Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Policy and solutions => Topic started by: crandles on November 02, 2014, 01:06:32 PM

Title: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: crandles on November 02, 2014, 01:06:32 PM
First large scale project

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2014/october/iea-hails-historic-launch-of-carbon-capture-and-storage-project.html (http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2014/october/iea-hails-historic-launch-of-carbon-capture-and-storage-project.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: ghoti on November 02, 2014, 11:56:44 PM
They seemed to have neglected to mention
1) the massive extra cost involved in in constructing the CCS
2) the 25% plus additional cost to the electricity generated at the plant and
3) that all the captured CO2 is being sold to increase oil extraction.

Not much to get excited about.

Previous CCS systems implemented in the Canadian west didn't last many years at all before being shut down.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: crandles on November 03, 2014, 01:13:33 AM
further details

https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/boundary_dam.html

95% capture rate being suggested seems impressive.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 07, 2014, 06:00:18 AM
They seemed to have neglected to mention
1) the massive extra cost involved in in constructing the CCS
2) the 25% plus additional cost to the electricity generated at the plant and
3) that all the captured CO2 is being sold to increase oil extraction.

Not much to get excited about.

Previous CCS systems implemented in the Canadian west didn't last many years at all before being shut down.

The project would go bankrupt were it not for their ability to sell the CO2 for oil extraction.  The opportunities for marketing the CO2 are fairly limited, they had to downsize the original plant design as there wasn't a market for all the CO2 that would have been produced. 

Wind and solar just keep getting cheaper.  It's really looking like we've got some inexpensive vanadium redox flow battery technology coming on line.  Look for storage at or below $0.05/kWh.  That plus <4c wind and solar is going to be a new coal plant killer.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: crandles on November 07, 2014, 03:38:09 PM
Wind and solar just keep getting cheaper. 

Yes but wind and solar don't reduce CO2 in the air. I think we need some practice at grabbing CO2 when it is high in order to improve to the stage where we can sequestrate CO2 from air.

We are already at about 478 CO2e and avoiding 2C 'dangerous' CC only allow CO2e to go up to 530 if that is a brief overshoot. Total emissions of about 11 years of current emissions taking us to 500 CO2e simply isn't going to last us forever - we need a lot of capture from air, as well as from power station emissions.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: domen_ on November 07, 2014, 05:56:20 PM
Coal and natural gas with CCS also don't reduce CO2 in the air. Only biomass+CCS reduces CO2 in the air.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, one of the German top climatologist (he was also advisor to Merkel's government on these issues for some years) is very much in favor of biomass+CCS.

I also think it's a good idea. But in the real world economics is the issue. There would have to be some kind of regulatory framework to make this work.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 08, 2014, 08:36:49 AM
Biomass + CCS is an interesting idea.  It might be expensive and to make a meaningful reduction in atmospheric CO2 it would have to be very large scale.

I suppose a bit here and a bit there is better than doing nothing....
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 04, 2014, 02:48:07 PM
What's happening with CCS in the real world.  "Now the bad news."
Quote
Today his government has changed its tune, estimating costs at $200 to bury each ton of carbon. He called CCS a “science experiment.”

Other Alternatives

“The carbon reductions are extraordinarily expensive relative to other alternatives,” Prentice said in an Oct. 31 interview in Calgary.

Economists say a carbon tax of half that amount would spur development of low-carbon technologies like wind power.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-04/this-process-averts-climate-change-now-the-bad-news.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-04/this-process-averts-climate-change-now-the-bad-news.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on July 23, 2015, 09:20:21 PM
Inexpensive carbon mitigation (sequestration)?

I read a mention of (probably) this process several months ago in a book, and just happened upon this article in an industry blog.
Discovery To Reduce Human Impact On Global Warming
 (http://www.swapsol.com/swaplog/2009/10/discovery-to-reduce-human-impact-on-global-warming/)

Quote
HOUSTON (Oct. 28, 2009) – Two New Jersey scientists have discovered a simple chemical process to break down carbon dioxide (CO2) and eliminate nuisance pollutants, such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in refining operations. Their discovery could redefine how science looks at energy. SWAPSOL Corp. will present to industry on Oct. 28, “Carbon Focus Day,” at the Global Refining Strategies Summit in Houston.

The invention changes preconceived notions about energy and chemistry. Raymond Stenger, environmental engineer, and James Wasas, an entrepreneurial chemist, developed the Stenger-Wasas Process (SWAP) based on a previously unknown exothermic interaction between H2S and CO2 that eliminates both. The SWAP is independently verified by standard analytical instruments to convert CO2 by more than 99 percent into carbon-sulfur polymers (Carsuls), water and sulfur in the presence of H2S over an abundant and inexpensive catalyst. The SWAP can also recycle waste hydrocarbons (compounds containing carbon and hydrogen) and break down CO2 in a self-sustaining cycle.

See also Practical Applications for the Stenger-Wasas Process (SWAP) (http://www.swapsol.com/images/docs/practical-applications.pdf)
Quote
The (SWAP) is not a CO2 capture process. It is a CO2 and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) conversion and elimination process.
More about the company at www.swapsol.com (http://www.swapsol.com/)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on July 23, 2015, 09:42:24 PM
Unrelated patent application dated May 2, 2015
SYNGAS PRODUCTION BY CO2 REDUCTION PROCESS (https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf;jsessionid=6F9155F37B7A3E4403EF3AE16F1580B3.wapp1nA?docId=WO2015015457&recNum=3&office=&queryString=ALLNAMES%3A(politecnico+di+milano)&prevFilter=&sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&maxRec=159)

Abstract:
Quote
A process for producing synthesis gas (syngas) comprising the endothermic reaction between CO2 and H2S, wherein the energetic supply is provided by the exothermic oxidation of a small portion of H2S to SO2 according to the following reaction scheme: R2: H2S + 1.5 O2 → SO2 + H2O said process being carried out according to the following overall theoretical reaction scheme R1, not taking into account the aforementioned exothermic reaction R2, R1: CO2 + 2 H2S → CO + H2 + S2 + H2O wherein the amount of fed oxygen is comprised between 5% and 25% by volume over the total volume of fed reactants gaseous mixture.

Internet search of "CO2 H2S exothermic reaction" gets several 'hits'.  This patent application just shows folks are still looking at the process.  I note the SWAPSOL effort (previous post) appears to have stopped in 2011.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on July 23, 2015, 10:16:50 PM
An outside contractor (sulfur recovery technology expert) apparently wrote of the SWAP process in 2011:
Quote
“What is clear from the data is that the SWAP can provide cost advantages over competing processes, especially in view of the fact that the competing cost data needs to be inflated for a four year time period. Compared to the industry standard (the Claus process), the SWAP provides a cost advantage in excess of 40 % (after adjustments for inflation); the advanced SWAP process increases the potential advantage to 70%.”
The focus of this is clearly for cleaning contaminants for petroleum refiners. 

Because there are references to 'landfill gas cleanup' I would think this process has some open air applications as well.  I'm dreaming of the possibility of harnessing H2S producing volcanos to remove CO2 from the atmosphere!
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on August 20, 2015, 03:19:52 PM
New cell taps captured CO2 for a range of clean energy uses (http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2015/08/20/stories/1060023692)
Umair Irfan, E&E reporter
Published: Thursday, August 20, 2015  [subscription required, but I bet you can read about this elsewhere]

Quote
A simple electrochemical cell could turn carbon dioxide from the air into materials used in many clean energy applications, researchers have found.

At scale, the setup could produce carbon nanofibers in a way that actually reduces greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

"Instead of sequestration, atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly transformed into stable, useful, compact, valuable carbon products," said Stuart Licht, a chemistry professor at George Washington University who developed the apparatus.

He presented his work at a press conference yesterday at the American Chemical Society's annual meeting in Boston.

The technique started with steel and nickel electrodes immersed in a molten lithium carbonate solution. When a current is applied, the electrodes split the lithium carbonate into lithium oxide and carbon. The carbon deposits on the electrode, while the lithium oxide reacts with carbon dioxide from the air, reforming the starting material.

"By these means, lithium carbonate is continuously replenished," Licht said.

Over time, carbon forms into nanofibers. Researchers demonstrated that 1 amp of current produced 0.1 gram of nanofibers over the course of an hour.
...
Licht also noted that, theoretically, using atmospheric carbon dioxide to make useful things could slow climate change, but other researchers have found that the economics make such an idea implausible (ClimateWire, Dec. 13, 2011).
emphases added, but paragraph is at the end of the original article
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 20, 2015, 03:51:23 PM
You mean like this?   :D

From Greenhouse Gas to the Dreamliner, Nanofibers Offer New Life for CO2
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19082015/greenhouse-gas-dreamliner-nanofibers-offer-new-life-co2-carbon-geoengineering (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19082015/greenhouse-gas-dreamliner-nanofibers-offer-new-life-co2-carbon-geoengineering)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on August 20, 2015, 03:54:09 PM
I couldn't have won the bet without you! :-*
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: skanky on September 25, 2015, 11:42:02 AM
Drax pulls out of CCS on cost grounds, due to government pulling renewable subsidy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34356117 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34356117)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 29, 2016, 01:20:29 PM
Not Storage, but here's a method for Carbon Capture and Recycling.

Carbon dioxide captured from air can be directly converted into methanol fuel
Quote
(Phys.org)—For the first time, researchers have demonstrated that CO2 captured from the air can be directly converted into methanol (CH3OH) using a homogeneous catalyst. The benefits are two-fold: The process removes harmful CO2 from the atmosphere, and the methanol can be used as an alternative fuel to gasoline. The work represents an important step that could one day lead to a future "methanol economy," in which fuel and energy storage are primarily based on methanol.
...
Over the past several years, chemists have been investigating various ways of recycling CO2 into useful products. For example, treating CO2 with hydrogen gas (H2) can produce methanol, methane (CH4), or formic acid (HCOOH). Among these products, methanol is especially attractive because of its use as an alternative fuel, in fuel cells, and for hydrogen storage.
http://phys.org/news/2016-01-carbon-dioxide-captured-air-methanol.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-01-carbon-dioxide-captured-air-methanol.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sigmetnow on April 28, 2016, 10:18:18 PM
Could carbon farming be the answer for a 'clapped-out' Australia?
Farmers signing up for the carbon emissions reduction fund have to meet strict guidelines but there is significant profit and energy savings to be made
Quote
Similar to the carbon offset programme, carbon sequestration could be a viable solution, with farmers encouraged to store carbon dioxide (CO2) in soil and trees and prevent additional emissions from animal waste methane. And again, farmers take part in an auction, albeit a more sedate, less visible one, to make it profitable.

The ins and outs of the fund take some navigation, however. At the auction, bidders undertake to store a set amount of carbon or not emit a set amount of CO2, within a fixed time period and for the lowest price they can profitably deliver carbon abatement.

Each endeavour for landowners, whether it is storing carbon or cutting CO2 emissions, is classified as a project and the methods used to deliver their outcomes are set out by the regulator. For example, a farmer who undertakes to boost his soil’s carbon content by changing his grazing practices or by increasing organic compost has to nominate a specific method to achieve the improvement.
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/apr/28/could-carbon-farming-be-the-answer-for-a-clapped-out-australia (http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/apr/28/could-carbon-farming-be-the-answer-for-a-clapped-out-australia)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: jai mitchell on April 30, 2016, 03:06:29 AM
vaclav smith shows why CCS is not going to work, at all, and the reason is numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9zHpdkGFtQ&feature=youtu.be&a (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9zHpdkGFtQ&feature=youtu.be&a)

doing the math he shows that to remove and sequester 1/2 of anthropogenic co2 emissions, we will have to sequester 5 billion cubic meters of liquid co2 each year. . .quite a bit more in volume than the earth's oil production. 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: rboyd on May 02, 2016, 07:39:24 PM
Its Vaclav Smil. He has been writing for quite a while on the scale and complexity of replacing/decarbonizing the current energy infrastructure. Basically, it will be very slow, painful, and provide much less energy than most currently assume. CCS is a bridge to nowhere, just like natural gas.

His "Energy Transitions" book is a great primer.
http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Transitions-History-Requirements-Prospects-ebook/dp/B004HO57NA/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 (http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Transitions-History-Requirements-Prospects-ebook/dp/B004HO57NA/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8)

Another great talk by him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DungeonMaster on May 02, 2016, 11:39:59 PM
If I remember correctly, all this buzz around CCS was created by the coal industry during Bush's presidency, to spread the idea that science-to-come would find tech solutions "to this CO2 thing", when they denied it was a problem. It appeared around the "clean coal" themes they tried to sell us - basically, an other strategy to deny coal and oil responsability and to delay any action. But CS was never meant to work, just to buy more time to emit while making money.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: rboyd on May 03, 2016, 12:46:05 AM
And now we have "Bio Energy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)" from the IPCC so that we can overshoot the CO2 targets with the nice warm feeling that we can go zero, or even negative, carbon through technology later. Another BAU-facilitating mirage.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sigmetnow on May 15, 2016, 12:48:55 AM
Energy Department Suspends Funding for Texas Carbon Capture Project, Igniting Debate
Quote
The Obama administration has suspended funding for a large, troubled carbon capture and storage project, a decision being challenged by politicians from both parties and environmental advocates alike.

While the Texas Clean Energy Project is not officially dead, continued refusal by the Department of Energy to extend any more money would effectively kill it, according to its builder. That would make it the fifth CCS project the DOE has backed away from.
...
Due to Summit's inability to obtain the required commercial debt and equity project financing and the adverse effect of changing energy markets on the demand for coal-based power plants, we are concerned about the viability of the Project and the Department's continued involvement," the inspector general's report said. "Although construction of the plant was originally planned for completion in June 2014, the Project remains in the project definition phase. Additionally, we found that the Department had taken actions that increased its financial risk in the Project."
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/12052016/department-energy-moniz-carbon-capture-ccs-climate-change-texas-clean-energy-project (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/12052016/department-energy-moniz-carbon-capture-ccs-climate-change-texas-clean-energy-project)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: crandles on May 31, 2016, 12:19:01 PM
Baking soda 'sponge' could capture carbon emissions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36197603 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36197603)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: ghoti on May 31, 2016, 03:59:45 PM
This is not actually new just a new press release on a variation of an old theme. Still extremely energy expensive to recycle the material to remove the captured pure CO2 and then expensive to transport/store the CO2.

Same old same old. These methods could work if you stored (buried?) the dry material that absorbed the CO2 but then we'd probably have a landfill problem wouldn't we.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sigmetnow on June 10, 2016, 12:47:07 AM
Iceland Experiment Successfully Turns CO2 Emissions into Rock
Quote
An experiment in Iceland has shown how carbon dioxide emissions can be trapped deep underground and converted into a solid mineral faster than previously thought. Locking CO2 underground—by combining the pollutant with water and injecting it into volcanic rock—could help combat climate change by keeping the primary greenhouse gas out of the air, scientists say.

In the initial experiment near a geothermal power plant outside Reykjavík, researchers injected 175 tons of carbon dioxide dissolved in water into a basaltic rock formation. It didn't take long for the mix to interact chemically with surrounding rock, forming the mineral carbonate. In a second experiment, scientists dissolved 73 tons of CO2 and hydrogen sulfide in water and injected the solution into the same area, with the same effect.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/09062016/iceland-study-ccs-carbon-capture-storage-climate-change-iceland-co2-rock (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/09062016/iceland-study-ccs-carbon-capture-storage-climate-change-iceland-co2-rock)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: sidd on June 10, 2016, 01:20:22 AM
That Iceland technique  needs a lot of water ...
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on June 20, 2016, 07:50:00 PM
Bury the beast in basalt (https://earth-pages.co.uk/2016/06/15/bury-the-beast-in-basalt/)
Posted on June 15, 2016 by Steve Drury

More on the Iceland experiment.  Dr. Drury's piece ends with
Quote
After 18 months the pump that extracted groundwater directly from the lave flow for continuous monitoring of changes in the tracer and pH broke down. The fault was due to a build up of carbonate – a cause for astonishment and rapid evaluation of the data gathered. In just 18 months 95% of the 14C in the injected CO2 had been taken up by carbonation reactions. A similar injection experiment into the Snake River flood basalts in Washington State, USA, is said to have achieved similar results (not yet published). A test would be to drill core from the target flow to see if any carbonates containing the radioactive tracer filled either vesicles of cracks in the rock – some press reports have shown Icelandic basalt cores that contain carbonates, but no evidence that they contain the tracer .
 Although this seems a much more beneficial use of well-injection than fracking, the problem is essentially the same as reinjection of carbon dioxide into old oil and gas fields; the high cost. Alternatives might be to spread basaltic or ultramafic gravel over large areas so that it reacts with CO2 dissolved in rainwater or to lay bear fresh rocks of that kind by removal of soil cover.
The article includes some geological context of CO2 issues.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 18, 2016, 01:12:56 AM
The latest science -- from a lab setting.

New patent boosts CO2 capture hopes
Quote
A technology that could in theory catch 90% of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations has been patented by US government scientists.

Employing an enzyme-based membrane fabric 10 times thinner than a soap bubble, it could separate carbon dioxide from nitrogen or oxygen and speed up its dissolution in water by a factor of 10 million. And its triumphant designers say that, in laboratory trials, it does the job − at a cost-effective $40 a ton.
...
But the commercial technologies used now bubble CO2 into a chemical-based solution designed to absorb the gas. The process demands high pressure facilities and uses about a third of the energy the plant generates.
http://climatenewsnetwork.net/new-patent-boosts-co2-capture-hopes/ (http://climatenewsnetwork.net/new-patent-boosts-co2-capture-hopes/)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 14, 2016, 04:30:43 AM
The linked article is entitled: "We’re placing far too much hope in pulling carbon dioxide out of the air, scientists warn":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/13/were-placing-far-too-much-hope-in-pulling-carbon-dioxide-out-of-the-air-scientists-warn/?utm_term=.493dff2a49c3 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/13/were-placing-far-too-much-hope-in-pulling-carbon-dioxide-out-of-the-air-scientists-warn/?utm_term=.493dff2a49c3)

Extract: "In a new opinion paper, published Thursday in the journal Science, climate experts Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester and Glen Peters of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research have argued that relying on the uncertain concept of negative emissions as a fix could lock the world into a severe climate-change pathway.

“[If] we behave today like we’ve got these get-out-of-jail cards in the future, and then in 20 years we discover we don’t have this technology, then you’re already locked into a higher temperature level,” Peters said."
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: timallard on October 16, 2016, 12:09:07 AM
For 2015 we did 37-Gigatons CO2-eqv, frozen it's 37 cubic-km's of gas, 25% of it stays for over 10,000-years in the atmosphere, Catch-22 on CO2.

The idea to sequester that much CO2 a year will shatter strata to earthquakes along with acid poisoning from the CO2 touching groundwater or aquifers, Kansas joined the real estate boom in earthquake properties lately, prices are falling by the minute.

Dumped into the sea that much in a year bets will cause a benthic extinction, maybe it'll take 3-years?

That's rather immature and delusional geophysically speaking, it's the same problem with nuclear waste, eh?

End the Steam-Age for electrons, 80% of grid power is for thermal end uses move that to active-solar-HVAC, poof gone and who needs a new power plant?

Thus ending the grid will take less than 5-years, if it was a war maybe 2-months.

