Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)  (Read 8288 times)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1072
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 37
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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • 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

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6089
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1172
  • Likes Given: 19
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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1072
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 37
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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4782
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 235
  • Likes Given: 0

GoSouthYoungins

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1042
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 109
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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1042
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 109
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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 10
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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • 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

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 611
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 90
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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • 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

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6089
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1172
  • Likes Given: 19
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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • 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.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1262
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 36
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #67 on: July 30, 2019, 09:02:02 PM »
I like the idea of running an underwater conveyor that transits offshore wind platforms to grow kelp.  As the kelp grows it begins to move into the shore where the kelp is harvested and the grow medium is reseeded as the conveyor goes back out. 


The kelp can be used as cattle feed supplement, for other consumption if desired but can also be dried and converted into biochar for agricultural supplement, though transportation via zero emissions methods will be needed.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 611
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #68 on: August 02, 2019, 10:27:30 PM »
DAC is not enough:
https://news.umich.edu/climate-change-why-removing-co2-from-the-air-wont-be-enough/

DAC wont be the only solution.  It's one of the tools that must be deployed to draw down the carbon that's already in the atmosphere. 

Fossil fuels are already on the way out.  Renewables have made great progress and are now cheaper than fossil fuels in most of the world.  Battery electric vehicles will be outselling ICE vehicles within the next decade.  Methods to make concrete and steel without emitting carbon are being deployed now.  That takes care of most of the future emissions.

However, eventually we need to decrease the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere from where they peak (probably around 450 ppm) to around 350 ppm.  It would take centuries to millennia for that to happen by natural causes.

Biochar and biomass burning with carbon sequestration is another big part of the solution.  The biochar can be used to help replenish soils in agriculture or reforest projects.  The biogas generated in making the biochar will replace fossil fuel natural gas in other applications (such as building heating and cooking) until they're fully electrified.  However, biomass and biogas burning just recycle the carbon already in the atmosphere.

That's where DAC comes in.  Unlike the renewables and biochar/biogas however, there isn't a payback for capturing the CO2, beyond a few industrial uses.   Most of the captured CO2 will need to be sequestered underground.  So few private sector entities will build DAC facilities.  They'll need to be government funded and run, much like sewage treatment plants.

petm

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #69 on: August 02, 2019, 11:11:44 PM »

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #70 on: August 03, 2019, 01:14:49 AM »
An acquaintance friend was the chief engineer on a huge coal facility near Java. It captured the CO2 as designed, but the fuel costs were enormous - a 35% loss in efficiency.
They ran it with the apparatus in place for less than 2 weeks before deciding that it just wasn't economically feasible.


Terry

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1072
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #71 on: August 04, 2019, 10:31:30 PM »
The answer would be a meaningful carbon tax that forces such installations economic. I am very uncomfortable with CCS and DACS as they may serve to elongate the use of fossil fuels, and delay the move to renewables, but in the situation we are in we will need the adoption of every possible solution.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #72 on: August 04, 2019, 10:33:54 PM »
I am only uncomfortable with DACS, as it has not been proven yet that the CO2 balance is negative ...

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1072
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #73 on: August 04, 2019, 10:43:22 PM »
A very good point ....

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #74 on: August 05, 2019, 07:59:58 PM »
DAC is not enough:
https://news.umich.edu/climate-change-why-removing-co2-from-the-air-wont-be-enough/

Quote
In order to stay below the 2-degree mark, all sectors must reduce emissions by 70%.

This article is a joke as it doesn't address the physical reality of the climate catastrophe and our critical need for direct action and massive national mobilization to immediately move toward a zero emissions and (in the next decade or so) negative emissions through regenerative agriculture and DIRECT air capture to prevent 4C globally by 2065.

Please see the first post on this thread.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 611
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #75 on: August 09, 2019, 08:46:28 PM »
DAC is not enough:
https://news.umich.edu/climate-change-why-removing-co2-from-the-air-wont-be-enough/

Quote
In order to stay below the 2-degree mark, all sectors must reduce emissions by 70%.

This article is a joke as it doesn't address the physical reality of the climate catastrophe and our critical need for direct action and massive national mobilization to immediately move toward a zero emissions and (in the next decade or so) negative emissions through regenerative agriculture and DIRECT air capture to prevent 4C globally by 2065.

Please see the first post on this thread.

