019, 07:11:15 PM »
The Great Lakes covered in solar panels and wind turbines, the price of the future?

No, you hugely, hugely overestimate the amount of land required for a 100% RE future.  Some wind turbines not too far from major population centers (minimize transmission costs while minimizing aesthetic objections).  And no floating solar installation on large bodies of water subject to major storms and major ice events.


gerontocrat

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 5414
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 713
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #53 on: June 19, 2019, 08:31:30 PM »
The Great Lakes covered in solar panels and wind turbines, the price of the future?

No, you hugely, hugely overestimate the amount of land required for a 100% RE future.  Some wind turbines not too far from major population centers (minimize transmission costs while minimizing aesthetic objections).  And no floating solar installation on large bodies of water subject to major storms and major ice events.
One thing that Musk has got about right.

Quote
“If you wanted to power the entire United States with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah; you only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States,” Musk said at at the event in Rhode Island. “The batteries you need to store the energy, so you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square-mile.”

One of many visualisations that have failed to kick this misconception into the bin is attached
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #54 on: June 19, 2019, 08:42:31 PM »
100 x 100 square miles of panels to supply the United States with all the energy it needs = 10,000 mi².

Area of the Great Lakes = 94,250 mi².

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 915
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2019, 05:25:27 AM »
Only when the sun is shining and it is not cloudy.

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4669
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 0

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2019, 07:55:01 AM »
Floating solar islands to turn CO2 into alternate fuel:
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-06-18-floating-islands-solar-carbon-methanol:
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-06-18-floating-islands-solar-carbon-methanol

"The present work initiates the development of this concept and highlights relevant questions in physics, chemistry and mechanics."


Simple translation: This shit doesn't work.
big time oops

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2019, 07:57:19 AM »
to kick this misconception into the bin is attached

One of many visualisations that have failed to understand the way energy is utilized.
big time oops

RikW

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2019, 09:45:14 AM »
Well, theoretically he is probably correct.

Just calculate the electricity (or energy?) consumption in the USA.
Calculate how many energy a solar panel generates
Divide et voila!

And same for the battery-pack required. The math isn't that hard i guess and such a map gives a good impression what part of the USA is required to power the whole of the USA;

And putting a square next to it with solar-panel-available roofs would also be good idea

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #60 on: June 20, 2019, 07:50:14 PM »
to kick this misconception into the bin is attached

One of many visualisations that have failed to understand the way energy is utilized.

Can you give us more detail rather than just a simple dismissal?

Let's assume, just for the sake of the argument, that 100x100 miles of solar panels would generate as many TWh of electricity as the US uses annually.  How much storage would it take to turn that output into a 24/365 reliable electricity source for the US?
--

Obviously a 100% solar feed is not optimal.  The best solution will involve wind and other renewables as their inclusion lowers the need for storage.  But just play along and explain your thinking regarding 100% solar and storage.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 496
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #61 on: June 20, 2019, 08:17:42 PM »
to kick this misconception into the bin is attached

One of many visualisations that have failed to understand the way energy is utilized.

Can you give us more detail rather than just a simple dismissal?

Let's assume, just for the sake of the argument, that 100x100 miles of solar panels would generate as many TWh of electricity as the US uses annually.  How much storage would it take to turn that output into a 24/365 reliable electricity source for the US?
--

Obviously a 100% solar feed is not optimal.  The best solution will involve wind and other renewables as their inclusion lowers the need for storage.  But just play along and explain your thinking regarding 100% solar and storage.

You don't have to go 100% solar.  There's wind (which often blows at night, alleviating some of the intermittency), hydro (avail 24/7 if there's not a drought), geothermal (also available 24/7) and still some nuclear operating (with small modular reactors possible if they can be made economically).  So the area need is even less than depicted and much of it can be on rooftops or over parking lots.

The point of the graphic is that the "renewables take up too much room" argument is pure B.S.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #62 on: June 20, 2019, 09:05:47 PM »
Ken - fully understand and agree.

But I want Mr. Youngins to explain with some facts and details why Musk's math is wrong.  If he can. 

I'm also waiting for his explanation for why Tesla will fail if they spend no more in Q2 2019 than previous profitable quarters while selling a record number of cars.  He's been on the site since I posted that request but has yet to share his wisdom.


gerontocrat

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 5414
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 713
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #63 on: June 20, 2019, 09:14:42 PM »
to kick this misconception into the bin is attached

One of many visualisations that have failed to understand the way energy is utilized.

Can you give us more detail rather than just a simple dismissal?

Let's assume, just for the sake of the argument, that 100x100 miles of solar panels would generate as many TWh of electricity as the US uses annually.  How much storage would it take to turn that output into a 24/365 reliable electricity source for the US?
--

Obviously a 100% solar feed is not optimal.  The best solution will involve wind and other renewables as their inclusion lowers the need for storage.  But just play along and explain your thinking regarding 100% solar and storage.
For goodness' sake. It was a simple visual. No-one is suggesting that a 100 x 100 mile solar plant will be built.

No-one is suggesting that wind is not a major source as well.

We all know various storage mechanisms will be required, batteries, hydro and maybe still some LNG plants as extra back-up.

We all know that utilities will need to change their grids and computerised management systems to deal with a new pattern of electricity production, storage and consumption.

Most of us on this forum know that we can get most of the way to zero-carbon electricity with the technology that already exists. (And that is known by many of the Republicans on Capitol Hill)

I also believe that carbon will have to be captured. The concern is that many of the solutions mooted will make new problems greater than the one they are supposed to solve.

And that's all I'm going to say about that
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #64 on: June 20, 2019, 09:26:38 PM »
to kick this misconception into the bin is attached

One of many visualisations that have failed to understand the way energy is utilized.

Can you give us more detail rather than just a simple dismissal?

Let's assume, just for the sake of the argument, that 100x100 miles of solar panels would generate as many TWh of electricity as the US uses annually.  How much storage would it take to turn that output into a 24/365 reliable electricity source for the US?
--

Obviously a 100% solar feed is not optimal.  The best solution will involve wind and other renewables as their inclusion lowers the need for storage.  But just play along and explain your thinking regarding 100% solar and storage.
For goodness' sake. It was a simple visual. No-one is suggesting that a 100 x 100 mile solar plant will be built.

No-one is suggesting that wind is not a major source as well.

We all know various storage mechanisms will be required, batteries, hydro and maybe still some LNG plants as extra back-up.

We all know that utilities will need to change their grids and computerised management systems to deal with a new pattern of electricity production, storage and consumption.

Most of us on this forum know that we can get most of the way to zero-carbon electricity with the technology that already exists. (And that is known by many of the Republicans on Capitol Hill)

I also believe that carbon will have to be captured. The concern is that many of the solutions mooted will make new problems greater than the one they are supposed to solve.

And that's all I'm going to say about that

You are not tracking the discussion very well.

Mr. Youngins made a specific claim.  I've asked him to back it up.

No one, including Elon Musk, says we should take a 100x100 area in the US and install all our solar there and use nothing but solar.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #65 on: June 20, 2019, 09:42:25 PM »

Mr. Youngins made a specific claim.  I've asked him to back it up.

Sorry to say that Bob, but i'm afraid this is not going to happen. You'll not get a substantial answer from them. I tried and failed hard myself.