It's simply faster, cheaper and easier removing those from the grid by using onsite thermal collection & storage having zero emissions, far less copper and concrete-n-steel as carbon-footprint and doesn't go down in a big storm.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: solartim27 on October 30, 2016, 05:46:36 AM
Anybody know if the numbers here are accurate?
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/oct/17/ticker-mega-composter-santa-ysabel/# (http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/oct/17/ticker-mega-composter-santa-ysabel/#)
Quote
This is all about regenerative agriculture and carbon farming in San Diego County," said Kevin Muno, a cattle rancher and owner of the 80-acre Montado Farms, introducing the project. "By spreading a half-inch of compost on rangeland, we're able to sequester a ton of carbon per hectare [roughly 2.5 acres], increase grass growth by 40 to 60 percent, and reduce water use by three times....
Muno's statement was referring to the findings of the Marin Carbon Project, which has been studying the effects of composting on two rangeland sites in Northern California for nearly a decade.
http://www.marincarbonproject.org/home (http://www.marincarbonproject.org/home)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: timallard on October 30, 2016, 12:08:55 PM
Anybody know if the numbers here are accurate?
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/oct/17/ticker-mega-composter-santa-ysabel/# (http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/oct/17/ticker-mega-composter-santa-ysabel/#)
Quote
This is all about regenerative agriculture and carbon farming in San Diego County," said Kevin Muno, a cattle rancher and owner of the 80-acre Montado Farms, introducing the project. "By spreading a half-inch of compost on rangeland, we're able to sequester a ton of carbon per hectare [roughly 2.5 acres], increase grass growth by 40 to 60 percent, and reduce water use by three times....
Muno's statement was referring to the findings of the Marin Carbon Project, which has been studying the effects of composting on two rangeland sites in Northern California for nearly a decade.
http://www.marincarbonproject.org/home (http://www.marincarbonproject.org/home)

Certain lands respond well to grazing, others don't, with fencing humans forced ecosystems to change usually degrading the land with erosion.

Once there soils lack organics to hold moisture then to gain soil communities that transform minerals to forms plants can absorb raw dirt doesn't do that and why people use fertilizers ... which work to a degree yet not fully compared to healthy, rich soils  for max 'nutrition' in the plants as food for people our guts work the same way.

This is a best reference I've found so far for most ranchers & planners to read free online, have the book: http://quiviracoalition.org/Publications/Publications_for_Download/index.html (http://quiviracoalition.org/Publications/Publications_for_Download/index.html)

We must exit the Steam Age for electrons, most grid power is for thermal end-use 80%, not electricity 20%, so to switch will only take 5-years moving to solar-HVAC, maybe 2-months if it was a war, don't tell.

I like Dr. Hansen's solution of a "carbon fee" that takes the money from the polluters and distributes it to all citizens equally,  they spend it -->> the economy grows.

End subsidies, tax loopholes and this time they pay double taxes being criminal in their choices, eh? ... then put that capital into real solutions not putting it off another 30-years the slogans we're hearing are the same, oh it'll take 30-years to switch to fossil, it's a racket not a "service".
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on March 08, 2017, 05:45:07 PM
Synchrotron sheds (X-ray) light on carbon chemistry at ocean surfaces (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170307112825.htm)
Date:March 7, 2017 Source:American Institute of Physics
Excerpts:
Quote
Summary: Carbonate, bicarbonate, and carbonic acid emerge when atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in the oceans, which is the largest sink for this greenhouse gas. Researchers are interested in better understanding the carbonate system to potentially help facilitate carbon sequestration schemes, to help mitigate climate change. Recently, researchers made breakthrough discoveries about the carbonate species' behavior at saltwater surfaces, like that of the ocean.
Quote
According to one of the paper's authors, UC Berkeley chemistry professor Richard Saykally, a strong motivation for this research was understanding the chemical processes involved in carbon sequestration. They found that while neutral carbonic acid was most heavily present at the surface, as was expected, the more highly charged carbonate ion was more abundant than the weaker bicarbonate.

"We want to generally advance our understanding of the global carbon cycle," Saykally said. "The aspects of this cycle that we have been focusing on begin with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolving into salt water, followed by some very interesting chemistry."

Carbon dioxide is captured by the water surface and hydrated to form carbonic acid or bicarbonate, which can then ionize into either bicarbonate or carbonate where carbonate may react with dissolved magnesium or calcium ions to form limestone.

"We want to know all those steps going from gaseous carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to limestone," Saykally said. "Our goal is to understand all the details in all the steps in that process."
Quote
"So, the next step would be to look further into ion pairing, and essentially limestone or mineral formation, specifically, looking at the interaction of calcium and magnesium ions with carbonate," Lam said of one carbon sequestration possibility he discussed

(I'm not holding my breath for this miracle cure.)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on April 12, 2017, 03:39:48 PM
Just saw some really sad statistics.

A study on CCS related publications revealed 17750 publications since 1992. However the peak was 2013, with significant decline afterwards. For example since 2003 the peak on post combustion capture was more than 300 publications in 2014  while in 2016 The number was 150.  The completely opposite should have happened with increasing publications ... Why???
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: TerryM on April 12, 2017, 03:47:55 PM
Just saw some really sad statistics.

A study on CCS related publications revealed 17750 publications since 1992. However the peak was 2013, with significant decline afterwards. For example since 2003 the peak on post combustion capture was more than 300 publications in 2014  while in 2016 The number was 150.  The completely opposite should have happened with increasing publications ... Why???


By ~2013 the concept had been shown to be nothing more than hype?


Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on April 12, 2017, 04:29:28 PM
Just saw some really sad statistics.

A study on CCS related publications revealed 17750 publications since 1992. However the peak was 2013, with significant decline afterwards. For example since 2003 the peak on post combustion capture was more than 300 publications in 2014  while in 2016 The number was 150.  The completely opposite should have happened with increasing publications ... Why???


By ~2013 the concept had been shown to be nothing more than hype?


Terry

Wtv

CCS is not hype, just expensive.  I am wondering why would the universities reduce the research.  To solve the problem you need all possible tools... you are hoping renewables will ramp up fast enough so you won't need CCS. Projects and development in such a large scale is never that linear and easy...
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: mitch on April 12, 2017, 06:35:26 PM
The reduction in research most likely reflects priorities by the funding agencies. Very little research funding is internal to the universities. 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: folke_kelm on April 13, 2017, 07:37:34 PM
DrTskoul,

CCS is and always has been a hype. Of course it is a possibility in small scale, but for the required scale you have to ask geologists. You must have the numbers in mind when you talk about CCS.
80+ million barrels of oil a day, plus all coal, plus all natural gas have to be captured and injected into the ground. CO2 is as a fluid by far more mobile than oil or water, so it will require sites we do not have. Most oil deposits are not able to contain these vast amounts of carbon dioxide we have to capture.
One more point is, that we have to burn more than twice the amount of coal or oil to capture, compress an deposit carbon dioxide. This is not a way we should take, and this is, what research has got as a conclusion, this is why research stagnates. Look at the numbers and you will understand.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on April 13, 2017, 11:39:37 PM
DrTskoul,

CCS is and always has been a hype. Of course it is a possibility in small scale, but for the required scale you have to ask geologists. You must have the numbers in mind when you talk about CCS.
80+ million barrels of oil a day, plus all coal, plus all natural gas have to be captured and injected into the ground. CO2 is as a fluid by far more mobile than oil or water, so it will require sites we do not have. Most oil deposits are not able to contain these vast amounts of carbon dioxide we have to capture.
One more point is, that we have to burn more than twice the amount of coal or oil to capture, compress an deposit carbon dioxide. This is not a way we should take, and this is, what research has got as a conclusion, this is why research stagnates. Look at the numbers and you will understand.

* there is more than enough storage in US for all US emissions per DOE (https://energy.gov/fe/articles/does-carbon-utilization-and-storage-atlas-estimates-least-2400)
* if methane can be stored in natural gas reservoirs so is CO2
* you cannot include transportation and residential uses. Cannot capture that. You can only apply carbon capture at very large sources, basically electricity generating power plants and big industrial sources. That cuts down amount that can be captured.
* world class scale carbon capture and sequestration is already in existence and commercialized. Most of sequestration is for enhanced oil recovery ( EOR). It is wrong that only small scale is feasible.
* your energy needs calcs are wrong. Currently the levelized cost of electricity go up by 25 - 40% if CCS is included, mostly due to capital requirements.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: rboyd on April 14, 2017, 04:59:20 AM
Please define "world class scale carbon capture and sequestration". Agree on the 40% extra cost, what % of the CO2 is actually captured. EOR opportunities will be limited, so the cost will have to flow through to the consumer.

If this is ever to be scaled up to what would be required, there would have to be a massive new pipeline etc. infrastructure to move the CO2 to the available reservoirs from where the coal-fired electricity generating plants are. Vaclav Smil has covered this very well. Currently, CCS implementations are far behind any of the scenarios used by the UN IPCC.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on April 14, 2017, 05:58:07 AM
Quote
This facility captures more than 90 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) from a 240 MW slipstream of flue gas for the use and ultimate sequestration of 1.6 million tons of this greenhouse gas annually. Petra Nova came online in 2016.

At 240 MW, Petra Nova is the world's largest post-combustion carbon capture facility installed on an existing coal-fueled power plan

Quote
largest non power
Location: Weyburn Saskatchewan, Canada
Start Date: October 2000
Size: 3 Mt/yr: Over 30 Million tons injected since the project start

 World class scale : equipment are at the largest scale

Implementations depend on policy and cost not on scalability...

Goal should be to minimize ff power consumption and add ccs to the rest

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: rboyd on April 14, 2017, 09:29:37 PM
There is a huge amount of variance in the reporting on Petra Nova, looks like the plant captures 90% of the carbon emissions from one of the plant's coal burning units (250MW capacity versus the plants total of 3,700 MW), so still relatively small scale. There was an assumption of $75 oil for profitability, so lower current prices have created profitability issues. The problem for all alternatives in an environment without a substantial carbon tax, not just CCS; 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/01/11/nrg-energy-ceo-carbon-capture-is-very-challenging-at-50-oil/#77ec647c5b22 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/01/11/nrg-energy-ceo-carbon-capture-is-very-challenging-at-50-oil/#77ec647c5b22)

Seems that Petra Nova is a lot better managed, and simpler technology, than the Kemper fiasco. Only just started operation though, so no track record to see how it performs over time. I found this very well balanced article on the possibilities for CCS.

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/12/15269628/carbon-capture-trump (http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/12/15269628/carbon-capture-trump)

The Net Power work, if it pans out, would be a game changer - additional cost offset by using the CO2 stream to generate more electricity. Still a lot of controversy over the safety of the storage underground. May be the same nonsense as "wind turbines make you sick and kill lots of birds", but can cause a lot of delay.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/science/donald-trump-carbon-capture-clean-coal.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/science/donald-trump-carbon-capture-clean-coal.html)

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: rboyd on April 14, 2017, 10:21:34 PM
Absence of carbon capture and storage is ‘biggest challenge to’ 2C limit

"There is a clear divergence from current trends and the scenarios. Most scenarios require thousands of CCS facilities by 2030, but there are only tens currently proposed"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/absence-carbon-capture-storage-biggest-challenge-2c-limit (https://www.carbonbrief.org/absence-carbon-capture-storage-biggest-challenge-2c-limit)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Richard Rathbone on April 17, 2017, 01:43:34 PM
Absence of carbon capture and storage is ‘biggest challenge to’ 2C limit

"There is a clear divergence from current trends and the scenarios. Most scenarios require thousands of CCS facilities by 2030, but there are only tens currently proposed"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/absence-carbon-capture-storage-biggest-challenge-2c-limit (https://www.carbonbrief.org/absence-carbon-capture-storage-biggest-challenge-2c-limit)

None will actually happen. A requirement for CCS or closing the plant will result in closing the plant. Renewables have gone past the tipping point that made CCS obsolete before a carbon price high enough ever got implemented (except in Norway, where there has been a high enough carbon tax since 1991 to make it commercial in one niche).
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/sleipner%C2%A0co2-storage-project (https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/sleipner%C2%A0co2-storage-project)

Early closure of bankrupt facilities is what will prevent carbon budgets being exceeded if anything does.

(Petra Nova is not CCS, the CO2 is used, not stored)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on April 17, 2017, 03:04:34 PM
Absence of carbon capture and storage is ‘biggest challenge to’ 2C limit

"There is a clear divergence from current trends and the scenarios. Most scenarios require thousands of CCS facilities by 2030, but there are only tens currently proposed"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/absence-carbon-capture-storage-biggest-challenge-2c-limit (https://www.carbonbrief.org/absence-carbon-capture-storage-biggest-challenge-2c-limit)

None will actually happen. A requirement for CCS or closing the plant will result in closing the plant. Renewables have gone past the tipping point that made CCS obsolete before a carbon price high enough ever got implemented (except in Norway, where there has been a high enough carbon tax since 1991 to make it commercial in one niche).
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/sleipner%C2%A0co2-storage-project (https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/sleipner%C2%A0co2-storage-project)

Early closure of bankrupt facilities is what will prevent carbon budgets being exceeded if anything does.

(Petra Nova is not CCS, the CO2 is used, not stored)

What is the difference between underground utilization and storage?

Regarding CCS demise,  you assume a) that every single bit of FF use can be replaced by b) renewable penetration is going by to happen fast enough that CCS is not needed.

The bankrupt facilities let them die. However natural gas based power generation is far from bankrupt. You want to capture as much of that CO2 as possible... no?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: rboyd on April 17, 2017, 09:07:28 PM
At the rate at which we will need to cut emissions, the "all of the above" approach makes sense. The current coal-based power stations provide a limited number of implementation points that already have all the required grid connectivity. Quite a few of them are relatively new, some even being built within the last few years (e.g. Germany, Holland), so there is a huge cost to write these off. Such an approach also removed political barriers (e.g. the coal lobby in Germany).

An escalating pace of renewables implementation would not be highly net energy positive until the rate of increase slowed down, due to the up-front energy cost (including grid infrastructure builds etc.) and the smaller annual, annuity-style flow of energy. Therefore, a "Marshall Plan" style renewable build out would need more energy in the short-term. Same goes if we try to drive a rapid retirement of high-carbon infrastructure (e.g. SUV's) and building energy retrofits.

Petra Nova is storing CO2 underground, to displace oil. Splitting hairs on this is not beneficial to the discussion. I am no fan of the continued use of fossil fuels, but am realistic about how hard a rapid transformation of the energy system will be and that compromises will have to be made.



Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on April 26, 2017, 03:40:02 AM
Scientist invents way to trigger artificial photosynthesis to clean air

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-04/uocf-siw042517.php (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-04/uocf-siw042517.php)

Extract:
Quote
A chemistry professor in Florida has just found a way to trigger the process of photosynthesis in a synthetic material, turning greenhouse gases into clean air and producing energy all at the same time.

Video from the author and link to paper in the link. Sounds intriguing. If true and scalable it can be the breakthrough we needed.  It not only stores carbon, it recharges the carbon with solar energy and produces fuel.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 26, 2017, 05:14:38 AM
Formate -  HCO2.  Could be used in fuel cells to produce electricity.

Why wouldn't we end up with CO2 as a byproduct and the carbon back in the atmosphere?

Quote
"The idea would be to set up stations that capture large amounts of CO2, like next to a power plant. The gas would be sucked into the station, go through the process and recycle the greenhouse gases while producing energy that would be put back into the power plant."

If the process is not affordable while using only atmospheric carbon then it's worthless.  As it is it sounds like another possible rationale for continuing to burn fossil fuels.  So many synthetic fuel ideas fail along this line.

My guess is that the process will use more energy than just charging EV batteries directly from renewable sources. Generally one doesn't go through a lot of form changes without leaving energy behind.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on April 26, 2017, 12:12:27 PM
Due to inefficiencies you would of course need more energy to generate the same energy equivalent.  Solar -> electricity vs Solar -> to fuel -> electricity or thermal energy.  The question is where you do the solar capture and where is the final energy release and what form of energy do you need.  E.g. large scale industrial steam generation ( do you use solar or Nuclear  to generate H2 to burn in a turbine ?)   
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on April 26, 2017, 04:00:07 PM


Why wouldn't we end up with CO2 as a byproduct and the carbon back in the atmosphere?


If CO2 could somehow be "recharged" then we could keep reusing the molecules reducing emissions, but that is a very long way off.

After reading some more on this technology it seems like the principal flaw is that the photosynthethic molecules will need to be replenished, probably quite often.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 26, 2017, 05:10:53 PM
If the process can't run on atmospheric CO2 then it is highly unlikely it will be used in the long term.

We've got to get rid of "smokestack" CO2 because we must stop burning fossil fuels.  Other than some few possible thermal plants run on biofuel there will be no places to find highly concentrated CO2.  We're not likely to attach CO2 collection systems to our vehicles.
--

I suspect that, long term, most biofuel we use will be for 'deep backup'.  Those very few times a year that we run low on wind/solar inputs.  I can't see any way the math would work for a synfuel plant that had access to its feedstock less than a day a  year.

(I'm working off the Budischak paper that found a need for gas peaker contribution only seven hour a year.)

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on April 26, 2017, 08:23:36 PM


Why wouldn't we end up with CO2 as a byproduct and the carbon back in the atmosphere?


If CO2 could somehow be "recharged" then we could keep reusing the molecules reducing emissions, but that is a very long way off.

After reading some more on this technology it seems like the principal flaw is that the photosynthethic molecules will need to be replenished, probably quite often.

A CO2 molecule reuse usually requires the energy equivalent of a CO2 molecule released from combustion.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on April 26, 2017, 09:36:53 PM

A CO2 molecule reuse usually requires the energy equivalent of a CO2 molecule released from combustion.

Somewhere in that ball park plus efficiency loses.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: ghoti on April 27, 2017, 04:50:20 PM
Reuse of CO2 is not a bad thing but the argument for reusing it is very similar to the argument for using hydrogen fuel cells. Both can be recycled using renewable energy. However, both are much much less energy efficient than just using renewable energy with battery storage.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 27, 2017, 05:26:49 PM
Reusing CO2 is not bad.  As long as part of the process does not involve extracting more fossil fuels and turning them into the CO2 that is being reused.

If it was easy/affordable to sequester CO2 from existing coal and gas burners and give it a second life by turning it into a 'drop in' fuel we could cut overall CO2 emissions.  We'd be getting more useful energy per ton/barrel of fossil fuel extracted.  That would help lower our CO2 emissions while we implement carbon free technology.

But, as far as I know, we lack the technology to easily/affordably capture the CO2. 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on April 27, 2017, 06:31:59 PM
Reusing CO2 is not bad.  As long as part of the process does not involve extracting more fossil fuels and turning them into the CO2 that is being reused.

If it was easy/affordable to sequester CO2 from existing coal and gas burners and give it a second life by turning it into a 'drop in' fuel we could cut overall CO2 emissions.  We'd be getting more useful energy per ton/barrel of fossil fuel extracted.  That would help lower our CO2 emissions while we implement carbon free technology.

But, as far as I know, we lack the technology to easily/affordably capture the CO2.

Below a few percent in concentration is difficult... above is easy from concentrated single sources. Distributed sources are difficult. Cost is not a huge percentage on electricity ... capital needed is large.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 27, 2017, 06:54:40 PM
Reusing CO2 is not bad.  As long as part of the process does not involve extracting more fossil fuels and turning them into the CO2 that is being reused.

If it was easy/affordable to sequester CO2 from existing coal and gas burners and give it a second life by turning it into a 'drop in' fuel we could cut overall CO2 emissions.  We'd be getting more useful energy per ton/barrel of fossil fuel extracted.  That would help lower our CO2 emissions while we implement carbon free technology.

But, as far as I know, we lack the technology to easily/affordably capture the CO2.

Below a few percent in concentration is difficult... above is easy from concentrated single sources. Distributed sources are difficult. Cost is not a huge percentage on electricity ... capital needed is large.

Capturing from a concentrated source isn't cheap.  At least in terms of capturing most of the CO2 from a coal plant.  It basically involves rebuilding the plant from the ground up.  There's no filter we can attach to the exhaust system.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on April 27, 2017, 09:48:37 PM
Reusing CO2 is not bad.  As long as part of the process does not involve extracting more fossil fuels and turning them into the CO2 that is being reused.