There are no realistic scenarios that lead to a 4C global increase by 2065. 

Here's what the IPCC report in 2018 stated about near-term temperature increases:

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

Quote
A.1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

A.1.1. Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}

Given that coal is rapidly being phased out and replaced by renewables, the warming rate will be decreasing, not increasing, over the next few years.

The IPCC report states that Carbon Dioxide Removal will be needed to prevent overshoot of 1.5C though, which is why this topic is important.

Quote
C.3. All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 GtCO2 over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and, in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). CDR deployment of several hundreds of GtCO2 is subject to multiple feasibility and sustainability constraints (high confidence). Significant near-term emissions reductions and measures to lower energy and land demand can limit CDR deployment to a few hundred GtCO2 without reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (high confidence). {2.3, 2.4, 3.6.2, 4.3, 5.4}

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1072
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #76 on: August 09, 2019, 09:00:34 PM »
Please see my comment on the UN IPCC in the renewable energy thread. The blind by institutional design (UN IPCC) leading the blind by propaganda (the population). With a realistic assumption for ECS, an acceptance that Nat Gas is as bad as coal (fugitive methane emissions), and what Brazil will be doing to the Amazon, 4 degrees is easily doable. Please be educated by AbruptSLR.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2934
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #77 on: August 09, 2019, 10:07:01 PM »
Quote
There are no realistic scenarios that lead to a 4C global increase by 2065.
This may or may not be true at this time, but 1.5C will undoubtedly be disastrous for civilization as we know it, because 1C which we already have is disastrous for parts of civilization right now.  (Oh, your house hasn't been flooded yet?  How about that cancelled trip to Blue-green-algae-land, Florida?) 

What we do know (from this forum) is that there are many forcings that have not yet been fed into climate models because they are little understood or only recently discerned, and scientists have been shying from 'what's the worst that can happen, realistically'.   In a few years (next IPCC), a 4C future in my kid's life time may be painfully 'realistic'.  Lloyds of London is famous for insuring odd things (and making money doing so); I wonder what odds they are giving for "no 4C increase by 2065".  We're gambling with our future and most of us are placing all our bets on 'it can't be that bad'. 

Rboyd responded well, too.

Therefore, I sure hope scientists and engineers working on DAC find some nifty solutions, pronto!
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #78 on: August 09, 2019, 10:15:45 PM »
Quote
There are no realistic scenarios that lead to a 4C global increase by 2065.
This may or may not be true at this time, but 1.5C will undoubtedly be disastrous for civilization as we know it, because 1C which we already have is disastrous for parts of civilization right now.  (Oh, your house hasn't been flooded yet?  How about that cancelled trip to Blue-green-algae-land, Florida?) 

What we do know (from this forum) is that there are many forcings that have not yet been fed into climate models because they are little understood or only recently discerned, and scientists have been shying from 'what's the worst that can happen, realistically'.   In a few years (next IPCC), a 4C future in my kid's life time may be painfully 'realistic'.  Lloyds of London is famous for insuring odd things (and making money doing so); I wonder what odds they are giving for "no 4C increase by 2065".  We're gambling with our future and most of us are placing all our bets on 'it can't be that bad'. 

Rboyd responded well, too.

Therefore, I sure hope scientists and engineers working on DAC find some nifty solutions, pronto!

Technically DAC is feasible today. Economically not so by a mile....

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2934
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #79 on: August 09, 2019, 10:18:37 PM »
Thanks, DrTskoul, that's what I meant, economically and environmentally feasible DAC.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 611
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #80 on: August 09, 2019, 10:26:21 PM »
Rboyd repsonds from the perspective that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels.  He hasn't kept up with the current economics. And AbruptSLR only posts studies that use the RCP8.5 emissions scenario, (other studies don't support his doomer conclusions), which is no longer possible because we aren't going to burn the amount of coal and oil that the RCP8.5 projected.

The clear facts are that the transition to a carbon free electricity generation and an electric vehicle future are well underway.  Insurers are no longer insuring coal infrastructure.  And now banks have realized that by the late 2020s oil is going to be unprofitable.

https://thinkprogress.org/oil-faces-irreversible-decline-thanks-to-electric-cars-and-solar-warns-worlds-8th-largest-bank-d128101ef4a8/

Quote
Plunging prices for batteries and renewables are driving an electric vehicle (EV) revolution so rapidly that the economics of oil “are now in relentless and irreversible decline.”