If it was easy/affordable to sequester CO2 from existing coal and gas burners and give it a second life by turning it into a 'drop in' fuel we could cut overall CO2 emissions.  We'd be getting more useful energy per ton/barrel of fossil fuel extracted.  That would help lower our CO2 emissions while we implement carbon free technology.

But, as far as I know, we lack the technology to easily/affordably capture the CO2.

Below a few percent in concentration is difficult... above is easy from concentrated single sources. Distributed sources are difficult. Cost is not a huge percentage on electricity ... capital needed is large.

Capturing from a concentrated source isn't cheap.  At least in terms of capturing most of the CO2 from a coal plant.  It basically involves rebuilding the plant from the ground up.  There's no filter we can attach to the exhaust system.


yes there is... amine scrubbing and it can be retrofitted... from the ground up is much cheaper....that is why if we have to capture CO2, old coal plants will close.  Technically is commercially ready technology.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 27, 2017, 09:51:57 PM
Quote
amine scrubbing and it can be retrofitted... from the ground up is much cheaper.

If I read that correctly we could capture CO2 from existing coal/gas plants using amine scrubbing.  But it would cost more than building a new CCS coal plant?

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on April 28, 2017, 12:15:58 AM
Quote
amine scrubbing and it can be retrofitted... from the ground up is much cheaper.

If I read that correctly we could capture CO2 from existing coal/gas plants using amine scrubbing.  But it would cost more than building a new CCS coal plant?

No, it would not cost more. However from efficiency perspeftive that solution is not attractive. Right now, without a CO2 tax, the cheapest way of producing electricity is in general natural gas turbines and wind and solar in specific locations with or without incentives.

The best way of CO2 emissions reduction is to close coal plants and convert to natural gas without much infrastructure change needs ( grid wise ). With CO2 tax you have the scrubbing retrofits, natural gas with ccs and grass roots coal with ccs built in a way to increase efficiency of capture and power generation ( ultra supercritical ). There is the carbonate fuel cell add on and other technologies that can help minimize efficiency losses and capture costs. Legacy coal plants with retrofits will produce electricity generally with higher cost compared to grass root or natural gas and ccs.

Solar and wind will fight their own fight of costs and grid infrastructure investment needs (storage etc.) until they are cheaper on a national or global scale.  However in particular locations and incentive enviornment they are getting there now.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: mati on April 28, 2017, 04:47:01 AM
capturing carbon needs to go into a non-volatile storage medium.
pumping CO2 underground just invites an accidental release where thousands will die.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: ghoti on April 28, 2017, 04:56:21 AM
CO2 is currently being pumped into the ground not for storage but to push more oil out. So while called CCS it isn't really net storage at all.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on April 28, 2017, 12:11:21 PM
capturing carbon needs to go into a non-volatile storage medium.
pumping CO2 underground just invites an accidental release where thousands will die.
The same way that natural gas accidentally releases right ??
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: wili on May 25, 2017, 10:03:31 PM
The scribbler on how we shouldn't be relying on CSS and such schemes.

https://robertscribbler.com/2017/05/25/too-huge-to-manage-new-studies-highlight-danger-in-failing-to-rapidly-cut-carbon-emissions-now/#comment-115424

“Too Huge to Manage” — New Studies Highlight Danger in Failing to Rapidly Cut Carbon Emissions Now

“If we continue burning coal and oil the way we do today and regret our inaction later, the amounts of greenhouse gas we would need to take out of the atmosphere in order to stabilize the climate would be too huge to manage,” — Lena Boysen from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: rboyd on May 25, 2017, 10:12:12 PM
Apres mois le deluge (after me the catastrophe) seems to be our politician's and leader's view. CCS etc. works really well as an excuse not to do anything, or do very little, in the present.

We should be desperately trying to get CCS to work AND rapidly reducing fossil fuel use. "All of the above" is the best strategy given the hole that we are already in. Instead CCS is used as an excuse, and a massive assumption in IPCC Integrated Assessment Model runs, to forestall the drive for painful action in the present.

When the shit hits the fan the guilty wont be around to live with the consequences ....
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: sidd on May 25, 2017, 11:22:30 PM
Effective CCS would require a reverse mining effort the size of the entire coal, oil and gas industry. That's a lot of jobs. But considering the huge scale of land rape by those three industries alone gives me a sick feeling that sequestration will cause similar ecological damage.

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: rboyd on May 26, 2017, 04:03:58 AM
Between CCS and large-scale attempts at accelerated rock weathering, the whole mining and drilling industry complex could be reassigned and rescued. The ecological fallout would be horrendous I am sure given their history.

We can also add the taxpayer-funded cleanup of the Tar Sands etc. as a big make work scheme for the fossil fuel industry.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 26, 2017, 05:12:01 AM
rboyd, I agree with much of what you have contributed over the last few months but I would like to believe accelerated weathering of serpentines , olivines and carbonates like limestone might hold some potential to balance ocean acidification and help drawdown atmospheric CO2 if added to riverine systems. We have the ability to monitor pH balances and alkalinity so riverine flows didn't damage aquatic life and potentially we could even improve aquatic conditions in acidified river systems.
 I don't have peer reviewed work to back up these claims but as society continues it's fossil fuel frenzy I think we will attempt atmospheric sulfur and geoengineering schemes to mitigate the CO2 effects we all know are coming. Without some  corrallary attempts to modify increasing acidification in the oceans we will merely modify the heating effects of CO2 without changing the acidification that is it's evil twin.
 How this can be accomplished without undue negative effects on terrestrial systems or extra fossil fuel use is beyond my pay grade but I still would like to leave open the conversation of potential benefits of increased weathering schemes with whole system analysis of costs, both economic and environmental.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: rboyd on May 26, 2017, 07:15:18 AM
Bruce, I actually think that enhanced weathering may be one of the most appropriate atmospheric CO2 reduction possibilities. As you point out, it also holds the added benefit of ocean ph reduction. Also possible increases in vegetation carbon uptake that may offset the energy-related emissions.

My problem would be if it is done in the same way as the current extractive industries operate - privatize profits and socialize costs. The documentary "The Hole Story" (available on Netflix) is an excellent review of the costs left to be paid by Canadians by the extractive industries. The same may very well befall the Tar Sands, given the woefully inadequate funds currently set aside for cleanup activities.

Taylor et. al. covered enhanced weathering:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151214130625.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151214130625.htm)

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2882.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_climate-change-mitigation (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2882.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_climate-change-mitigation)

Hansen et. al. also covered this among a review of options:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05878.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05878.pdf)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 26, 2017, 05:11:38 PM
rboyd, I found this review of potential policy options re. adaptation and modification for OA effects worldwide.

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/7/581/2754148/Ocean-Acidification-2-0-Managing-our-Changing

It covers effects of riverine contributions of alkalinity both positively , in the Mississippi , and negatively in Maine. Although I am heavily involved with OA and this report even mentions a group I helped form and name C-CAN , California Current Acidification Network. Several other similar CAN groups have also since formed in other US regions. Rivers naturally contribute alkalinity to oceans in varying concentrations depending upon the mineral makeup of the landmass they flow through . Agriculture can even increase amounts of alkalinity delivered although the means of this contribution is soil loss and generally viewed as detrimental. I do not believe most OA research or policy has yet reached the point where there is a nexus between agriculture and large ocean processes but I believe what happens on land is far more important to ocean chemistry than where current common knowledge stands.
 As the earth warms so too will rainfall increase and as a consequence increase alkalinity inputs from land, at least in areas where river systems flow through appropriate mineral landscapes. There needs to be better mapping of those potential river systems that may offer some geoengineering potential as ocean pH modifiers. The earth will over the next hundred thousand years do all this naturally of course but we should put some effort into speeding up this natural process. I have a few ideas.
 Mineral supplements might be mined and added to agricultural lands that could increase alkalinity and at the same time increase soil health. Alkaline Green sand as and example .
 Mineral supplements could be added to animal feeds that accomplish the same thing, like feeding diatomaceous earth.
 Planting the upper reaches of certain steep watersheds with plants that can help break down mineral rocks or even bioengineered plants designed for that purpose might be another potential.
 Or for a sci-fi option invent small autonomous robots that are solar powered rock crushers and turn them loose in appropriate mountain terrains.
 The point of all this is to start thinking whole earth systems  and how we might promote the natural system that will eventually fix the CO2 problem we have created by speeding up those processes .
Start thinking about which river systems can help us, what farming techniques can help us, what plant species can help us and what sci-fi type options we might invent.
 So far we are only creating marine reserves and starting to enhance estuaries to help add resilience but we haven't gotten around to how we can modify terrestrial processes that can either help or hinder atmospheric CO2 drawdowns and oceanic pH outcomes. 
 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: rboyd on May 26, 2017, 05:37:53 PM
Imagine if instead of increasing the "defence" (should be called the department for war, as it once was) department budget, all that extra money was spent on real defence research into options such as rock weathering and a systems approach to CO2 drawdown? With so many co-benefits it should be at the top of the pile of options.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 26, 2017, 07:23:18 PM
"Or for a sci-fi option invent small autonomous robots that are solar powered rock crushers and turn them loose in appropriate mountain terrains."

This is the up-to-date version of a dream of mine since the earliest 80's, before I had even an inkling about GW.  (At the time, it was to support global soil, thus plant, health.) Of course, glaciers are the traditional solar powered rock crushers, no batteries required!

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 26, 2017, 08:02:50 PM
Geoengineering impact of open ocean dissolution of olivine on atmospheric CO2 surface ocean pH and marine biology. Koehler et al 2013

"Ongoing global warming induced by anthropogenic emissions has opened the debate as to whether geoengineering is a 'quick fix' option. Here we analyse the intended and unintended effects of one specific geoengineering approach, which is enhanced weathering via the open ocean dissolution of the silicate-containing mineral olivine. This approach would not only reduce atmospheric CO2 and oppose surface ocean acidification, but would also impact on marine biology. If dissolved in the surface ocean, olivine sequesters 0.28 g carbon per g of olivine dissolved, similar to land-based enhanced weathering. Silicic acid input, a byproduct of the olivine dissolution, alters marine biology because silicate is in certain areas the limiting nutrient for diatoms. As a consequence, our model predicts a shift in phytoplankton species composition towards diatoms, altering the biological carbon pumps. Enhanced olivine dissolution, both on land and in the ocean, therefore needs to be considered as ocean fertilization. From dissolution kinetics we calculate that only olivine particles with a grain size of the order of 1 μm sink slowly enough to enable a nearly complete dissolution. The energy consumption for grinding to this small size might reduce the carbon sequestration efficiency by ~30%."

Tor, I don't think anyone has modeled the potential positive feedback of less glaciers- less alkalinity delivered to the ocean, therefor impaired carbon sinks. Even with a substantial population of autonomous solar powered rock crushers we might only make up for a part of the power to crush rock currently preformed by glaciers. The advantage of engineered autonomous robots would be they could be placed in ideal terrains to maximize cation production and transport.





Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 26, 2017, 08:06:24 PM
"Or for a sci-fi option invent small autonomous robots that are solar powered rock crushers and turn them loose in appropriate mountain terrains."

This is the up-to-date version of a dream of mine since the earliest 80's, before I had even an inkling about GW.  (At the time, it was to support global soil, thus plant, health.) Of course, glaciers are the traditional solar powered rock crushers, no batteries required!

It's an idea.  The scale of what needs to be done is tremendous.  One coal plant burns about 200 full railroad coal cars of fuel per day. 

We'd probably need massive renewable energy powered mining machines, crushers, trucks, rail and ships to move mountains.  No reason why they could run autonomously eventually.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 26, 2017, 09:05:38 PM
"The advantage of engineered autonomous robots would be they could be placed in ideal terrains to maximize cation production and transport." 

Yes, like ophiolite belts and (maphic volcanic) island paradises!  Coastal properties are best.  In my mind's eye, I see this future advertisement: "Beat the rush and sell your rocky beach front property to 'The Crushers' before it goes under the waves anyway."

There was a science fiction book I read in college where the robot's rocket misfired and the robot landed in rural USA, assembled itself, then asked a farmer for a 1.5v battery, whence it pulverized the nearby mountain with this tiny amount of power.  Frightened, the farmer told it to disassemble itself, so it did.  Then NASA showed up and wondered how the robot did it, it having been programmed to use lots of power from a developed source at its intended destination.  But the robot was in pieces and couldn't help.  [Makes me want to start bicycling to work.]

Then there's:
"If 20 maids with 20 mops, swept for half a year, do you suppose," the Walrus said, "that they could get it [the beach] cleared [of sand]?"  "I doubt it," said the Carpenter, who shed a bitter tear.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 26, 2017, 10:23:43 PM
If we don't come up with a better idea then it's likely we'll end up crushing mountains. 

Extreme solutions will become more acceptable as pain levels rise.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on June 05, 2017, 03:29:23 PM
A Plant 1,000 Times More Efficient at CO2 Removal Than Photosynthesis Is Now Active

https://futurism.com/a-plant-1000-times-more-efficient-at-co2-removal-than-photosynthesis-is-now-active/

Quote
Yesterday, the world’s first commercial carbon capture plant began sucking carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the air around it. Perched atop a Zurich waste incineration facility, the Climeworks carbon capture plant comprises three stacked shipping containers that hold six CO2 collectors each. Spongey filters absorb CO2 as fans pull air through the collectors until they are fully saturated, a process that takes about two or three hours.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 05, 2017, 04:49:31 PM
A Plant 1,000 Times More Efficient at CO2 Removal Than Photosynthesis Is Now Active

https://futurism.com/a-plant-1000-times-more-efficient-at-co2-removal-than-photosynthesis-is-now-active/

Quote
Yesterday, the world’s first commercial carbon capture plant began sucking carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the air around it. Perched atop a Zurich waste incineration facility, the Climeworks carbon capture plant comprises three stacked shipping containers that hold six CO2 collectors each. Spongey filters absorb CO2 as fans pull air through the collectors until they are fully saturated, a process that takes about two or three hours.

It's an interesting development but there's not enough information to tell us if the process holds any hope for removing very large amounts of CO2 at an affordable price.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: ghoti on June 05, 2017, 05:12:07 PM
Their process seems to require the cycling of the capture material by releasing the CO2 using heat. This leads to a problem of dealing with the released, likely quite pure, CO2. They have no storage method proposed as evidenced by their plan to just release the CO2 into greenhouses.

This may be CO2 capture but it isn't storage and requires energy to re-release the CO2 to enable more capture. Hardly a very new process. It suffers from the same costly aspects of every other method proposed so far.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on June 05, 2017, 05:52:40 PM
Maybe this helps

It's an interesting development but there's not enough information to tell us if the process holds any hope for removing very large amounts of CO2 at an affordable price.


In their sites they list the nominal CO2 capacity of each of the units. I couldn't find a price.

http://www.climeworks.com/our-products/ (http://www.climeworks.com/our-products/)


Their process seems to require the cycling of the capture material by releasing the CO2 using heat. This leads to a problem of dealing with the released, likely quite pure, CO2. They have no storage method proposed as evidenced by their plan to just release the CO2 into greenhouses.

This may be CO2 capture but it isn't storage and requires energy to re-release the CO2 to enable more capture. Hardly a very new process. It suffers from the same costly aspects of every other method proposed so far.

Actually they claim the opposite.

From: http://www.climeworks.com/our-technology/ (http://www.climeworks.com/our-technology/)

Quote
Once the filter is saturated with CO2 it is heated (using mainly low-grade heat as an energy source) to around 100 °C (212 °F). The CO2 is then released from the filter and collected as concentrated CO2 gas to supply to customers or for negative emissions technologies.

CO2-free air is released back into the atmosphere. This continuous cycle is then ready to start again. The filter is reused many times and lasts for several thousand cycles.

 Let me add that this technology exists today, which in my book makes infinitely better than any theoretical technology. 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on June 06, 2017, 12:14:31 AM
Temperature Swing Adsorption  (using steam or external heating for CO2 description). Commercial indeed. Nonetheless rather expensive for large scale commercialization ( cost per kg CO2 captured). I guess they use the waste heat from the incinerator. Would be better to capture the CO2 directly from the flue gas of the waste incinerator.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: oren on June 06, 2017, 06:47:38 AM
I still fail to understand the benefit of CO2 capture without storage.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 06, 2017, 07:39:12 AM
I still fail to understand the benefit of CO2 capture without storage.

There's little to no real benefit - except - if we did develop a way to economically capture CO2 from the atmosphere (or ocean) in large amounts then we would half the problem solved. 

Safe storage is the other half. 

Having half the problem solved is a lot better than none of the problem solved.  (I'm not suggesting that the capture part has been solved.  We have too little information to tell.)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on June 06, 2017, 02:46:35 PM
In that technology I posted each module can absorb 135kg a day.

How much is that?

http://www.yousustain.com/footprint/howmuchco2?co2=135+kg (http://www.yousustain.com/footprint/howmuchco2?co2=135+kg)

Really not much. To make a dent on global CO2 we'll need maybe hundreds of thousands of these things, perhaps millions.

 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on June 06, 2017, 05:58:23 PM
In that technology I posted each module can absorb 135kg a day.

How much is that?

http://www.yousustain.com/footprint/howmuchco2?co2=135+kg (http://www.yousustain.com/footprint/howmuchco2?co2=135+kg)

Really not much. To make a dent on global CO2 we'll need maybe hundreds of thousands of these things, perhaps millions.

That is a demonstration unit. Not really meant to make any dent of shorts
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: oren on June 06, 2017, 08:58:19 PM
Thanks for the response Bob.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: numerobis on June 06, 2017, 11:00:02 PM
I still fail to understand the benefit of CO2 capture without storage.

On a very small scale it replaces burning fossil fuel to make CO2. There are a few industrial uses for the gas -- dry ice for instance, or as cooling fluid.

The process is also a first step to scrubbing the atmosphere directly. Then you need to mate it with sequestration.

On Mars it's a critical component of any in-situ propellant production plant.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Martin Gisser on June 07, 2017, 12:14:28 AM
I still fail to understand the benefit of CO2 capture without storage.

On a very small scale it replaces burning fossil fuel to make CO2. There are a few industrial uses for the gas -- dry ice for instance, or as cooling fluid.
.. and that's all there is to the CCS hype!

I bet I have already ranted about this rocket scientist nonsense. Rocket science won't save the planet. Even 1000x better "efficiency" than photosynthesis won't help. Oh, did I say photosynthesis? This boring stuff earth scientists care about? Yes, dear rocket scientist, try photosynthesis. E.g. you might ponder my idea of a wood gas microturbine powered electricity (and heat) generator to upgrade your Tesla to a 21st century hybrid car (i.e. technology to be taken serious, and not laughed at, like wet dreams of Mars colonies). From 15kg of wood pellets you could get 17kWh of juice, plus biochar if you care about the carbon cycle. And the whole box would just need the space of one passenger seat. Give me 2 million and I find the engineers and hire lab space in Straubing, Barvaria...
http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Experiments+in+biochar#woodgas_hybrid_upgrade_pack_for_electric_vehicles (http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Experiments+in+biochar#woodgas_hybrid_upgrade_pack_for_electric_vehicles)

So, we got photosynthesis doing the CC in CCS for free (plus many other essential benefits, heck, too economical to believe...). For S there's even less exciting technology, to make your hands really dirty: It is called char coal. Non-biodegradable yet a valuable soil additive if produced and treated right.

Without centuries (if not millenia) of char coal composting the Amazon would look quite different today. Yes the Amazons there turned out not a myth, but possibly the last larger non-destructive (did I say non-suigenocidal?) agri-culture. Alas they collapsed/perished from Spanish flu 1.0 before Columbus took notice. The Yanomami might be descendants.

The first thing to tackle, if we are interested in decent survival, is carbon sequestration by agriculture. Sorry, no rocket science needed.

Now for the political side, the steam behind CCS as a greenwash scam:
Quote
White House debate on Paris was never about climate change
The wrangling between Trump’s advisors was always about how best to burn more fossil fuels
By Graham Readfearn

...