That’s the startling conclusion of a detailed new analysis for “professional investors” of the economics of EVs versus gasoline cars produced by BNP Paribas, the world’s eighth largest bank by total assets.

Quote
Lewis notes that many independent analyses — including Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the risk management firm DNV GL — have concluded that in the 2022-2024 timeframe, the total lifecycle cost of owning an EV will be cheaper than that of owning a gasoline-fueled car.

Quote
But one of the most startling findings is that because the cost of running EVs on solar or wind power is dropping so rapidly, the only way gasoline cars can compete with these renewable energy-powered EVs in the 2020s is if the price of oil were to drop to $11 to $12 per barrel. The current price of oil is over $50.

Quote
“By the late 2020s” Lewis explains, a significant fraction of the oil produced today “might only be competitive at a price below [oil companies’] full cost of production.” Even worse, this fraction “will rise over the lifetime of these projects as the penetration rate of EVs increases.”

If you can’t produce oil profitably at under $10 or $20 a barrel, your oil company is in big trouble.

bluice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 153
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #81 on: August 09, 2019, 10:31:25 PM »
Given that coal is rapidly being phased out and replaced by renewables, the warming rate will be decreasing, not increasing, over the next few years.
Emissions are not being phased out. Fossil fuel use is increasing globally. As is to be expected, atmospheric CO2 level is also increasing. In fact the rate of increase is getting higher, above 3 ppm / year.
In PIOMAS we trust

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2535
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #82 on: August 09, 2019, 10:37:53 PM »
A 4C increase was seen as quite possible within this century already way back in 2011, when the Royal Academy devoted an entire volume of its journal to studies about what that would mean:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2010.0303

Things haven't gotten any better since then as far as the Keeling Curve goes, so I don't see how we can be confident about exactly when we will get there. Many others already many years ago claimed that 6C was possible or likely before the end of the century. And recently:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/17/global-temperature-rise

Global temperatures could rise 6C by end of century, say scientists

Part of the 'scenario': 
Quote
...natural sinks are becoming less efficient, absorbing 55% of the carbon now, compared with 60% half a century ago
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 155
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #83 on: August 09, 2019, 10:59:39 PM »
Quote
what Brazil will be doing to the Amazon.

What we are doing to the Amazon.
If we hit 3C there is a good chance that the amazon region will transition from rain forest to  savannah.
This change will release much of the carbon contained in the present forest.
Not being all skyrockety the change  will  happen over century's not decades.
Earth system sensitivity is  higher than the usually quoted ECS equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Deforestation of the Amazon being one of the feed backs not addressed in ECS calculations.


TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #84 on: August 10, 2019, 03:39:31 AM »
When I hear of the US plotting the overthrow of solar optimized regions, or attempting to gain control of the best wind turbine sites, then I'll believe that fossil fuels have a less important future than renewables.


Madame Albright wouldn't have thought that the death of half a million Iraqi toddlers was "in the end worth it", if the upside was gaining access to Iraq's vast sun soaked deserts.

Terry

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 307
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #85 on: August 10, 2019, 07:10:07 AM »
When I hear of the US plotting the overthrow of solar optimized regions, or attempting to gain control of the best wind turbine sites, then I'll believe that fossil fuels have a less important future than renewables.


Madame Albright wouldn't have thought that the death of half a million Iraqi toddlers was "in the end worth it", if the upside was gaining access to Iraq's vast sun soaked deserts.

Terry
An additional benefit of renewables is that they do not lend themselves to the economics of scarcity and therefore do not provide a very good vehicle for people or companies to get stinking rich. So, assuming we still have a global civilization after we transition to renewables, counties will be unlikely to battle over wind or sun sources. I hope Ken's optimism is not "hopium"!

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #86 on: August 10, 2019, 07:42:23 AM »
^^Ramen
Terry

nanning

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 4087
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #87 on: August 10, 2019, 12:04:56 PM »
<snip>
An additional benefit of renewables is that they do not lend themselves to the economics of scarcity

Well, they are very dependent on mined resources. All those rare earth metals have to be dug up.
Long term is a bitch.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2934
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #88 on: August 10, 2019, 03:03:42 PM »
Well said, Nanning.  So a few mining companies will get 'stinking rich', but this doesn't hold a candle to the monopoly a few petroleum companies currently have.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 611
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #89 on: August 13, 2019, 10:58:39 PM »
<snip>
An additional benefit of renewables is that they do not lend themselves to the economics of scarcity

Well, they are very dependent on mined resources. All those rare earth metals have to be dug up.
Long term is a bitch.