Ivanka was joined by Trump’s secretary of state Rex Tillerson, who oversaw a long-running programme designed to confound climate action as the CEO of Exxon. He was also pushing for the Trump administration to keep a seat at the UN table.

At least two coal companies, Peabody Energy and Cloud Peak, had tried to convince Trump to remain in the Paris deal. Oil and gas giants Exxon and Conoco also voiced support for the Paris deal.

This internal fight represented two different approaches from a fossil fuel industry trying to sustain itself. One approach is to bulldoze and cherry-pick your way through the science of climate change and attack the UN process — all to undermine your opponents’ core arguments.

Another approach is to accept the science but work the system to convince governments that “clean coal” and efficiency gains are the way forward.

The latter was exactly the rationale reportedly deployed by coal firms like Peabody Energy and Cloud Peak.

According to White House officials quoted by Reuters, these firms wanted Trump to stay in the Paris deal because this gave them a better chance of getting support for “low-emission” coal plants.  They might also get some financial help to support the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: TerryM on June 07, 2017, 03:43:02 PM
Martin
I'm aware of the Amazonian bio char mounds?, but not at all familiar with the culture of their builders. Could you recommend a few links to get me started?


Also somewhat familiar with woodgas as I recall a wood powered van that crossed Australia some decades ago running on scrap lumber and twigs they cut on route. Has anyone followed up on those experiments? I had thought one of the problems they experienced was the smog? they produced.


Thanks
Terry

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Martin Gisser on June 07, 2017, 05:10:02 PM
Terry,
1) The story of the female Amazon warriors and of huge cities along the river is told by friar Gaspar de Carvajal (c. 1500-1584), who traveled with Francisco de Orellana (1511-1546) down the Amazon. It started 1540 somewhere in Peru/Ecuador with a huge expedition of Gonzalo Pizarro which failed due to starvation. Pizarro sent them out to find food...
Quote
Orellana reached the confluence of the Napo and Trinidad, but he didn't find provisions. Unable to return because of the current, he decided to continue following the river, until he reached the estuary of the Amazon in 1542.
...
Father Carvajal's diary of the Orellana expedition has achieved prominence recently. For over four centuries, scholars dismissed its reports of large cities, well developed roads, monumental construction, fortified towns, and dense populations. It was thought that the acidic soils of Amazonia could not support the level of agriculture necessary to sustain such a civilization. His writings were largely dismissed as fabrications and propaganda.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspar_de_Carvajal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspar_de_Carvajal)

The diary was fully published only 1894. A few pages are in Albert Bates' 2010 book "The Biochar Solution" - who had to do the english translation himself.
https://www.newsociety.com/Books/B/The-Biochar-Solution (https://www.newsociety.com/Books/B/The-Biochar-Solution)
http://peaksurfer.blogspot.de (http://peaksurfer.blogspot.de)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bates (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bates)

Another book: Charles C Mann, "1491 - New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" (2nd ed. 2011).
Quote p.355:
Quote
To the consternation of archaeologists, long planters full of terra preta, complete with pieces of pre-Columbian pottery, greet visitors to the airport in the lower Amazon town of Santarém.


2) On woodgas motors I'll write a little later (first I need to look after one of my terra preta pots). I'm no longer following developments, as my old engineering friend is no longer mentally fit and interested, and I'm not aware of anybody being aware of the new engineering potential offered by electricity and wood pellets.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 07, 2017, 07:47:08 PM
Biochar is a way to concentrate carbon.  And in order to store vast amounts of CO2 safely it needs to be in the form of concentrated carbon.

We haven't yet figured out how to affordable capture and sequester carbon.  It would be fun to do some math using fast growing trees/plants in robotic plant/biochar plantations to see if it would be feasible to make a dent in lowering global temperatures.  Even if we only buried the biochar.

I would think the pyrolysis produced 'smoke' could be scrubbed to eliminate air pollution.  The liquid burnoff might be used for fuel at the site or used for industrial feedstock.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: morganism on August 28, 2017, 10:33:34 PM
Boron nitride foam soaks up carbon dioxide


http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boron_nitride_foam_soaks_up_carbon_dioxide_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boron_nitride_foam_soaks_up_carbon_dioxide_999.html)

"In molecular dynamics simulations, the foam adsorbed 340 percent of its own weight in carbon dioxide. The greenhouse gas can be evaporated out of the material, which can be reused repeatedly, Tiwary said. Compression tests showed the foam got stiffer through 2,000 cycles as well."

Lightweight Hexagonal Boron Nitride Foam for CO2 Absorption

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.7b03291 (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.7b03291)


I thought the idea of sequestering CO2, was that it was easy to make methane/methanol with it, and methanol was easy to pipeline. The hydrogen catalysts needed have really improved in last couple years, and will also be integrable into desalination plants.

Plus, you know, laser armor is pretty cool tool too. I wonder if it would soak up alpha rad too....
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: numerobis on August 28, 2017, 11:08:38 PM
I'm curious how effective it is at sucking CO2 from air. Would be very useful. That's roughly the same approach as the sorption pump for mars-based propellant plant designs, but it sounds like a far cheaper material (and perhaps lighter).
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 28, 2017, 11:19:33 PM
Boron nitride foam soaks up carbon dioxide


http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boron_nitride_foam_soaks_up_carbon_dioxide_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boron_nitride_foam_soaks_up_carbon_dioxide_999.html)

"In molecular dynamics simulations, the foam adsorbed 340 percent of its own weight in carbon dioxide. The greenhouse gas can be evaporated out of the material, which can be reused repeatedly, Tiwary said. Compression tests showed the foam got stiffer through 2,000 cycles as well."

Lightweight Hexagonal Boron Nitride Foam for CO2 Absorption

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.7b03291 (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.7b03291)


I thought the idea of sequestering CO2, was that it was easy to make methane/methanol with it, and methanol was easy to pipeline. The hydrogen catalysts needed have really improved in last couple years, and will also be integrable into desalination plants.

Plus, you know, laser armor is pretty cool tool too. I wonder if it would soak up alpha rad too....

There's no sequestering going on.  The carbon ends up in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: crandles on September 13, 2017, 01:28:47 PM
Maybe we need a 'carbon capture and/or use' thread?

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-alcohol-thin-air.html
Quote
Researchers make alcohol out of thin air

TU Delft PhD student Ming Ma has found a way to produce alcohol out of thin air. Or to be more precise, he has found how to effectively and precisely control the process of electroreduction of CO2 to produce a wide range of useful products, including alcohol.

In this process, the captured CO2 is used as a resource and converted into carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), ethylene (C2H4), and even liquid products such as formic acid (HCOOH), methanol (CH3OH) and ethanol (C2H5OH). The high energy density hydrocarbons can be directly and conveniently utilized as fuels within the current energy infrastructure.


Now that these processes have been charted, the next steps for the team at the Smith Lab for Solar Energy Conversion and Storage at TU Delft, (Ma is the first PhD student to graduate from Wilson Smiths lab) is to look for ways to improve the selectivity of single products and to begin designing ways to scale up this process.
Smith just received an ERC Starting Grant to do just that: 'improve our understanding of the complicated reaction mechanisms in order to gain better control of the CO2 electrocatalytic process'.


Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 13, 2017, 05:16:18 PM
Maybe we need a 'carbon capture and/or use' thread?

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-alcohol-thin-air.html
Quote
Researchers make alcohol out of thin air

TU Delft PhD student Ming Ma has found a way to produce alcohol out of thin air. Or to be more precise, he has found how to effectively and precisely control the process of electroreduction of CO2 to produce a wide range of useful products, including alcohol.

In this process, the captured CO2 is used as a resource and converted into carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), ethylene (C2H4), and even liquid products such as formic acid (HCOOH), methanol (CH3OH) and ethanol (C2H5OH). The high energy density hydrocarbons can be directly and conveniently utilized as fuels within the current energy infrastructure.


Now that these processes have been charted, the next steps for the team at the Smith Lab for Solar Energy Conversion and Storage at TU Delft, (Ma is the first PhD student to graduate from Wilson Smiths lab) is to look for ways to improve the selectivity of single products and to begin designing ways to scale up this process.
Smith just received an ERC Starting Grant to do just that: 'improve our understanding of the complicated reaction mechanisms in order to gain better control of the CO2 electrocatalytic process'.

Perhaps two threads.  One for CO2 capture from atmospheric CO2 and another for ideas where we keep burning fossil fuel and suck off some of the CO2 then use it to make synfuel as in the above study.

One thread for ideas that might help save our bacon.

And the second thread for terrible ideas which could extend our use of fossil fuels and cook us.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: sidd on September 20, 2017, 10:30:13 PM
I see again  an idea which has come up before, deeo ocean CO2 storage as liquid (which is stable  in the deepest parts of the ocean.) When i last thought about this i was worried about tectonic instability returning the deep CO2 pool to the atmosphere, but the author does not seem to address that issue.

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-energy-analyst-carbon-dioxide-deep.html

DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1686

open access. read all about it.

sidd


Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: oren on September 22, 2017, 01:56:49 PM
I see again  an idea which has come up before, deeo ocean CO2 storage as liquid (which is stable  in the deepest parts of the ocean.) When i last thought about this i was worried about tectonic instability returning the deep CO2 pool to the atmosphere, but the author does not seem to address that issue.
Interesting idea.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: etienne on September 24, 2017, 08:13:41 AM
I see again  an idea which has come up before, deeo ocean CO2 storage as liquid (which is stable  in the deepest parts of the ocean.) When i last thought about this i was worried about tectonic instability returning the deep CO2 pool to the atmosphere, but the author does not seem to address that issue.
Interesting idea.
I'm new on this topic, so I hope I will be able to say something that make sense. I wonder if the concept of CO2 storage as liquid really make sense. Capture and reuse is great, because it avoids creation of new CO2; or if you rebuilt the carbon chain, it avoids the use of fossil fuels. Furthermore, you get a final product that might be sold in order to cover a part of the costs. If you do just storage as liquid, you have no possible income, and storage has to be monitored to make sure that you don't create a bigger catastrophe.
I would prefer solutions that increase CO2 absorption, for example by concrete walls, is also welcome because we still have a chemical situation that is stable, and I can imagine that this could be an easy and cheap process.

I have to say that creativity is needed. So it is good to have all these ideas so that maybe somebody will come out with some better solutions. I see this a little bit like a world wide brainstorming, but from a technical point of view, I can’t imagine that it would be cheap to put CO2 under enough pressure to have it liquid, than to find a way to bring this CO2. Furthermore I wonder is if liquid CO2 doesn’t mix with liquid water. I don’t know.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: timallard on September 29, 2017, 10:33:09 PM
Consider the oceans are acidifying 10-times faster than a geologic land extinction, that is to say the aragonite buffer that provides a way to adjust pH during volcanic episodes is totally blown away and we are dissolving seashells as a result.

Adding about 40-gigatons of CO2 yearly is beyond "capture and storage" we must end the emissions to do anything meaningful in that regard, frozen that's 40-cubic kilometers of gas, you can't sequester it in strata or the deep oceans it poisons everything it touches.

The PETM killed off the land animals with hydrogen sulfide when the benthos went anaerobic, stratified to allow pink-purple bacteria to take over, these are found in the Black Sea today due to the sill stratifying it.

Dumping that CO2 into the benthos avoids having to heat the oceans to kill off the land animals, it will cause a benthic extinction folks, how stupid an idea, eh?

Please recognize also that steam power is 40% thermally efficient, 1-Joule = 1/3watt on the wire + 2/3joules of waste-heat that directly heats the planet.

My solution is wastewater biodiesel, purifying the effluent at sewage treatment plants using algae gains recycled water and more biodiesel than we burn in joules for transportation all fuels.

The advantage is removing the CO2 before you burn it, and for sewage treatment it avoids using chemicals to clean the water and replaces that cost with revenue from biodiesel production.

There is nothing else humans can use, fracking is creating a heating spike on top of putting up 100-ppm in 100-years, after the Wisconsin maximum about the fastest CO2 rose was 1-ppm/180-years, we're at 3-ppm since 2016, only 540-times faster, eh? Fossil methane is 100-times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 for about a decade, and, about 90% of the lifetime emissions from a wellhead are when they put it in.

So, all those fracking wells are spiking the heating, great idea to continue being in the Steam Age in 2017, eh?

Get real, study your geophysics, paleo-oceanography and paleontology or watch it burn baby, we've fully initiated runaway greenhousing at this time.

We're so lame ...

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 13, 2017, 02:01:48 PM
A look at the why and how of CCS, including visits to operating plants.

Can Carbon-Dioxide Removal Save the World?
CO2 could soon reach levels that, it’s widely agreed, will lead to catastrophe.
Quote
One of the reasons we’ve made so little progress on climate change, he contends, is that the issue has acquired an ethical charge, which has polarized people. To the extent that emissions are seen as bad, emitters become guilty. “Such a moral stance makes virtually everyone a sinner, and makes hypocrites out of many who are concerned about climate change but still partake in the benefits of modernity,” he has written. Changing the paradigm, Lackner believes, will change the conversation. If CO2 is treated as just another form of waste, which has to be disposed of, then people can stop arguing about whether it’s a problem and finally start doing something.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on November 20, 2017, 09:27:55 PM
BBC reports: Climate's magic rabbit: Pulling CO2 out of thin air (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41816332)

Carbon Capture, but not Carbon Storage.
Quote
...
A half-hour outside Zurich stands one of the frontline attempts to develop a commercial approach to sucking down CO2.

On the roof of a large recycling centre at Hinwil stand 18 metal fans, stacked on top of each, each about the size of a large domestic washing machine.

These fans suck in the surrounding air and chemically coated filters inside absorb the CO2. They become saturated in a few hours so, using the waste heat from the recycling facility, the filters are heated up to 100C and very pure carbon dioxide gas is then collected.

...
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 20, 2017, 10:07:06 PM
BBC reports: Climate's magic rabbit: Pulling CO2 out of thin air (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41816332)

Carbon Capture, but not Carbon Storage.
Quote
...
A half-hour outside Zurich stands one of the frontline attempts to develop a commercial approach to sucking down CO2.

On the roof of a large recycling centre at Hinwil stand 18 metal fans, stacked on top of each, each about the size of a large domestic washing machine.

These fans suck in the surrounding air and chemically coated filters inside absorb the CO2. They become saturated in a few hours so, using the waste heat from the recycling facility, the filters are heated up to 100C and very pure carbon dioxide gas is then collected.

...

That's nice but there are two unanswered questions:

1) Can it scale?  Would it be affordable enough to build in huge volume so that there would be meaningful carbon removal from the atmosphere?

2) How would the CO2 be sequestered?  Just capturing CO2 from the air and then using it in agriculture or industry in a manner that puts the carbon back into the atmosphere gets us nowhere.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: numerobis on November 20, 2017, 10:27:51 PM
We need not wait for storage: If captured CO2 displaces CO2 produced from rocks for the purpose of producing CO2, it’s already a net improvement. I’m thinking of iron smelters, for instance.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Avalonian on February 20, 2018, 06:16:03 PM
Does anyone have any comments on this?

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/

I'm hearing it touted as a way to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels in 10 years (admittedly with very extensive deployment!), but there seems to be little information on how the atmospheric capture actually works... and whether there's enough lithium to do it on that scale in the first place! Call me a sceptic, but to have no news after two and a half years...

Any further info on this process?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: SteveMDFP on February 20, 2018, 07:33:41 PM
Does anyone have any comments on this?

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/

I'm hearing it touted as a way to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels in 10 years (admittedly with very extensive deployment!), but there seems to be little information on how the atmospheric capture actually works... and whether there's enough lithium to do it on that scale in the first place! Call me a sceptic, but to have no news after two and a half years...

Any further info on this process?

There's a later, and highly detailed article in Nature:
Tracking airborne CO2 mitigation and low cost transformation into valuable carbon nanotubes
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27760 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27760)

I'm skeptical of the utility of this approach for pulling CO2 from the atmosphere.  But these pure carbon nanofibers could be really useful as a replacement for many materials.

Steve
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on February 20, 2018, 08:02:07 PM
Does anyone have any comments on this?

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/

I'm hearing it touted as a way to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels in 10 years (admittedly with very extensive deployment!), but there seems to be little information on how the atmospheric capture actually works... and whether there's enough lithium to do it on that scale in the first place! Call me a sceptic, but to have no news after two and a half years...

Any further info on this process?

There's a later, and highly detailed article in Nature:
Tracking airborne CO2 mitigation and low cost transformation into valuable carbon nanotubes
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27760 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27760)

I'm skeptical of the utility of this approach for pulling CO2 from the atmosphere.  But these pure carbon nanofibers could be really useful as a replacement for many materials.

Steve

At this point air capture is at least 5x more expensive than post combustion point source capture.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Avalonian on February 20, 2018, 08:38:40 PM
Thanks, Both - and I'll have a good look at that paper, Steve.

The expense of direct capture from air is probably going to be a real problem, given human nature... the people doing this are probably going to want to make profits first and save the world as a by-product. Unfortunately, by the time these systems have been fitted to available cement works and power stations, and carbon nanofibres are being produced on mass, all over the world, any financial impetus for atmospheric capture may well have been lost.

It's one of those ideas that looks as though, theoretically, it would probably work... if the resources were thrown at it by governments and industries everywhere. Industries, however, would be out-competed by those that took the easy option of post-combustion capture, so that they go under. Like you two, I was inherently sceptical that this is 'The Answer'... but couldn't quite see why. It might still work, but needs to be supported in ways that, it seems to me, our current society just doesn't do. But perhaps China will...
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: oren on February 23, 2018, 01:16:50 AM
Unfortunately the easy option is not post-combustion capture. It's no capture at all.  :(
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: sidd on April 28, 2018, 06:03:40 PM
I didn't notice this: Trump's tax break for the rich has 30US$/ton (imperial ton, not metric tonne) sequestered carbon

"The credit under U.S. Code 45Q Credit for Carbon Sequestration would provide $30 a ton benefit for the first 75 million metric tons of sequestered carbon or $2.25 billion."

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/04/trumps-carbon-capture-tax-break-mechanical-and-biological-paths.html

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Avalonian on June 08, 2018, 05:03:53 AM
This could be a step forward... cost now down to $100 (from $600) per ton, and turn the CO2 into fuel.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44396781



Of course, when you burn the fuel...  ::)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: SteveMDFP on June 08, 2018, 07:14:25 AM
This could be a step forward... cost now down to $100 (from $600) per ton, and turn the CO2 into fuel.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44396781

Of course, when you burn the fuel...  ::)

Sadly, the two technologies described here yield zero reduction of atmospheric CO2.  Turn CO2 into a fuel by adding hydrogen+energy.  Burn the fuel, and the CO2 is back in the air.  Maybe it's a solution for marine vessels or aircraft, which can't really be powered by battery/solar/wind.  But it won't reduce the CO2 in the air at all.

Concentrate CO2 from the air and pump it into a greenhouse.  When the vegetable matter is metabolized or otherwise decays, the CO2 again returns to the air.

I think that for the next 50 years or more, the only economically practical way to pull CO2 out of the air will be the old-fashioned way:  photosynthesis by green plants.  Maybe ocean algae, maybe reforestation.  Maybe reformed agricultural practices.  Won't be easy to make any perceptible headway at all
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 08, 2018, 07:29:52 AM
I wonder if we could operate large scale forestry with very quick growing trees, process the wood into charcoal in order to decrease the amount of mass, and bury the charcoal in large "open pit mines".

Use only renewable energy to run the system.

Outside of that when it comes to removing and safely storing atmospheric carbon I got nothin'.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: sidd on June 08, 2018, 07:55:27 AM
Re: "bury the charcoal in large "open pit mines". "

This will take an effort comparable to the coal mining industry today, with corresponding environmental impact.  Perhaps just sink the trees in deep ocean trenches.