This is an incredibly persistent myth.  While some manufacturers still use rare earth minerals for wind turbines, they can be easily replaced with iron and copper.  That's why the price for rare earth minerals crashed pretty quickly after it spiked around 2010.

https://thebulletin.org/2017/05/clean-energy-and-rare-earths-why-not-to-worry/

Quote
Around 2010, many commentators stridently warned that China’s near-monopoly on supermagnet rare-earth elements could make the growing global shift to electric cars and wind turbines impossible—because their motors and generators, respectively, supposedly required supermagnets and hence rare earths. Some such reports persist even in 2017. But they’re nonsense. Everything that such permanent-magnet rotating machines do can also be done as well or better by two other kinds of motors that have no magnets but instead apply modern control software and power electronics made of silicon, the most abundant solid element on Earth.

The first kind is the induction motor, invented by Nikola Tesla 130 years ago and used in every Tesla electric car today. The second kind, less well-known despite origins tracing back to 1842, is the switched reluctance (SR) machine, likewise made of just iron and (less) copper, but using a different geometry and operating principle. If well-designed, which many are not, SR motors are simpler than permanent-magnet motors, more rugged (so they’re widely used, ironically, in mining equipment), more easily maintained, and equally light and compact. They can switch in milliseconds between serving as a motor or as a generator, and spinning in either direction. They’re also more flexibly controllable, more heat-tolerant, and cheaper for the same torque and production volume. The only scarce resources associated with such capable SR machines are familiarity, which few motor experts have, and skill in their more-difficult design—especially at the level achieved by the UK firm SR Drives (bought first by the US firm Emerson Electric, then by Japan’s Nidec).

Both kinds of magnet-free machines can do everything required not only in electric cars but also in wind turbines, functions often claimed to be impossible without tons of neodymium. That some wind turbines and manufacturers use rare-earth permanent-magnet generators does not mean others must. It’s better not to, and the word is spreading.

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 611
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #90 on: August 14, 2019, 12:27:49 AM »
A 4C increase was seen as quite possible within this century already way back in 2011, when the Royal Academy devoted an entire volume of its journal to studies about what that would mean:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2010.0303

Things haven't gotten any better since then as far as the Keeling Curve goes, so I don't see how we can be confident about exactly when we will get there. Many others already many years ago claimed that 6C was possible or likely before the end of the century. And recently:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/17/global-temperature-rise

Global temperatures could rise 6C by end of century, say scientists

Part of the 'scenario': 
Quote
...natural sinks are becoming less efficient, absorbing 55% of the carbon now, compared with 60% half a century ago

Using the very unrealistic RCP 8.5 scenario (which assumes we continuing burning coal and oil until they run out), a 4C temperature increase would happen between the 2060s and the end of the century.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-018-7160-4

Quote
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences

July 2018, Volume 35, Issue 7,  pp 757–770

Climate Change of 4°C Global Warming above Pre-industrial Levels

Authors

Xiaoxin Wang, Dabang Jiang, Xianmei Lang, Xiaoxin Wang

Abstract

Using a set of numerical experiments from 39 CMIP5 climate models, we project the emergence time for 4◦C global warming with respect to pre-industrial levels and associated climate changes under the RCP8.5 greenhouse gas concentration scenario. Results show that, according to the 39 models, the median year in which 4◦C global warming will occur is 2084. Based on the median results of models that project a 4◦C global warming by 2100, land areas will generally exhibit stronger warming than the oceans annually and seasonally, and the strongest enhancement occurs in the Arctic, with the exception of the summer season. Change signals for temperature go outside its natural internal variabilities globally, and the signal-tonoise ratio averages 9.6 for the annual mean and ranges from 6.3 to 7.2 for the seasonal mean over the globe, with the greatest values appearing at low latitudes because of low noise. Decreased precipitation generally occurs in the subtropics, whilst increased precipitation mainly appears at high latitudes. The precipitation changes in most of the high latitudes are greater than the background variability, and the global mean signal-to-noise ratio is 0.5 and ranges from 0.2 to 0.4 for the annual and seasonal means, respectively. Attention should be paid to limiting global warming to 1.5◦C, in which case temperature and precipitation will experience a far more moderate change than the natural internal variability. Large inter-model disagreement appears at high latitudes for temperature changes and at mid and low latitudes for precipitation changes. Overall, the intermodel consistency is better for temperature than for precipitation.