Olivine weathering might be a solution. Again, large scale earthmoving operations. Runoff is a concern.

Deep burial, a la iceland is another possibility. Geological formations capable of sequester for centuries if not millennia are rare.

Then there is the soil carbon sequestration in grassland via the glomalin pathway. Results are mixed. Perhaps very promising, but again, land resources and human participation required are large.

No sequestration pathway is easy.

Perhaps best to concentrate on burning less carbon and eating less meat, those are low hanging fruit. If you don't put carbon in the air, you won't have to suck it out later.

I suspect large scale carbon sequestration is a task that will not be accomplished in my lifetime. That's not saying much tho, i expect to see, at best, a couple more decades.

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 08, 2018, 08:48:47 AM
If we were to stop emitting CO2 today we'd still need to re-sequester carbon in order to return to more moderate global temperatures. 

Burying large amounts of charcoal would be quite like the coal mining we've done over the last 100 plus years.  Plus we'd need to offset the oil and natural gas we've burned.  And we'd probably want to get the job done in far less than 100 years, if possible.

Of course there would be an environmental impact.  We'd have to work to minimize the bad while we benefited from the good.  We'd end up with areas where the surface of the ground was higher than before we started burying charcoal.  But if we attend to runoff problems and shape the earth cap over the charcoal into a natural-like topography the Earth shouldn't suffer.

We might do some clever intentional shaping of the burial areas and create water sinks which could help recharge aquifers.  Create areas of 'bowls' which wouldn't appear to be artificial bowls but would trap rainfall and let it perk back into the ground rather than run into streams.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Martin Gisser on June 08, 2018, 02:07:26 PM
I wonder if we could operate large scale forestry with very quick growing trees, process the wood into charcoal in order to decrease the amount of mass, and bury the charcoal in large "open pit mines".
Still a rocket science technocrat view, but at least a step into the right direction.

We have huge areas of severely degraded agricultural land which could be vastly improved (water and nutrient retention, phosphorus mobilization) by mixing in adequate char coal (actually "biochar" which is something different to classical char coal). But this requires some nontrivial systems thinking and an agri-cultural revolution beyond simplistic (yet megalomaniac) rocket science.

Plus, there are deserts. I'm waiting for China to show the West how to do it. I'm waiting for the invention of the woodgas-electric hybrid car.

It is not a matter of huge pits and huge piles or dumping forests into the deep ocean, etc. There are lots of farmers, big and small, who could do it "by hand".
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Martin Gisser on June 08, 2018, 02:20:43 PM
We'd end up with areas where the surface of the ground was higher than before we started burying charcoal.
Not necessarily. It could be spread over a vast area. Also, often enough the surface had been lowered by agricultural abuse and consequential erosion. Paradigm: Icelandic "rofabard" landscape. Restoring Icelandic soils and forests ruined since the Vikings could already make quite a dent.

Biochar production and reforestation could be combined. That's why I'm waiting for the Chinese. They are decades ahead. The bootstrapping would take a decade or two until the young forests give enough coppice wood to harvest and to power the machines (by wood gas with biochar output).

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 08, 2018, 03:33:47 PM
Quote
It could be spread over a vast area. Also, often enough the surface had been lowered by agricultural abuse and consequential erosion.

That's possible.  Possibly buried shallow in the forests where the trees are grown.  And we probably would use degraded land for the forests so filling "shallow canyons" that are a result of our bad land practices could be a fill site.

Fifty years ago I traveled through the area east of Paris and observed farmers growing their firewood on top of their fence posts.  They planted trees on the fence line and once the trunks were large enough attached barbwire to them.

Then the cut off the growth above the post to fuel their heating and cooking fires.  They used species of trees which, when topped, put up new growth in the form of several twigs/limbs.  The farmers thinned the shoots to three or four, let those grow large enough, and then cut that new growth for firewood.

They timed their cutting so that each year they cut a portion of their fence tops, working their way around their fields, and enjoying a sustainable supply of wood.

I can see a carbon sequestering forest operating in the same way.  A mobile, solar powered, automated "charcoal factory" that cuts trees once they're achieved the end of their rapid growth phase then turns them into charcoal, and buries the charcoal.  A factory that might work for five or six years before returning to the same location.

And a second automated device that followed along, about a year behind, thinning the shoots that come from the stump down to three or so.

Automated, it could simply sit on days when there was not enough sunshine to power operation.

I've done a manual version of this.  I helped plant two eucalyptus wood lots.  After five years we started cutting about 25% of each grove each year.  Year nine we were cutting 'stump growth'.

We've got over used, "burned out" fields in the South where cotton has stripped the land of nutrients.  We're shipping trains of NYC sewage to the South for disposal.  Seems like there could be an opportunity to put a few pieces together and put at least some carbon back underground.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Hefaistos on June 08, 2018, 03:54:09 PM
This could be a step forward... cost now down to $100 (from $600) per ton, and turn the CO2 into fuel.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44396781

Of course, when you burn the fuel...  ::)

Sadly, the two technologies described here yield zero reduction of atmospheric CO2.  Turn CO2 into a fuel by adding hydrogen+energy.  Burn the fuel, and the CO2 is back in the air.  Maybe it's a solution for marine vessels or aircraft, which can't really be powered by battery/solar/wind.  But it won't reduce the CO2 in the air at all.

Concentrate CO2 from the air and pump it into a greenhouse.  When the vegetable matter is metabolized or otherwise decays, the CO2 again returns to the air.

I think that for the next 50 years or more, the only economically practical way to pull CO2 out of the air will be the old-fashioned way:  photosynthesis by green plants.  Maybe ocean algae, maybe reforestation.  Maybe reformed agricultural practices.  Won't be easy to make any perceptible headway at all

Link to the full text of the research paper, published June 7 2018:
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3

"An industrial process for large-scale capture of atmospheric CO2 (DAC) serves two roles. First, as a source of CO2 for making carbon-neutral hydrocarbon fuels, enabling carbon-free energy to be converted into high-energy-density fuels. Solar fuels, for example, may be produced at high-insolation low-cost locations from DAC-CO2 and electrolytic hydrogen using gas-to-liquids technology enabling decarbonization of difficult-to-electrify sectors such as aviation. And second, DAC with CO2 sequestration allows carbon removal."
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Martin Gisser on June 08, 2018, 03:59:31 PM
A mobile, solar powered, automated "charcoal factory" that cuts trees once they're achieved the end of their rapid growth phase then turns them into charcoal, and buries the charcoal.  A factory that might work for five or six years before returning to the same location.
No solar power needed. Wood gas motors are known since pre WWII. The charcoal production releases syngas, which can power the machines. Plus, there are tars and oils and plastics than can be produced on the fly. Old classical chemistry.

Simply burying charcoal is uneffective. It needs to be loaded with nutrients first.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: SteveMDFP on June 08, 2018, 04:03:25 PM

We've got over used, "burned out" fields in the South where cotton has stripped the land of nutrients.  We're shipping trains of NYC sewage to the South for disposal.  Seems like there could be an opportunity to put a few pieces together and put at least some carbon back underground.

There may be an existing model of how to incorporate biochar into such agricultural land restoration efforts.  Under current economics, I'm skeptical that farmers can make it pay to put biochar in any quantity into the soil. 

Consider that in the US we have ethanol standard for gasoline.  Forget, for the moment, that it doesn't make environmental or economic sense.  We nevertheless have not inconsiderable biomass going into fueling US vehicles.

Analogously, we might have a bio-char standard for topsoil and fertilizer sales.  Say 5% by mass of all fertilizer or landfill sold, and 15% of all topsoil sold must be bio-char.  Lots of complaints from those who want the cheapest possible fertilizer and topsoil.  But it's not a bad additive, and it would create medium-to-long-term sequestration.  It could be a piece of a partial solution.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 08, 2018, 04:34:39 PM
Quote
No solar power needed. Wood gas motors are known since pre WWII. The charcoal production releases syngas, which can power the machines. Plus, there are tars and oils and plastics than can be produced on the fly. Old classical chemistry.

Simply burying charcoal is uneffective. It needs to be loaded with nutrients first.

The charcoal does produce a biogas/oil.  That product may have uses that offset petroleum in some niche uses where it would be difficult to use electricity.  It might make more sense to power the charcoal process with solar. 

I'm less interested in the land improvement provided by charcoal.  It does seem to improve soil with some soil types but not all.  The large issue here, IMHO, is to get carbon buried.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 08, 2018, 04:41:05 PM
Quote
There may be an existing model of how to incorporate biochar into such agricultural land restoration efforts.  Under current economics, I'm skeptical that farmers can make it pay to put biochar in any quantity into the soil.

We probably should not worry about whether a biochar system like I imagine would pay for itself.  Re-sequestering carbon is something that we will probably have to pay for in order to cool the planet back down.

If we look at the larger picture any cost of a carbon sequestering program would be more than offset by avoided storm, drought, flooding damage.  If we could make it pay for itself, even partially, that's icing on the cake.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: jai mitchell on June 08, 2018, 05:18:44 PM
My city mobilization plan calls for intensive urban capture of all foodwastes and greenwastes to be incorporated into a comprehensive digesting and composting program.  Currently the Halifax Regional Municipality is generating about 75,000 tonnes of compost for delivery per year with a total population of 350,000.

The references in my plan indicate that the utilization of foodwastes in digestion, with biogas capture for off solar peak generation use and the combination of the efffluent waste with greenwaste composting that is mixed with biochar produces a much greater soil carbon retention rate than simply burying biochar, by orders of decades.

Quote
10. The development of regenerative agriculture as a means to offset current greenhouse gas emissions is fundamental to restoring a safe climate. (Rodale Institute 2014) The adaption of biochar as a secondary feedstock has been demonstrated to increase soil fertility and to greatly extend the retention of carbon in soils. (Bolan 2012) The specific application of this strategy toward urban agriculture environments results in increased soil fertility, local resiliency, regional economic development and improvements in groundwater retention and aquifer recharge. (Rhodes 2017)

Rodale Institute. 2014. "Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change ‐ A Down‐to‐Earth
Solution to Global Warming." Kurtztown, PA: The Rodale Institute, April 17.

Bolan, N S. 2012. "Stabilization of carbon in composts and biochars in relation to carbon sequestration and soil fertility." Elsevier Science of the Total Environment 424 264‐270.

Rhodes, Chrisopher J. 2017. "The imperative for regenerative agriculture." Science Progress Vol 100, Number 1 pp 80‐129.

----
on a global scale the potential for biochar as a method of sequestering carbon in agriculture is estimated to be between 1 and 5 gigatonnes of carbon per year.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Martin Gisser on June 08, 2018, 05:50:21 PM
Quote
No solar power needed. Wood gas motors are known since pre WWII. The charcoal production releases syngas, which can power the machines. Plus, there are tars and oils and plastics than can be produced on the fly. Old classical chemistry.

Simply burying charcoal is uneffective. It needs to be loaded with nutrients first.

The charcoal does produce a biogas/oil.
Then it would be sub optimal char coal for agriculture, with no open pore space for soil microbial life, etc.  As a soil improvement, serious biochar would also increase soil organic matter, thus effectively sequestering even more carbon, perhaps 2x as much in total, and even more in reforestation.

The good old wood gas motor runs on wood, not char coal. It could be optimised and miniaturized. E.g. an electrified wood pellet micro gas turbine electricity generator for the hybrid car of the 21st century. (Tesla etc. is 20th century :) lame tech.)  According to my humble kitchen desk experimental estimates, you just need to sacrifice one passenger seat for such a thing to get as much electricity as the whole battery pack can hold (plus heat for car heating in winter). 15kg gives up to 17kWh plus perfect biochar:
http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Experiments+in+biochar

I'm talking about this stuff since 2010 and don't expect any serious engineer to bite the bait any time soon...
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 08, 2018, 05:57:37 PM
I'm familiar with the use of biochar for soil improvement.  If biochar could be generated and economically transported to where it would be useful, that's a bonus.  But the issue is Carbon Capture and Storage.

Getting carbon out of the air/oceans and back where it is no longer part of our GHG/climate change problem.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Martin Gisser on June 08, 2018, 06:16:49 PM
But the issue is Carbon Capture and Storage.

Getting carbon out of the air/oceans and back where it is no longer part of our GHG/climate change problem.
Biochar in agriculture and desert afforestation is the only technically serious way of gigaton scale CCS. All else are rocket scientists' wet dreams, IMHO.  Well, practically, given the machine-thinking mental degradation of current human civilization, it is the agri-revolutionary's wet dream... :)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 08, 2018, 06:18:44 PM
But the issue is Carbon Capture and Storage.

Getting carbon out of the air/oceans and back where it is no longer part of our GHG/climate change problem.
Biochar in agriculture and desert afforestation is the only technically serious way of gigaton scale CCS. All else are rocket scientists' wet dreams, IMHO.  Well, practically, given the machine-thinking mental degradation of current human civilization, it is the agri-revolutionary's wet dream... :)

Do you have any ideas as to how to remove carbon from our atmosphere and oceans?

(There's a thread for agriculture IIRC.)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Martin Gisser on June 12, 2018, 11:55:36 PM
Do you have any ideas as to how to remove carbon from our atmosphere and oceans?
1) Let photosynthesis convert it to wood (or hemp, or grass, ...).
2) Convert wood to (sufficiently) stable biochar (*) by suitable pyrolysis.

2+) Harvest energy as byproduct, reducing fossil-carbon footprint

3) Remove even more C by intelligently using the bio-char in agriculture and forestry to build up soil organic carbon: Increased water and nutrient retention, plus anaerobic pockets to mobilize P, plus an extra N cycle, ...

Natural example (millenia of prairie fires): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernozem
Human-made example (pre-Columbian civilization that terra-formed the Amazon jungle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta


--------------
(*) Biochar is different to standard char coal. It is more porous, as more tars and oils are burned off. Plus, it should be quenched with water to gain water holding capacity. I produce it stone age style in my garden fire pit.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Ken Feldman on June 13, 2018, 12:44:33 AM
But the issue is Carbon Capture and Storage.

Getting carbon out of the air/oceans and back where it is no longer part of our GHG/climate change problem.
Biochar in agriculture and desert afforestation is the only technically serious way of gigaton scale CCS. All else are rocket scientists' wet dreams, IMHO.  Well, practically, given the machine-thinking mental degradation of current human civilization, it is the agri-revolutionary's wet dream... :)

Do you have any ideas as to how to remove carbon from our atmosphere and oceans?

(There's a thread for agriculture IIRC.)

For carbon removal from oceans, there's kelp and seashell farming.  I started a topic on it a few months ago:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2275.0.html (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2275.0.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sleepy on June 18, 2018, 06:55:34 AM
This article is better suited here.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/14/17445622/direct-air-capture-air-to-fuels-carbon-dioxide-engineering (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/14/17445622/direct-air-capture-air-to-fuels-carbon-dioxide-engineering)
Quote
To state the bottom line clearly: The ability to pull carbon out of the air is not a silver bullet. It is not the cheapest or most effective way to fight climate change. It won‘t allow us to bypass any of the hard work of reducing our emissions.
Quote
In the end, DAC, like most clean energy technologies, is neither a silver bullet nor bullshit. It’s just a promising development in a world that needs all the promising developments it can get.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sleepy on July 15, 2018, 10:13:55 AM
Bunch-O-vids from the International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions.


James Hansen
Negative CO2 emissions - why, when and how much?
https://youtu.be/fATw6T4xM7M


Anders Lyngfelt
The Necessity and the Allure of Negative CO2 Emissions – A Question of Balance.
https://youtu.be/OmDCWI3zNqc


Sally Benson
Geological storage of carbon dioxide for negative emissions.
https://youtu.be/lIVwbSnD0AI


Sabine Fuss
What we know and do not know about negative emissions.
https://youtu.be/8rh44chKruI


Detlef van Vuuren
An integrated assessment modeling perspective on negative CO2 emissions: Why do most models find NETs so attractive?
https://youtu.be/fvEW_JoJkFo


Oliver Geden
Integration of Carbon Dioxide Removal into the European Union's climate policy.
https://youtu.be/ncvgwNBAGzc


Jen Wilcox
Direct Air Capture.
https://youtu.be/0XknicLOa5Q


Pete Smith
Negative emissions from soil management.
https://youtu.be/I5b9BtWWTR0


Phil Renforth
Enhanced Weathering.
https://youtu.be/-QeL8dlAjKI


Me? I'm going out for some real Direct Air Capture!!  :)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: gerontocrat on July 15, 2018, 11:53:20 AM
The pavlov's dog solution to a problem - never do less, always do more.

Motorway crowded? Widen the road.
Airport crowded? More runways and terminals.
Too much CO2 ? Make a new industry to capture carbon.

Tears by bedtime? But when will be bedtime?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on October 30, 2018, 11:49:50 PM
Countries to try geoengineering first: China or India

Negative emissions: People will try everything ( that makes sense or not )

Enhanced weathering: without crushing stones it does not work. Crashing stones takes a lot of energy...
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sleepy on October 31, 2018, 07:30:49 AM
Try everything is the scary part.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: etienne on October 31, 2018, 08:58:03 AM
Here is also an article in the french press about carbon capture and storage.
https://abonnes.lemonde.fr/climat/article/2018/10/31/climat-le-mirage-des-emissions-negatives_5376851_1652612.html?xtor=RSS-3208?xtor=RSS-3208
Nothing new, they see forests as the best available technology right now.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on November 25, 2018, 01:04:31 PM
Quote
How to Convert Climate-Changing Carbon Dioxide into Plastics and Other Products

https://news.rutgers.edu/how-convert-climate-changing-carbon-dioxide-plastics-and-other-products/20181120#.W_qM3GhKiUn

Quote
Rutgers scientists have developed catalysts that can convert carbon dioxide – the main cause of global warming – into plastics, fabrics, resins and other products.

The electrocatalysts are the first materials, aside from enzymes, that can turn carbon dioxide and water into carbon building blocks containing one, two, three or four carbon atoms with more than 99 percent efficiency. Two of the products created by the researchers – methylglyoxal (C3) and 2,3-furandiol (C4) – can be used as precursors for plastics, adhesives and pharmaceuticals. Toxic formaldehyde could be replaced by methylglyoxal, which is safer.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: gerontocrat on November 25, 2018, 01:17:19 PM
Quote
How to Convert Climate-Changing Carbon Dioxide into Plastics and Other Products

https://news.rutgers.edu/how-convert-climate-changing-carbon-dioxide-plastics-and-other-products/20181120#.W_qM3GhKiUn

Quote
Rutgers scientists have developed catalysts that can convert carbon dioxide – the main cause of global warming – into plastics, fabrics, resins and other products.

The electrocatalysts are the first materials, aside from enzymes, that can turn carbon dioxide and water into carbon building blocks containing one, two, three or four carbon atoms with more than 99 percent efficiency. Two of the products created by the researchers – methylglyoxal (C3) and 2,3-furandiol (C4) – can be used as precursors for plastics, adhesives and pharmaceuticals. Toxic formaldehyde could be replaced by methylglyoxal, which is safer.
Let's turn CO2 into plastics

What a wonderful solution. (Goes in search of the sarcasm emoji)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on November 25, 2018, 01:46:07 PM
It may significantly lower the cost of CCS if the CO2 can be converted to something very useful, like plastic. Plastic disposal is a whole different problem that must also be solved.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Human Habitat Index on November 25, 2018, 02:52:15 PM
Hemp has 50,000 uses
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: wili on November 25, 2018, 05:17:14 PM
Arch, I get your point about usability, but do you really have no concerns about plastic pollution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_pollution
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 25, 2018, 06:47:44 PM
Arch, I get your point about usability, but do you really have no concerns about plastic pollution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_pollution

Some plastics are necessary.  Think: medical supplies.  Appliance parts. Circuit boards!
Have you not watched ‘The Andromeda Strain’?  ;) 
We need plastic.  Just, much less of it.  And preferably not sourced from fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on November 28, 2018, 05:28:08 PM
Scientists achieve direct electrocatalytic reduction of CO2, raising hopes for smart carbon capture (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-11/tiot-sad112718.php)
EureaAlert! released Nov. 28, 2018

Quote
Chemists at Tokyo Institute of Technology (Tokyo Tech) propose an innovative way to achieve carbon capture using a rhenium-based electrocatalytic system that is capable of reducing low-concentration CO2 (even 1%) with high selectivity and durability, which is a new potential technology to enable direct utilization of CO2 in exhaust gases from heavy industries.

In their study published in Chemical Science, Ishitani and colleagues including Hiromu Kumagai and Tetsuya Nishikawa drew on decades of work on honing the capabilities of a rhenium-based catalyst, and demonstrated its ability to reduce low-concentration CO2 in the presence of a chemical called triethanolamine (TEOA).

Compared to many previous studies that have focused on reducing pure CO2, few have explored how to improve direct capture of low-concentration CO2 -- a topic that warrants further investigation, considering that plants harness low concentrations of CO2 (about 400 ppm, that is 0.04% of the atmosphere) and exhaust gases from heavy industries typically contain low levels of CO2 (around 3-13%).

By avoiding the need for additional energy-consuming condensation processes, their strategy, if scaled up, could provide a more viable, environmentally friendly solution to CO2 capture in many settings.

In a series of experiments to assess electrocatalytic activity, the researchers found that at a CO2 concentration of 1%, the rhenium-based catalyst showed very high selectivity (94%) towards carbon monoxide (CO) formation.

A likely reason behind the high performance, the researchers say, is the efficient insertion of CO2 into the rhenium-oxygen bond.
...
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: mitch on November 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
Plastics make up a small amount of fossil fuel use, roughly 3-5%
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/hamman1/

So, people could still build plastics from fossil fuels if the other uses were curtailed. However, the problem of plastic pollution would still be around.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 04, 2018, 08:07:05 PM
”If Solidia’s concrete-making technology succeeds in gaining traction around the world, it could be a way of binding up large quantities of carbon dioxide in roads and other structures.”

Betting on a new way to make concrete that doesn’t pollute
Quote
Because of the high heat and large amounts of energy needed as well as the chemical processes involved, making conventional or Portland cement — a process which requires high temperature kilns — produces as much as 7 percent of total global CO2 emissions. On a ton for ton basis, cement plants spew more carbon dioxide than any other manufacturing process, according to the International Energy Agency. Taking on cement making is “quite key from a decarbonization perspective,” said Araceli Fernandez Pales, a senior energy technology analyst at the agency, which is based in Paris.

Solidia claims it can reduce as much as 70 percent of that pollution by using different chemical formulas and smarter procedures to make cement. Ordinarily, for instance, concrete is cured or hardened in a reaction using water and steam. Solidia uses carbon dioxide instead.

At the end of the production line at the concrete plant, a fork lift operator stacks the trays of paving blocks like baked bread in what look like shipping containers. Carbon dioxide, collected from the flues of industrial plants, is pumped in from a nearby tank in amounts regulated by a system using sensors and computer software. Through a chemical reaction the CO2 is incorporated in synthetic limestone instead of being released into the atmosphere. The Solidia blocks are ready for use in 24 hours — a big potential advantage over ordinary pavers, which require a couple of weeks to harden. ...
Quote
In other words, if a block breaks on the patio, the house will not fall down. Applications like reinforced concrete or mix poured from trucks are more complicated with more complex regulation and, thus, for down the road.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/climate/betting-on-a-new-way-to-make-concrete-that-doesnt-pollute.html#click=https://t.co/xuFTnPiBFn
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: TerryM on December 04, 2018, 09:56:58 PM

In other words, if a block breaks on the patio, the house will not fall down. Applications like reinforced concrete or mix poured from trucks are more complicated with more complex regulation and, thus, for down the road.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/climate/betting-on-a-new-way-to-make-concrete-that-doesnt-pollute.html#click=https://t.co/xuFTnPiBFn

Has anyone ever heard of a house falling down because "a block breaks on the patio"?


This sounds increasingly like another Green Tech scheme to suck up more dollars from well meaning dolts.


In days gone by the pitchmen stayed close to the Big Top as the Circus wended it's way through rural America, relying on the Circus's mobility to protect them from mounting scrutiny. Increasingly they dangle their green tinged baubles in front of the credulous, believing that their evident good intentions will protect them from litigation.


I don't wish them well on their journey
Terry

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 04, 2018, 10:14:45 PM

In other words, if a block breaks on the patio, the house will not fall down. Applications like reinforced concrete or mix poured from trucks are more complicated with more complex regulation and, thus, for down the road.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/climate/betting-on-a-new-way-to-make-concrete-that-doesnt-pollute.html#click=https://t.co/xuFTnPiBFn

Has anyone ever heard of a house falling down because "a block breaks on the patio"?


This sounds increasingly like another Green Tech scheme to suck up more dollars from well meaning dolts.


In days gone by the pitchmen stayed close to the Big Top as the Circus wended it's way through rural America, relying on the Circus's mobility to protect them from mounting scrutiny. Increasingly they dangle their green tinged baubles in front of the credulous, believing that their evident good intentions will protect them from litigation.


I don't wish them well on their journey
Terry

Terry,
The reasoning is that the new concrete can be used in non-support functions like pavers, to prove that the new process works, while not risking lives as part of a building or bridge!

If the pavers hold up well, more investment will be put into trying different mixtures and tweaking the process, and further testing that eventually allows the process to be used on much larger, load-bearing structures.  If the process works as CO2 storage and is structurally sound, the entire industry could change, thus significantly lowering its carbon emissions.

Pavers, then bricks, is the perfect way to test out what may become an industry technology upheaval.  If the new concrete starts to crumble after a few years, no harm done except to the pocketbooks of a few early adopters.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: SteveMDFP on December 04, 2018, 10:20:25 PM
”If Solidia’s concrete-making technology succeeds in gaining traction around the world, it could be a way of binding up large quantities of carbon dioxide in roads and other structures.”

Betting on a new way to make concrete that doesn’t pollute

I was interested in the underlying chemistry of this product.  Details here:
http://solidiatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Solidia-Technologies-Science-Backgrounder-Jan-2017-FINAL.pdf (http://solidiatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Solidia-Technologies-Science-Backgrounder-Jan-2017-FINAL.pdf)

It's not carbon-neutral cement, but it's a very big step in the right direction.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Richard Rathbone on December 05, 2018, 03:04:33 AM
Another reason for using it in pavers is likely that they don't use reinforcement.

Carbonation of Portland cement happens in place over periods of years to decades and makes steel reinforcement vulnerable to corrosion once the carbonation reaction has penetrated far enough into the concrete. https://www.understanding-cement.com/carbonation.html Solidia cement starts ready carbonated.

I don't see anything in the Solidia materials that says the different chemistry of their cement makes for better corrosion resistance, and if it did, I'd expect them to be trumpeting it as an advantage.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Juan C. García on March 01, 2019, 10:53:20 PM
Quote
A company called Blue Planet is converting carbon dioxide into building material

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/02/company-converts-carbon-dioxide-into-building-material/ (https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/02/company-converts-carbon-dioxide-into-building-material/)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 17, 2019, 05:50:33 AM
Salk Institute to fight global warming with carbon hungry plant:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/biotech/story/2019-04-16/salk-institute-gets-35-million-to-develop-plants-to-combat-global-warming
 
AI Can Be Used to Find Good CO2 Absorbing Micro Capsules
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/04/ai-can-be-used-to-find-good-co2-absorbing-micro-capsules.html
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: vox_mundi on May 03, 2019, 03:33:28 PM
Department of Justice Opens Investigation Into Failed Carbon-Capture Plant 
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/department-of-justice-opens-investigation-into-failed-carbon-capture-plant/

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) notified Southern Company that it is opening an investigation "related to the Kemper County energy facility," according to Southern's most recent financial statement (PDF).

The Mississippi-based facility had received $387 million in federal grants to build a state-of-the-art coal gasification and carbon-capture power plant (otherwise known as an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, plant). But in 2017, Southern's subsidiary, Mississippi Power, decided to scrap the cutting-edge tech and only use the power plant to burn cheaper natural gas, in a major blow to the proponents of carbon capture.

(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/GettyImages-476522677-800x521.jpg)

Kemper was a complicated project. It was located near a lignite coal mine, which was intended to serve Kemper exclusively. Lignite is a low-grade coal compared to the anthracite and bituminous coal that's found in Wyoming and Montana, so Kemper planned to synthetically transform the plentiful local coal to gas. The plant would then burn the syngas in a turbine, strip the carbon dioxide (CO2) from the power plant's flue, and send that CO2 through a pipeline to an oilfield where it would be used for enhanced oil recovery. (That is, CO2 is forced down into an oil well to increase the pressure of the well so more oil can be recovered.)

In theory, Kemper's complicated process was supposed to help it compete with other nearby coal plants because it could use lower-grade local coal, and the captured carbon would be used to increase oil field returns.

But in practice, Kemper proved to be an expensive boondoggle.
It came online just as natural gas prices were falling to a point when burning natural gas was simply cheaper than relying on any type of coal, local or not. The plant ran more than $4 billion over budget before the Mississippi Public Service Commission made clear to the company that Kemper would need to pursue a more affordable solution for Mississippi customers.

... And now, renewables are cheaper than natural gas.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: FrostKing70 on May 03, 2019, 04:30:22 PM
That is news to me, would you please provide a reference for renewables being cheaper than natural gas?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 03, 2019, 04:42:19 PM
Renewables ‘Have Won the Race’ against Coal and Are Starting to Beat Natural Gas
 (https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-04-04/renewables-have-won-the-race-against-coal-and-are-starting-to-beat-natural-gas/)
By Joe Romm, originally published by Climate Progress (April 4, 2019)
Quote
… according to a report released this week by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) (https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-powers-latest-plunge-costs-threatens-coal-gas/).
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: FrostKing70 on May 03, 2019, 05:23:57 PM
Thank you for the link, I missed that one some how!

I find the low CO2 concrete interesting, creating the mix 200 to 250 degrees lower should have a significant impact on emissions, regardless of the CO2 used to cure it.  I've downloaded the document and sent it to some friends at work to see if we can use this material!
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on June 03, 2019, 01:30:13 PM
New method to remove CO2 from atmosphere:
https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/science-and-future/scientists-have-found-an-easy-way-to-remove-co2-from-air-reduce-global-warming-368327.html
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 03, 2019, 01:38:30 PM
Meh, this site is blocked for visitors from Europe. :-\

Tom, can you tell me what alleged method is?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: crandles on June 03, 2019, 02:55:57 PM
That is news to me, would you please provide a reference for renewables being cheaper than natural gas?

https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

Unsubsidised costs:
Utility scale solar thin film $36-44
Wind $29-56
Gas Combined cycle $41-74

Graph on page 7 seems to indicate they crossed to be cheaper in 2015. However, I don't think this includes storage costs. But battery prices are also falling rapidly.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on June 03, 2019, 03:19:05 PM
Meh, this site is blocked for visitors from Europe. :-\

Tom, can you tell me what alleged method is?

This team's new method instead uses an electrolyzer, a device that uses electricity to power a chemical reaction. Electrolyzers are sometimes used to produce hydrogen fuel from water, and this team realised they can also use it to release the CO2 from dissolved carbonate, skipping the heating entirely.

The electrolyzer also has a silver-based catalyst that immediately converts the CO2 into a gas mixture known as syngas. Syngas can be easily turned into a wide variety of products, including jet fuel and plastic precursors.

"This is the first known process that can go all the way from carbonate to syngas in a single step," says Sargent.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 03, 2019, 04:52:59 PM
Thanks Tom.

Quote
a device that uses electricity to power a chemical reaction.

Q: And where do we get this energy?

A: Let's power it with wind energy!

Q: But there are coal plants. Why not use the power for not emitting CO2 in the first place?

A: Because this is not a business model for me. I don't build wind turbines.

Q: So you are a charlatan?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on June 03, 2019, 05:00:08 PM
They say their efficiency is 35%, higher than any other method, and expect it to go even higher.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 03, 2019, 05:37:26 PM
Sorry Tom, but their efficiency claim is BS!

As long as there are CO2 producing energy sources the efficiency is always net-negative and will produce more CO2 than if you replace the original CO2 source.

Unless we have eliminated all CO2 producing energy sources, CCS adds to global CO2 consumption. It's that easy.

The day we've stopped burning fossil fuel entirely on this planet is the day this technology is useful. Not a day before.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Sam on June 03, 2019, 06:01:57 PM
b_lumenkraft is correct.

We live in societies based on economic competition. The "winner" or selected systems are those that have the lowest short term cash costs. Our chosen system excludes consideration of any other costs, whether those are long term cash costs, societal or human impacts, environmental impacts, other "non enumerated" costs, etc...These all become "externalities" not worth valuing or considering.

To add insult, when we do include them, we only include those via regulatory requirements. Politically such requirements are fought tooth and fang, as they increase costs, which is seen as an assault on profits.

Unless and until we either change our economic systems dramatically, or unless and until we use up the last of the fossil fuels, the CCS systems will be powered by fossil fuels, rendering them less than useless. They will in point of fact make the problems and emissions worse. That is especially true if we try to legislate their use.

We as a species are extremely poor at considering the future in our analyses. We have immense difficulties imposing more than a single requirement at a time. In common parlance, we are generally unable to both walk AND chew bubble gum without causing ourselves great harm.

Worse, we have elevated our choices of economic systems to religious levels of status. These are now taken as articles of faith. Any opposition to them is taken as a fundamental assault on self. Money, profit specifically, is our God. Anything or anyone that gets in the way of maximizing profit is taken as inherently an evil that must be immediately destroyed.

And so it is that we doom ourselves as a species, and take uncounted other species with us.

Sam
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: gerontocrat on June 03, 2019, 06:03:46 PM
A new magic gizmo every week.

"Even if there is climate change we don't have to worry because all this new technology will fix any problems for us". I am surprised not to have come across this line of rubbish reasoning in the media more often.

We had the Bjorn Lomberg crap, but that was
"The cost of going to zero-carbon is hugely greater than adapting to a changed climate".

But the cost of renewable energy generation is going down fast and EVs are becoming a natural choice for the average Joe while the cost of of electricity generation by LNG and coal does not. So this argument quickly lost any force it had.

So I expected the "technology will fix it" theme to emerge and flourish on our **favourite social and mainstream media. (**Spits on floor). Is there an emoji for that (contempt and disgust)?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 03, 2019, 06:20:31 PM
Gerontocrat, this is the internet. Of course, there is!

Also: https://emojipedia.org/nauseated-face/
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on June 03, 2019, 06:32:51 PM
Thanks for the criticism.
I like how you people can critique items like this.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 03, 2019, 06:56:30 PM
Welcome, Tom.

When it comes to fighting for wind turbines and solar cells, you can count on me. ;)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: jai mitchell on June 03, 2019, 07:07:33 PM
That is news to me, would you please provide a reference for renewables being cheaper than natural gas?

https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

Unsubsidised costs:
Utility scale solar thin film $36-44
Wind $29-56
Gas Combined cycle $41-74

Graph on page 7 seems to indicate they crossed to be cheaper in 2015. However, I don't think this includes storage costs. But battery prices are also falling rapidly.

This is the unsubsidized values of least cost of energy but I can pretty much guarantee that only direct subsidies are counted and the incredible fossil fuel subsidies provided through various accounting and tax schemes as well as low-cost access to public lands and not including externalities of pollution and climate change mean that these fossil fuel costs are about 1/10th what they should be.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Shared Humanity on June 03, 2019, 10:26:04 PM
I just read up on a highly efficient carbon capture technology that is powered entirely by solar energy....plants!
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: sidd on June 23, 2019, 06:54:45 AM
CCS thru wood burial:

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1

Cacti making CaCO3:

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 23, 2019, 07:15:26 AM
CCS thru wood burial:

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1

Cacti making CaCO3:

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1

sidd

I think wood burial is worth giving a good consideration.  Imagine a planting, harvesting, deep pit burial process that ran on renewable energy.  We can do all those jobs with electricity now. Lots of the work could be automated.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 23, 2019, 08:48:56 AM
While it sounds like a no-brainer at first, the problem i see with this is that the timeline doesn't check out. If you cut down the existing trees you do the opposite, so it only works if you have additional trees, but we start with fewer trees as needed anyway. To burry substantial amounts of CO2, you need to wait 50-100 years of tree growth.

Nice idea, but only if we had started with this 50-100 years ago and never cut any rainforests since then.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 23, 2019, 09:16:33 AM
While it sounds like a no-brainer at first, the problem i see with this is that the timeline doesn't check out. If you cut down the existing trees you do the opposite, so it only works if you have additional trees, but we start with fewer trees as needed anyway. To burry substantial amounts of CO2, you need to wait 50-100 years of tree growth.

Nice idea, but only if we had started with this 50-100 years ago and never cut any rainforests since then.

Use rapidly growing trees.  Some species of eucalyptus put on a lot wood in only a decade. 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: sidd on June 23, 2019, 09:37:25 AM
They got hybrid poplar now that grows ridiculously quickly. And other hybrids. But i am skeptical, at least until i see someone pull this off to megaton scale and monitor burial forawhile for emissions.

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 23, 2019, 10:31:45 AM
I also think you could tweak it here and there with cleverly choosing sites and sorts and installing irrigation and whatnot to make the outcome more efficient, but the foundation of the problem persists. There are just not enough trees as of yet. Even if we do it (which i doubt in the first place) there is no reduction of CO2 due to this for a very long time to come.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: be cause on June 23, 2019, 10:35:22 AM
with hemp you capture a forest's worth of carbon every year .. b.c.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 23, 2019, 10:40:25 AM
Hemp is magic!

Are there numbers or papers on that B.C.?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 23, 2019, 11:49:22 AM
Bill Gates and Big Oil back this company that’s trying to solve climate change by sucking CO2 out of the air

Link >> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/carbon-engineering-co2-capture-backed-by-bill-gates-oil-companies.html

They are not interested in bringing down CO2 emissions. For them, it's a business model. Become (even more) rich(er) with climate change. Those are the most despicable people the planet has to offer. They lied about climate change. Don't listen to them.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: SteveMDFP on June 23, 2019, 03:49:22 PM
While it sounds like a no-brainer at first, the problem i see with this is that the timeline doesn't check out. If you cut down the existing trees you do the opposite, so it only works if you have additional trees, but we start with fewer trees as needed anyway. To burry substantial amounts of CO2, you need to wait 50-100 years of tree growth.

Nice idea, but only if we had started with this 50-100 years ago and never cut any rainforests since then.

Not at all.  Existing trees die or get harvested and release their carbon to the atmosphere.  Put existing trees in deep burial and you avoid those CO2 emissions.  Plant new growth, and CO2 uptake is prompt.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: SteveMDFP on June 23, 2019, 03:56:32 PM
CCS thru wood burial:

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1

Cacti making CaCO3:

https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1

sidd

Hey sidd.  I was interested in the cacti article.  Wrong link there.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 23, 2019, 04:00:36 PM
That's a good point, Steve. We can do this today and we should.

Although i think this might not produce a measurable effect. You need heavy machinery to dig these holes, right? Can you bury more CO2 by doing this than you emit? Possibly. But then, there is only so much dead trees in the forests.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: SteveMDFP on June 23, 2019, 04:08:42 PM
That's a good point, Steve. We can do this today and we should.

Although i think this might not produce a measurable effect. You need heavy machinery to dig these holes, right? Can you bury more CO2 by doing this than you emit? Possibly. But then, there is only so much dead trees in the forests.

There's lots of space in disused coal mines.  To paraphrase Dr Strangelove, we do not have a mine shaft gap.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on June 23, 2019, 06:13:40 PM
I know some of you may abhor this but it has to be done. We need to remove CO2, reduce emissions to 0 AND invest into protecting our infrastructure.