There are many studies about how we can limit temperature increases to less than 2C, and even 1.5C.  Here's one:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323564003_Scenarios_towards_limiting_global_mean_temperature_increase_below_15_C

Quote
Rogelj, Joeri & Popp, Alexander & V. Calvin, Katherine & Luderer, Gunnar & Emmerling, Johannes & Gernaat, David & Fujimori, Shinichiro & Strefler, Jessica & Hasegawa, Tomoko & Marangoni, Giacomo & Krey, Volker & Kriegler, Elmar & Riahi, Keywan & Vuuren, Detlef & Doelman, Jonathan & Drouet, Laurent & Edmonds, Jae & Fricko, Oliver & Harmsen, J.H.M. & Tavoni, Massimo. (2018). Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nature Climate Change. 8. 10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3.


Abstract


The 2015 Paris Agreement calls for countries to pursue efforts to limit global-mean temperature rise to 1.5 °C. The transition pathways that can meet such a target have not, however, been extensively explored. Here we describe scenarios that limit end-of-century radiative forcing to 1.9 W/ m2, and consequently restrict median warming in the year 2100 to below 1.5 °C. We use six integrated assessment models and a simple climate model, under different socio-economic, technological and resource assumptions from five Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs). Some, but not all, SSPs are amenable to pathways to 1.5 °C. Successful 1.9 W /m2 scenarios are characterized by a rapid shift away from traditional fossil-fuel use towards large-scale low-carbon energy supplies, reduced energy use, and carbon-dioxide removal. However, 1.9 W /m2 scenarios could not be achieved in several models under SSPs with strong inequalities, high baseline fossil-fuel use, or scattered short-term climate policy. Further research can help policy-makers to understand the real-world implications of these scenarios.

petm

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #91 on: August 14, 2019, 12:40:20 AM »
Using the very unrealistic RCP 8.5 scenario (which assumes we continuing burning coal and oil until they run out), a 4C temperature increase would happen between the 2060s and the end of the century.

That assumes the IPCC forecasts are accurate, which is unlikely given the reports are highly conservative and partly or completely omit important known positive feedbacks such as CH4 release from thermokarst lakes and ice-albedo feedback. I also don't think the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario is that unrealistic.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #92 on: August 14, 2019, 12:45:29 AM »
Is there a better thread for the RCP. IPCC, expected max temperature rise etc ? This thread is for DAC...

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 155
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #93 on: August 14, 2019, 01:01:30 AM »
Quote
Successful 1.9 W /m2 scenarios are characterized by a rapid shift away from traditional fossil-fuel use towards large-scale low-carbon energy supplies, reduced energy use, and carbon-dioxide removal.
Not presently possible with current technology on the scale we need. AKA magic thinking.

Models in CMIP6 are suggesting an ECS between 2.8C  and 5.8C. This compares with the previous coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP5), which reported values between 2.1C to 4.7C.
If so we don't need to follow the 8.5 emissions pathway to be facing truly catastrophic consequences.


DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #94 on: August 14, 2019, 02:42:47 AM »
It's not a forcing thread... please refrain from OT

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1262
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #95 on: September 04, 2019, 07:00:08 PM »
Carbon capture: What you need to know about catching CO2 to fight climate change
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/carbon-capture-faq-1.5250140
Quote
The key problem is that carbon capture is very expensive compared to other climate change solutions, such as planting trees, green energy and energy efficiency.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

morganism

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #96 on: September 15, 2019, 12:22:25 AM »
2 new catalyst tech coming soon. Catalysts are used to create 35% global GDP.

https://chemistry.harvard.edu/news/big-game-hunting-catalysts

"So, to contain the reactive nitrene, first-author Carsch built a massive cage in the form of a ligand. The ligand—like organic shrubbery surrounding the copper nitrene pair—keeps the catalyst intact. Cut back that shrubbery and introduce another substance—like a carbon-hydrogen bond—and the fiery nitrene gets to work. "

Synthesis of a copper-supported triplet nitrene complex pertinent to copper-catalyzed amination. Science, 2019 DOI: 10.1126/science.aax4423


and a new nano crystalline structure allows cranks up reactivity, and allows to "re-condition" expensive platinum surfaces.