I know that this looks like an incentive to continue to pollute and that is a possibility, but whether we reduce emissions to zero or not, we are going to need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We need an all above strategy. The Arctic countdown clock is ticking.

https://youtu.be/XHX9pmQ6m_s
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 23, 2019, 06:17:27 PM
Archimid, this is a big oil business model. Why would you trust them?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: SteveMDFP on June 23, 2019, 06:27:09 PM
I know some of you may abhor this but it has to be done. We need to remove CO2, reduce emissions to 0 AND invest into protecting our infrastructure.

I know that this looks like an incentive to continue to pollute and that is a possibility, but whether we reduce emissions to zero or not, we are going to need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We need an all above strategy. The Arctic countdown clock is ticking.


Funded by oil companies.  I think this is a PR gimmick, so they can advertise as working on helping the environment.

According to this, the end product is calcium carbonate.  Chalk, limestone.  So the chemical reaction isn't energy intensive.  But where do they get the calcium oxide or hydroxide to combine with CO2?

Wikipedia:
"Calcium oxide is usually made by the thermal decomposition of materials, such as limestone or seashells, that contain calcium carbonate (CaCO3; mineral calcite) in a lime kiln. This is accomplished by heating the material to above 825 °C (1,517 °F),[6] a process called calcination or lime-burning, to liberate a molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2), leaving quicklime."

Release CO2 to get calcium oxide, which will bind that CO2 to re-form limestone.  Net zero.  But great PR!!
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 23, 2019, 06:32:55 PM
Net zero is never proven. They emit more CO2 than they consume for this shit, otherwise, they would brag about it.

(Edit: Steve, sorry! That was a weird way to say i agree with you.)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 23, 2019, 07:18:54 PM
with hemp you capture a forest's worth of carbon every year .. b.c.

OK, bury hemp.  Hybrid poplar.  Whatever.  But take the idea and model it to see if it would be possible to re-sequester a meaningful amount of carbon for an acceptable cost.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 23, 2019, 07:28:34 PM
That's a good point, Steve. We can do this today and we should.

Although i think this might not produce a measurable effect. You need heavy machinery to dig these holes, right? Can you bury more CO2 by doing this than you emit? Possibly. But then, there is only so much dead trees in the forests.

We can dig holes using electricity.  Diesel is not a requirement.

Think about a portable harvest/bury system that could be moved from forest area to forest area.  The digger unit opens a deep trench ahead of the harvest unit which dumps trees into the trench.  Another unit covers the trees and plants new trees over the burial site.  The units take their solar/wind/battery systems with them as they move.

And this is not selectively removing dead trees.  It's growing plants that collect carbon from the atmosphere and putting it back underground where it won't mess up our climate.

Massive undertaking.  If done on the scale of our past coal and oil extraction it would take 100 years to pull CO2 levels back down.  But the alternative is?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on June 23, 2019, 07:31:29 PM
Archimid, this is a big oil business model. Why would you trust them?

I don't trust fossil fuel interests one bit, but this type of technology is needed, if it works.

Funded by oil companies.  I think this is a PR gimmick, so they can advertise as working on helping the environment.

 Ok but, Bill gates is backing this, his charities and speeches suggests that he is aware that climate change will cost him his fortune, lifestyle and that of his children. He got nothing to gain from covering up "carbon leaks" on this proposed technology. However he might be unaware of them.

Quote
Release CO2 to get calcium oxide, which will bind that CO2 to re-form limestone.  Net zero.  But great PR!!

That seems like a significant loophole if they don't cover it. The video does not go into details on how they sold that problem.

Quote
Net zero is never proven. They emit more CO2 than they consume for this shit, otherwise, they would brag about it.

If they could prove significant net negative emissions, would you favor it?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 23, 2019, 07:36:40 PM
Archimid, this is a big oil business model. Why would you trust them?

Last night I stumbled onto a site that was oil industry centered.  The sorts of articles about how to improve well yields, where the price of oil is heading, that sort of expected stuff. 

But there was also stuff about renewable energy.  Not renewable energy as 'the enemy', but business opportunities for oil industry companies.  Things like using oil rig technology, ships, and experience to get into the offshore wind turbine business.  Opening large opportunity for companies.

There was positive mention of Statoil who is moving into offshore wind and changed their name to Equinor as part of their transition.

These companies have great abilities.  We'd be better off if they were working with us.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 23, 2019, 07:48:01 PM
We'd be better off if they were working with us.

Sorry, hard disagreement on that one Bob.

Renewables are a great opportunity to get rid of big energy monopolies.

Solar panels, onshore wind turbines, biogas plants, all this is predestined for small investors. Small as in private house owners, farmers, cities, etc. A decentralized power production is a great tool for economic justice in this sector.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 23, 2019, 08:03:02 PM
Actually, i'm unsatisfied with my post above. Too much calmness. Why would i even use this kind of arguments?

So here i go again:

We are talking about the oil industry here. An industry that has proven to be malicious in a way the survival of this whole planet is at stake. They lied to us! All of them! They knowingly killed the planet for profits. Every single executive should be imprisoned for as long as they live. They should inhale concentrated fumes 24/7 until they die a horribly painful death.

Yeah, that's better!
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 23, 2019, 08:24:19 PM
We'd be better off if they were working with us.

Sorry, hard disagreement on that one Bob.

Renewables are a great opportunity to get rid of big energy monopolies.

Solar panels, onshore wind turbines, biogas plants, all this is predestined for small investors. Small as in private house owners, farmers, cities, etc. A decentralized power production is a great tool for economic justice in this sector.

The company that used to be Statoil is now the leading company in floating wind turbines?  You'd rather they not lead the way to deep water wind energy?

We are not going to fix our climate change problems with individuals and small businesses.  It will take a massive effort to manufacture and install all the solar panels, wind turbines, storage systems, and transmission lines we are going to need.  To build the EVs and battery powered trucks/buses.

We're going to end up with very large solar panel, wind turbine, EV, etc. companies.  I'd rather see companies with abilities abandon fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy.  We can get where we want to be faster.

Consider Tesla.  Right now they can manufacture about half a million EVs per year.  Adding the Shanghai factory might take them to one million per year.  Over several years they could build up to the size of Toyota (10 million per year) or VW (10 million per year) or Hyundai (7 million per year).  With a supply of batteries the traditional car manufacturing companies could be building millions of EVs per year.



Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 23, 2019, 08:48:02 PM
You'd rather they not lead the way to deep water wind energy?

Actually yes. Onshore wind is cheaper and needs less maintenance. Offshore is big energy which i oppose for the reasons in my first answer. I want homeowners, farmers and cities profit from this, not big companies.

Quote
We are not going to fix our climate change problems with individuals and small businesses.

Of course, you do. :)

The government gives out cheap loans to mentioned entities and subsidises renewables by statutory feed-in compensation. This is how Germany did it for a brief period and this was the time when renewables grew big time here. The scenario i paint is a tested scenario. It has shown to work. And even according to Frauenhofer (applied science institute in Germany) it's the cheapest and most rapid way to do it. It leads to the outcome i painted above: More economic justice and weakened monopolies. There are studies on that. I don't pull this out of thin air.

Quote
We're going to end up with very large solar panel, wind turbine, EV, etc. companies.


I know! In most countries, this will be the case. Still, it's the stupid way to go. It's the capitalist way to go. You know, the kind of capitalism that lead us to the problems we face today.

Quote
Consider Tesla

I think this is a whole other thing than the energy sector. Energy is infrastructure and should not be in big monopolists hands. It should be in public hands (like in the decentralized way i described, or else even completely out of private hands).
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: gerontocrat on June 23, 2019, 09:17:47 PM
Equinor, Statoil as was, is 67% owned by the citizens of Norway through the government. The rest is in the market. That gives some comfort.

Big business including fossil fuel companies are obviously moving into renewables in a big way, as are the big automotive manufacturers moving into EVs. Obviously the main motive is survival, closely followed by handouts from us via our Governments.

And while they are delivering the goods, we will be screwed (again).

Promises of a green energy jobs boom in Scotland are proving to be so much hot air
Kevin McKenna
The government stands accused of failing to protect workers as it sold off projects to EDF and other foreign firms.

Quote
There has been almost £5bn of investment in offshore renewables in Scotland that, if properly managed and negotiated, could amount to several thousand sustainable and skilled jobs. According to the GMB, only 100 temporary jobs currently derive from this. In this global sector, we are often taking a penknife to a gunfight, with foreign-owned outfits heavily backed by governments that underwrite losses.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/23/promises-of-green-energy-jobs-boom-in-scotland-so-much-hot-air

And as a "screwee" my wish for those who are doing it to us is - to die soon, to die slowly, and to die in great pain.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: sidd on June 23, 2019, 09:25:27 PM
Re: incorrect link for cacti making chalk

Sorry. Correct link is

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/lindavaldez/2018/08/03/saguaro-cactus-combat-global-warming-through-co-2-carbon-sequestration/883348002/

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 23, 2019, 09:56:48 PM
Quote
Actually yes. Onshore wind is cheaper and needs less maintenance. Offshore is big energy which i oppose for the reasons in my first answer. I want homeowners, farmers and cities profit from this, not big companies.

California has poor onshore wind resources but some of the best wind resources anywhere in the world off its northern coast.  NorCal offshore wind resources put Midwestern wind to shame.

I'd suggest we consider keeping "Our eye on the prize".  Climate change will very seriously mess up every person and almost every living thing on the planet.  Big companies are not existential threats to the plant's living flora and fauna.

We do not have time to burn everything to the ground and create the perfect system from the ashes.  Our best hope is to use the big levers we have and tweak them to make them better. 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: crandles on June 23, 2019, 10:23:42 PM
A decentralized power production is a great tool for economic justice in this sector.

Nice if we get it but a side issue: Utility scale solar is much cheaper than rooftop. There are advantages to rooftop - it tends to be local so less transmission losses. But if these benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the extra costs is it really sensible to put a preference for decentralised ahead of the cost of installation disadvantage. Lots of people needing to make investment decisions could well be a big factor in slowing things down. Shouldn't we be prioritising speed to get to say 70% renewable electricity then minimising cost to get there and only after that other nice to have like decentralised power production?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: kassy on June 23, 2019, 11:18:49 PM
Big companies are not existential threats to the plant's living flora and fauna.

Big Oil knew what was going to happen to the climate long ago and instead of adapting they spent dollars on lobbying and funding the merchants of doubt.

German Big Auto lobbied for emission tests they could fake with software and then faked them with software. OK the emissions mainly kill the poor living next to the roads but in a way they are fauna too.

So your claim is false...and we didn't even get to big Chem.

BTW: I do have the impression we are drifting from CCS.
 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on June 23, 2019, 11:32:59 PM
Crandles deserves more "likes" then he gets.

What's the topic, anyway???  Oh yes, CCS.  For my kids' sake, cannot we have an 'everything and' policy?  buried wood, cactus farms, maphic rock crushing, exhaust chimney capture, etc.  When 'we' get CO2 below 400 or 375, then get picky (and phase out the least efficient or most centralized systems).  There's a war out there!  (and no one is noticing)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 23, 2019, 11:55:35 PM
Big companies are not existential threats to the plant's living flora and fauna.

Big Oil knew what was going to happen to the climate long ago and instead of adapting they spent dollars on lobbying and funding the merchants of doubt.

German Big Auto lobbied for emission tests they could fake with software and then faked them with software. OK the emissions mainly kill the poor living next to the roads but in a way they are fauna too.

So your claim is false...and we didn't even get to big Chem.



You added context which was not part of my comment.  I was talking about the size of companies, not the behavior of specific companies. 

A large number of small oil and coal companies could do as much damage as a smaller number of large companies.

 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 24, 2019, 12:00:13 AM
A decentralized power production is a great tool for economic justice in this sector.

Nice if we get it but a side issue: Utility scale solar is much cheaper than rooftop. There are advantages to rooftop - it tends to be local so less transmission losses. But if these benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the extra costs is it really sensible to put a preference for decentralised ahead of the cost of installation disadvantage. Lots of people needing to make investment decisions could well be a big factor in slowing things down. Shouldn't we be prioritising speed to get to say 70% renewable electricity then minimising cost to get there and only after that other nice to have like decentralised power production?

Kind of hard to 'decentralize' 140 meter hub height wind turbines and hydro plants by putting them on people's rooftops and in their back yards.  We need that stuff in order to keep the cost of electricity low enough to push out fossil fuels.  Wind turbines are built by large companies, not something you can build in your basement shop.  And large dams are very large construction projects.

BTW, I am not advocating for damming more rivers.  Just wanted to get that in before one our our 'hair on fire' members suffered a stroke.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: nanning on June 24, 2019, 04:13:39 AM
Humans could of course also use much less energy. No more energy affluence. That way all the extra green energy, freed by us through being frugal (and happier), can be used for CCS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frugality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frugality)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 24, 2019, 05:37:11 AM
Humans could of course also use much less energy.

Many certainly could.  How do you propose getting the high energy users to cut way back on their energy use?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: nanning on June 24, 2019, 06:44:06 AM
That's a good question Bob. I don't know if there is an answer, a solution, a way of convincing people to change. My take is, either the high energy users, the rich, change voluntarily or they change unvoluntarily (climate catastrophy, societal collapse, food-, water-, wars etc). My understanding of rich humans is that the change will most likely be unvoluntarily.
With rich people I mean all consumerists, 'accumulationists'.
Consumerism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism)
Anti-consumerism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-consumerism)

It could start with banning all advertisements and marketing.
After that, let's see what remains of the Internet.... Oops, 'everything' seems dependent on accelerated accumulation  :o
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 06:51:55 AM
Nice if we get it but a side issue: Utility scale solar is much cheaper than rooftop.

I don't know how this would be, but don't have numbers at hand. Do you have a comparison by chance?

Quote
Lots of people needing to make investment decisions could well be a big factor in slowing things down.

As i outlined in my previous post, this is not the case. I can say that because i've seen it with my own eyes. It happened in Germany.

When you have a cheap loan and get subsidies the credit is repaid in 5-10 years. The solar cells produce power for 20-30 years or even longer. This is a no-brainer deal. There is no stock with a better yield. When the subsidies in Germany were active,  you could see rooftop solar installed in an astonishing speed.

Quote
Shouldn't we be prioritising speed to get to say 70% renewable electricity

Yes, this is why i'm arguing for this concept.

Also, it must be 100%!



Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 07:01:09 AM
Kind of hard to 'decentralize' 140 meter hub height wind turbines and hydro plants by putting them on people's rooftops and in their back yards.  We need that stuff in order to keep the cost of electricity low enough to push out fossil fuels.  Wind turbines are built by large companies, not something you can build in your basement shop.  And large dams are very large construction projects.

Why can't a farmer buy a wind turbine and install it on their land? Why can't cities do that? Why does it need to be a big company for that?

I'm asking because this is exactly what happened in Germany. Now you tell me it's not possible.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 07:07:20 AM
banning all advertisements and marketing

That would be heaven on earth. :)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 24, 2019, 07:52:24 AM
That's a good question Bob. I don't know if there is an answer, a solution, a way of convincing people to change. My take is, either the high energy users, the rich, change voluntarily or they change unvoluntarily (climate catastrophy, societal collapse, food-, water-, wars etc). My understanding of rich humans is that the change will most likely be unvoluntarily.
With rich people I mean all consumerists, 'accumulationists'.
Consumerism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism)
Anti-consumerism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-consumerism)

It could start with banning all advertisements and marketing.
After that, let's see what remains of the Internet.... Oops, 'everything' seems dependent on accelerated accumulation  :o

If we wait for things to get so bad that the rich change involuntarily due to climate catastrophe the rest of us will be toast.  The rich will have means of survival that few others will have. 

I'm not sure how banning advertisements and marketing would lower energy use.  Perhaps it would put a small dent in consuming, but certainly not enough to save our bacon.  But suppose it could.  How would you go about banning advertisements and marketing?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 24, 2019, 07:58:10 AM
Kind of hard to 'decentralize' 140 meter hub height wind turbines and hydro plants by putting them on people's rooftops and in their back yards.  We need that stuff in order to keep the cost of electricity low enough to push out fossil fuels.  Wind turbines are built by large companies, not something you can build in your basement shop.  And large dams are very large construction projects.

Why can't a farmer buy a wind turbine and install it on their land? Why can't cities do that? Why does it need to be a big company for that?

I'm asking because this is exactly what happened in Germany. Now you tell me it's not possible.

A farmer could buy a big wind turbine and put it on their land.  Who would manufacture the wind turbine?  What kind of company could the farmer call on to haul in monster blades and stand a 140 meter tower? 

What happened in Germany is that the economics worked out so that rooftop solar was very attractive and lots of people installed.  But the panels and inverters were not made in a little shop around the corner.  It takes factories.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 08:02:34 AM
Quote
If we wait for things to get so bad that the rich change involuntarily due to climate catastrophe the rest of us will be toast.  The rich will have means of survival that few others will have.

Bob, this is what i don't understand. You are totally thinking in the right direction here. Yet, you are also arguing for big companies producing rich people, not distributing wealth throughout the whole economy only a few posts upstream.

Allow me, with all due respect, to point out, that you have a massive cognitive dissonance here.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 08:09:53 AM
Who would manufacture the wind turbine?  What kind of company could the farmer call on to haul in monster blades and stand a 140 meter tower?

Well, you buy one! A modern wind turbine is ~1mio Euro including delivery and installation. That's not an extraordinary occurrence. A bank would give the loan without hassle because they know it's a good investment. From the profits you earn you can afford maintenance cost. You call the contractor and they show up when you need them.

I don't even get your point to be honest. Do you think a wind turbine manufacturer would only sell to big companies? That makes no sense.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 24, 2019, 08:42:01 AM
Who would manufacture the wind turbine?  What kind of company could the farmer call on to haul in monster blades and stand a 140 meter tower?

Well, you buy one! A modern wind turbine is ~1mio Euro including delivery and installation. That's not an extraordinary occurrence. A bank would give the loan without hassle because they know it's a good investment. From the profits you earn you can afford maintenance cost. You call the contractor and they show up when you need them.

I don't even get your point to be honest. Do you think a wind turbine manufacturer would only sell to big companies? That makes no sense.

You're going to have to purchase the turbine from a big company.  The bank that floats the loan is going to have to be pretty large to am million dollar loans.  I't going to take a big company to do the hauling and installation because it takes size to be able to afford the equipment.

What I'm getting at here is the desire from several on this site to do away with big companies and capitalism.  There are just a lot of things that can be done on a small scale, we need big businesses for some things.

Let me suggest that it is not the size of the business but how the business "behaves".  If a big business treats it's customers well, treats it's employees well, doesn't pollute, doesn't get involved in politics/elections, doesn't engage in anticompetitive practices, and pays a fair amount in taxes where's the harm in the business being large?

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 09:22:03 AM
we need big businesses for some things.

I don't disagree with that Bob. I'm pointing out, that the energy sector is different.

Of course, you need (biggish) companies to produce things. I'm not a fan of capitalism as you might have picked up, but i do see the positive aspects of free markets. If one company produces big amounts of a thing, they can do it efficiently.

In the energy sector though, you don't necessarily have efficiency gains in centralized production when it comes to renewables. On the contrary actually. A power grid with 100% renewables works better if it is decentralized.

So here you have the chance to portray this decentralised nature on the technical level also to the economic level. You have the chance to direct the market into a favourable state with no legislation at all.

Again, i'm not saying this applies to any kind of production. All my arguments here are not a generalisation in this regard. They are about the energy transition towards renewables.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 24, 2019, 09:57:01 AM
Quote
A power grid with 100% renewables works better if it is decentralized

A renewable power grid works better if the turbines and solar panels are spread around the harvest area.