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2019/09/gem-like-nanoparticles-of-precious-metals-shine-as-catalysts/

"The method is a general one; the study shows it works with five monometallic nanoparticles and a library of bimetallic nanoparticles, spanning seven different metals, including platinum, cobalt and nickel."
 “This type of technology is ready to be scaled up and utilized widely in the catalysis community,”

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1262
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #97 on: September 16, 2019, 06:05:51 PM »
The climate solution Democrats aren’t talking about
https://grist.org/article/the-climate-solution-democrats-arent-talking-about/
Quote
“My own view is that we have to take carbon out of the air and the water and put it back underground,” said Leah Stokes, a climate and energy policy expert at the University of California Santa Barbara. “We cannot just put it in the soil and the forests. And that is not something that very many candidates understand or are talking about.”
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4782
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 235
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #98 on: Today at 12:05:53 AM »
if we cut emissions to zero today, we have suppressed not just the next glaciation but the next two.

As for large scale carbon sequestration, we have to sequester for geological time, at least on the order of  hundreds of millennia.  So I'll believe it when the first few dozen million tons  gets sequestered into long lived geological repository.  Together with funding mechanisms for loooong term monitoring. What those mechanisms might be, i have no idea, considering that the oldest continuously extant human organization is the Vatican at 2Kyr or so.

CO2 drawdown effort will be much larger than the effort we have exerted in digging up all that fossil carbon and burning it. From an energy standpoint alone we need more than the energy we derived from the burning. We need energy source larger than supplied by fossil over the last couple centuries. That on its own will have huge ecological impact, possibly beneficial if soils can be persuaded to help, as some proponents argue. But soils must still be closely monitored for millennia whereas deep geological repositories perhaps need less vigilance, 

I do not expect to see that in my lifetime, although that's probably because i'm an old cynic.

sidd

Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 516
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« Reply #99 on: Today at 01:23:08 AM »
if we cut emissions to zero today, we have suppressed not just the next glaciation but the next two.

As for large scale carbon sequestration, we have to sequester for geological time, at least on the order of  hundreds of millennia.  So I'll believe it when the first few dozen million tons  gets sequestered into long lived geological repository.  Together with funding mechanisms for loooong term monitoring. What those mechanisms might be, i have no idea, considering that the oldest continuously extant human organization is the Vatican at 2Kyr or so.

CO2 drawdown effort will be much larger than the effort we have exerted in digging up all that fossil carbon and burning it. From an energy standpoint alone we need more than the energy we derived from the burning. We need energy source larger than supplied by fossil over the last couple centuries. That on its own will have huge ecological impact, possibly beneficial if soils can be persuaded to help, as some proponents argue. But soils must still be closely monitored for millennia whereas deep geological repositories perhaps need less vigilance, 

I do not expect to see that in my lifetime, although that's probably because i'm an old cynic.

sidd


There are Norwegian operations at this scale.

e.g. this publicity piece claims 20 million
https://www.equinor.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change/carbon-storage.html

If something claims to be CCS+EOR, its really EOR and you can't trust that the CO2 stays sequestrated, but when its injected into saline aquifers to be sequestrated in order to avoid a carbon tax rather than an oil reservoir to get more oil out, monitoring that its reliably sequestrated is possible, because mineralisation reactions hold it in place chemically rather than relying on a physically sealed well. You just need to monitor it during operation to make sure the mineralisation is actually happening rather than long term.

Norway has operate a high enough carbon tax to make sequestration commercially attractive for CO2 from acid gas reservoirs for a long time, but its not high enough (and seems unlikely to me that it ever will be high enough) to make sequestration from combustion products viable.

Technically its feasible, and provided you don't allow EOR to count as sequestration, and have a reasonably honest government interested in making you pay tax if you aren't doing it properly, it can be effectively monitored.

However, I reckon renewables are now sufficiently competitive that a tax big enough to drive sequestration of combustion products will put fossil fuel operations out of business rather than drive them to sequestrate, so I don't expect CCS to expand beyond the niche Norway's carbon tax created.