The grid works the same whether each turbine is owned by one person or one huge company owns all the turbines.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 10:20:04 AM
A renewable power grid works better if the turbines and solar panels are spread around the harvest area.

The grid works the same whether each turbine is owned by one person or one huge company owns all the turbines.

Yes, decentralized actually means "the turbines and solar panels are spread around the harvest area" in this context.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: nanning on June 24, 2019, 11:02:49 AM
How would you go about banning advertisements and marketing?

*  Make it compulsory to tell the complete truth. Advertisements and marketing will dwindle and disappear.
*  Inflict morality on companies, businesses, commerce.
*  Stop presenting companies as equal to a human being in court.
*  Forbid lobbying! Humans can influence policy 1x per 4 or 5 year, others (companies, rich people etc.) every single day: >2500x
*  Start with scientific policy making. What were the results of previous policies -> analyse and adjust. Transparancy. e.g. obviously Privatisation has been a disaster. Roll it back. Renationalize so government regains control. How to roll back globalisation?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 11:19:12 AM
How would you go about banning advertisements and marketing?

IMHO it must be possible for a person to avoid ads.

When i don't want to see ads in magazines, i can stop reading magazines with ads.
For internet use, i can install an adblocker.
I can switch channels when the TV shows ads.

Those are examples when ads are avoidable and therefore shouldn't be banned.

When it comes to the public room though, i can't avoid placard and billboards. There they should be banned.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: crandles on June 24, 2019, 03:28:17 PM
Nice if we get it but a side issue: Utility scale solar is much cheaper than rooftop.

I don't know how this would be, but don't have numbers at hand. Do you have a comparison by chance?
https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

p2
Solar PV—Thin Film Utility Scale $36-44
Solar PV—Rooftop Residential  $160-267

'Only' a factor of at least 4.4 times more expensive!

How?
Lots of small sites,
Lots of grid tie ins to do,
An inverter needed for each site rather than fewer inverters efficiently used.
Lots of salesmen visits to do to convince householders it is worth doing.
...

I would expect residential rooftop to be more expensive, but a factor of 4.4 does seem a lot.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on June 24, 2019, 03:53:27 PM
Regarding which method is fastest, cheapest and best, I suspect an old NASA proverb applies:
“Good, fast, cheap...pick two”.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: bluice on June 24, 2019, 04:36:43 PM
Economies of scale work in renewable energy just the same as on every other industry.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on June 24, 2019, 05:39:52 PM
We need all of the above. We need for anyone that can afford it to become energy independent, at the same time as the maximum amount of renewable energy sources and storage are deployed at a grid scale.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: bluice on June 24, 2019, 05:45:22 PM
TBH I don’t need to be personally energy independent. I want to have power when I need it, at a competitive cost and I want it to be zero carbon.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 05:52:08 PM

https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

How?
Lots of small sites,
Lots of grid tie ins to do,
An inverter needed for each site rather than fewer inverters efficiently used.
Lots of salesmen visits to do to convince householders it is worth doing.


Thanks for the link, just used it myself. :)

These arguments are convincing. I never thought it is that big of a difference given it's the same modules we are talking about.

I looked to find numbers for Germany including subsidies but didn't find anything so far.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on June 24, 2019, 06:04:22 PM
TBH I don’t need to be personally energy independent. I want to have power when I need it, at a competitive cost and I want it to be zero carbon.

If you want to have power when you need it, you need to be energy independent. If the grid goes down and you have no backup power, you won't have power when you need it. Given climate change, your grid will go down with increasing frequency. Thus back up power is needed.

I understand that energy independence and having back up power is not the same thing, but energy independence should be the goal. Energy independence is as close to free energy as we ever going to get. If can make it so everyone have their own source of renewable energy suited for their needs right on site and it is going to be darn close to free energy.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 24, 2019, 06:16:15 PM
How would you go about banning advertisements and marketing?

*  Make it compulsory to tell the complete truth. Advertisements and marketing will dwindle and disappear.
*  Inflict morality on companies, businesses, commerce.
*  Stop presenting companies as equal to a human being in court.
*  Forbid lobbying! Humans can influence policy 1x per 4 or 5 year, others (companies, rich people etc.) every single day: >2500x
*  Start with scientific policy making. What were the results of previous policies -> analyse and adjust. Transparancy. e.g. obviously Privatisation has been a disaster. Roll it back. Renationalize so government regains control. How to roll back globalisation?

My question is more basic.  How would you implement any of those changes?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 24, 2019, 06:24:53 PM
TBH I don’t need to be personally energy independent. I want to have power when I need it, at a competitive cost and I want it to be zero carbon.

If you want to have power when you need it, you need to be energy independent. If the grid goes down and you have no backup power, you won't have power when you need it. Given climate change, your grid will go down with increasing frequency. Thus back up power is needed.

I understand that energy independence and having back up power is not the same thing, but energy independence should be the goal. Energy independence is as close to free energy as we ever going to get. If can make it so everyone have their own source of renewable energy suited for their needs right on site and it is going to be darn close to free energy.

Germany's grid outages add up to about 12 minutes per year.  Grids can be very reliable.

The idea of everyone being free of the grid and energy independent is, well, have you actually thought that through? 

Do you have any experience with not being grid connected? 

Do you have any idea what it would take to replace the grid with billions of standalone systems?

I've been off the grid for almost 30 years.  I'm off the grid because hooking up would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  (That's one of the things that made my land affordable.)  Most people just wouldn't want to be off the grid and have to run their own utility company.  If I could switch over to grid power I would.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: oren on June 24, 2019, 06:28:41 PM
B_l, while I echo your sentiments regarding harmful big business, lying oil companies, limiting/banning advertising, decentralization of energy production, self sufficiency and more, I must  say that my limited experience in life has shown that solving two problems at once is vastly more difficult than separating them and solving each of them independently of the other. If we wait to solve climate change so that the solution will be according to good principles, the solution will come slower and less guaranteed. I'd much rather solve climate change and have rich oil companies maintain their wealth, than have none of both. I'd much rather have a centralized grid of 100% renewables than a decentralized renewable generation of 30% or 50%. And so on. We don't have time to be anything else other than completely pragmatic.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on June 24, 2019, 06:35:09 PM
I don't recall there being an "off the grid - personal utility company" thread, but references to individuals doing that are scattered here and there. 

Ah, I found Off-Grid Is it really a contribution to the solution (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,114.msg1468.html#msg1468) that was active in March 2013 (with a dozen posts).  Do you want to move "Off Grid" posts there?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 24, 2019, 06:45:16 PM
B_l, while I echo your sentiments regarding harmful big business, lying oil companies, limiting/banning advertising, decentralization of energy production, self sufficiency and more, I must  say that my limited experience in life has shown that solving two problems at once is vastly more difficult than separating them and solving each of them independently of the other. If we wait to solve climate change so that the solution will be according to good principles, the solution will come slower and less guaranteed. I'd much rather solve climate change and have rich oil companies maintain their wealth, than have none of both. I'd much rather have a centralized grid of 100% renewables than a decentralized renewable generation of 30% or 50%. And so on. We don't have time to be anything else other than completely pragmatic.

This is my stance as well.  Do not make fighting climate change harder by complicating the fight.

There are significant problems with how some businesses operate in the US, with wealth distribution, with fair pay, with women being underpaid, etc..  Deal with those problems separately from fighting climate change. 

I don't know which company would be your largest villain in terms of global warming.  Perhaps Exxon would be mine.  However if Exxon came out and said ...

Quote
We understand that our product, petroleum, is destroying the climate.  Starting right now we will phase out oil, producing only what is needed for to main transportation as transportation switches to electricity.  At the same time we will start an aggressive move to turn our company into a provider of renewable energy.

... I would welcome the change.  And once it was clear that they were following through with their pledge I'd forgive them for decades of oil production. 

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 06:59:02 PM
B_l, while I echo your sentiments regarding harmful big business, lying oil companies, limiting/banning advertising, decentralization of energy production, self sufficiency and more, I must  say that my limited experience in life has shown that solving two problems at once is vastly more difficult than separating them and solving each of them independently of the other. If we wait to solve climate change so that the solution will be according to good principles, the solution will come slower and less guaranteed. I'd much rather solve climate change and have rich oil companies maintain their wealth, than have none of both. I'd much rather have a centralized grid of 100% renewables than a decentralized renewable generation of 30% or 50%. And so on. We don't have time to be anything else other than completely pragmatic.

I think i lined out why the success of renewables in Germany is a function of the exact program i described. We have 50% renewables in the grid as of today. I'm arguing for it because it sped up the energy transition. Because it is not difficult. Because you have a predictable outcome.

The good principled outcome is a byproduct! This is not the only reason i'm arguing for it.

This program creates economic incentives to install renewables for millions of people, for every house owner, for landowner and farmers, and for communes and cities. If this program was still in place today, given the prices for renewables dropped, it would be expensive not to have solar cells on your south-facing side of the rooftop.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 24, 2019, 07:28:09 PM
The average US electricity bill is about $100/month.  The possibility of saving ten or twenty dollars a month is not enough to get most people to put out a lot of effort.

In Germany there was a subsidy program that meant if you installed solar, not only could you cut your utility costs, you could actually make a nice profit.  You could put yourself in business as an electricity provider and earn good money.

In Australia the cost of electricity was so high that installing solar save a lot of money per month, not the sort of ten/twenty dollar stuff.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 07:46:36 PM
Correct, Bob. There is no one who regretted it. It was a huge success. The math just worked out for small investors like homeowners so many did it. Then the program was cancelled in part and the feed-in compensation was cut. New installations became a zero-sum game and people stopped installing solar panels.

Now with the prices for solar coming down growth has picked up again a little. >> https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=solar-share&period=annual&year=all

Feed-in compensation for wind is okish, here the growth is more consistent. >> https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=wind-share&period=annual&year=all
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on June 24, 2019, 08:02:09 PM
Quote
Germany's grid outages add up to about 12 minutes per year.


Good for them. Sadly as new and extreme weather patterns start to emerge more often their grid will be challenged more often, just like everyone else.

Quote
Grids can be very reliable.

Until they aren't. Fires, storms, floods, heatwaves are all increasing and with that increase comes increase pressure on the grid.


Quote
The idea of everyone being free of the grid and energy independent is, well, have you actually thought that through?


Yep. As I said, if achieved, it would be an era of unparalleled prosperity and security. Right now, it seems impossible because energy storage is still expensive. In terms of power production
with solar, for most latitudes solar provides all the energy needed right now. We don't need any other technology. As storage catches up to power generation, then the need for transmission and generation infrastructure will not be there.

Quote
Do you have any experience with not being grid connected? 

3 months without grid power at my home. I powered my home with a small inverter gasoline generator that mostly kept the fridge going and provided lights and wind fans to be able to sleep at night.  Not having power sucks, specially if the infrastructure is built under the assumption that there will always be power available.

Quote
Do you have any idea what it would take to replace the grid with billions of standalone systems?

Lots of batteries, lots of solar panels and a whole industry of installers and maintainers.


Quote
I've been off the grid for almost 30 years.  I'm off the grid because hooking up would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  (That's one of the things that made my land affordable.)  Most people just wouldn't want to be off the grid and have to run their own utility company.  If I could switch over to grid power I would.

Having a cable that is always* on is a great thing, while the cost of home energy sources is high. As costs lower and the limits of storage and generation increase, energy independence will be ubiquitous. I don't think the technology is there yet, but it is the inevitable end result.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 08:19:55 PM
Quote
Germany's grid outages add up to about 12 minutes per year.


Good for them. Sadly as new and extreme weather patterns start to emerge more often their grid will be challenged more often, just like everyone else.

Fun fact: In Germany, it is required by law that every house is connected to the public grid. So, no grid free live-style available here.

And yes, power outages are a very very rare thing here. Actually, i can only remember one off the top of my head. It lasted for a couple of hours. In all of Europe, the uptime is pretty good.


Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Archimid on June 24, 2019, 08:27:34 PM
Quote
Fun fact: In Germany, it is required by law that every house is connected to the public grid. So, no grid free live-style available here.


The law changes according to the times, with some lag.

Quote
And yes, power outages are a very very rare thing here. Actually, i can only remember one off the top of my head. It lasted for a couple of hours. In all of Europe, the uptime is pretty good.

Expected. I imagine that hurricane speed winds, 50C heatwaves, hail and floods are very rare too.  Sadly that low disaster frequency is likely to change with the climate and with it, the reliability of the grid.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 24, 2019, 08:29:53 PM
Expected. I imagine that hurricane speed winds, 50C heatwaves, hail and floods are very rare too.  Sadly that low disaster frequency is likely to change with the climate and with it, the reliability of the grid.

Yes, by all means, nature is more forgiving here then there.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: morganism on June 27, 2019, 10:52:49 PM
shows that injecting air and carbon dioxide into methane ice deposits buried beneath the Gulf of Mexico could unlock vast natural gas energy resources while helping fight climate change by trapping the carbon dioxide underground.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-natural-gas-carbon-dioxide.html

Nitrogen-Driven Chromatographic Separation During Gas Injection into Hydrate-Bearing Sediments, Water Resources Research (2019). DOI: 10.1029/2018WR023414

"In the paper, the authors showed that a process in which one type of molecule trapped in hydrate is exchanged for another (called guest molecule exchange) is a two-stage process and not a single, simultaneous process, as it was previously thought to be.

First, nitrogen breaks down the methane hydrate. Second, the carbon dioxide crystalizes into a slow-moving wave of carbon dioxide hydrate behind the escaping methane gas.

The computer simulations indicate that the process can be repeated with increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide until the reservoir becomes saturated. The authors said that unlike some methods of carbon storage, this provides a ready incentive for industry to begin storing carbon dioxide, a major driver of climate change."
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on June 27, 2019, 11:04:24 PM
I don’t understand the storing part of it ....put CO2 plus some energy use and you get some methane out...
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 27, 2019, 11:06:22 PM
shows that injecting air and carbon dioxide into methane ice deposits buried beneath the Gulf of Mexico could unlock vast natural gas energy resources while helping fight climate change by trapping the carbon dioxide underground.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-natural-gas-carbon-dioxide.html

Nitrogen-Driven Chromatographic Separation During Gas Injection into Hydrate-Bearing Sediments, Water Resources Research (2019). DOI: 10.1029/2018WR023414

"In the paper, the authors showed that a process in which one type of molecule trapped in hydrate is exchanged for another (called guest molecule exchange) is a two-stage process and not a single, simultaneous process, as it was previously thought to be.

First, nitrogen breaks down the methane hydrate. Second, the carbon dioxide crystalizes into a slow-moving wave of carbon dioxide hydrate behind the escaping methane gas.

The computer simulations indicate that the process can be repeated with increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide until the reservoir becomes saturated. The authors said that unlike some methods of carbon storage, this provides a ready incentive for industry to begin storing carbon dioxide, a major driver of climate change."

This sounds like a suggestion to quit beating our thumb with a 20 oz hammer and switch to a 16 oz hammer. 

Leave the damn methane where it is causing no problems.  Install wind and solar faster so that we don't need to burn fossil fuels.

Mother "Thumb" would thank us.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: sidd on June 28, 2019, 08:05:02 AM
The Japanese have been doin methane capture from hydrate for a decade or so at R&D scale. One might argue that burning the methane is better than allowing it to and enter the atmosphere. Of course, the question is how fast the methane hydrate will destabilize, absent such direct intervention ...

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 28, 2019, 08:22:45 AM
The Japanese have been doin methane capture from hydrate for a decade or so at R&D scale. One might argue that burning the methane is better than allowing it to and enter the atmosphere. Of course, the question is how fast the methane hydrate will destabilize, absent such direct intervention ...

sidd

You think the oceans are going to warm enough to thaw deep water methane hydrates in the next several years? 

Until we get close to the melting point we need to leave the stuff where it is.  If we get close to the melting point then we probably have lost the battle and it will be time to move underground.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: nanning on June 28, 2019, 01:14:00 PM
My question is more basic.  How would you implement any of those changes?
and
... We don't have time to be anything else other than completely pragmatic.
Sorry Bob, I missed your question.
Also answering here the last sentence of oren's post.

I am convinced that you won't get anything done by keeping the systems we have. Nothing substantial will happen. Just take the 2015 Paris ageement (and the earlier pledges) and look at the Keeling curve.

This is an emergency situation. We should stop playing by 'their' book. Fundamentals must change.
Options:
 1. - change the majority to stop consuming and take personal responsibility (very unlikely)
 2. - rebellion, revolution, systems change (best option I think but also very unlikely, see 1. )
 3. - do nothing and perish in a horrendous future short life
The problem is most people are lulled into complacency: There still is time. There is hope. There still is a carbon budget.
This happens via the media and politics. The mass media (TV; Radio; Internet; Magazines) doesn't warn or give uncomfortable news because it is completely dependent on advertisements. Telling the truth costs a lot of money (right Guardian?).

What if we don't have more than a decade before the start of society collapse?
In what timeframe do you, oren, think these things (from your post) can be solved one at a time?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 28, 2019, 04:52:16 PM
Quote
Options:
 1. - change the majority to stop consuming and take personal responsibility (very unlikely)
 2. - rebellion, revolution, systems change (best option I think but also very unlikely, see 1. )
 3. - do nothing and perish in a horrendous future short life

My take:

1. - essentially impossible.  At least until it's too late to avoid extreme climate change.  What we put into our atmosphere today won't make things noticeably worse until sometime in the future.  By the time people get into 'panic' mode and make large lifestyle changes we probably will have pumped more GHG into the atmosphere than we can deal with.

2. - rebellion/revolution.  If you mean an upheaval in which governments are overthrown and new governments established just seems undoable.  First, you need enough people so firmly committed that they will put their lives on the line to fight governments that control armies and police forces.  Then, if you succeed, there would be years of creating new governments so that progress could get underway.

3. - we won't do "nothing".  We are doing things right now, just not at a high enough rate.

If the US (using your favorite whipping boy) were to increase the amount of wind/solar installed in best years by less than 2x we'd be done with fossil fuels in 20 years.  In 2017 the US produced 2.2% more electricity with renewables and 2.2% less electricity with fossil fuels.  We're now about 60% FF.  If we converted 3% of our electricity generation to renewables per year fossil fuels would be gone in 20 years.

The issue, IMO, is how to move the transition faster.  We will not transition rapidly enough to prevent harm from climate change, we are already being hurt.  The issue is how bad will things get before we manage to get greenhouse gas emissions under control.  And whether we are able to develop reasonable ways to pull carbon back out of our atmosphere and oceans.



Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: nanning on June 28, 2019, 06:21:48 PM
Thank you for your relpy. I disagree with your 3., seeing the Keeling curve and paleoclimate. It'll come. You have to remove the stuff.
Quote
If the US (using your favorite whipping boy)
The U.S. of A. stands out like a sore thumb. Of course that gets attention. Furthermore this is, in my perception, a majority north-america centered forum. If it was international we wouldn't be seeing the imperial unit system, to give an example.
It is almost as if most people from the U.S.A. think the world stops at their borders and their TV contexts.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: oren on June 28, 2019, 06:44:19 PM
What if we don't have more than a decade before the start of society collapse?
In what timeframe do you, oren, think these things (from your post) can be solved one at a time?
I expect the civilizational collapse mid-century, so about 3 decades away. But regardless of the timeline, I am not aware of any quick solution that can save us in time, asuming current trajectories and human behavior. The best we can do is accelerate what we are already doing (renewable energy etc.), and hoping to minimize the damage.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 28, 2019, 06:50:23 PM
Thank you for your relpy. I disagree with your 3., seeing the Keeling curve and paleoclimate. It'll come. You have to remove the stuff.
Quote
If the US (using your favorite whipping boy)
The U.S. of A. stands out like a sore thumb. Of course that gets attention. Furthermore this is, in my perception, a majority north-america centered forum. If it was international we wouldn't be seeing the imperial unit system, to give an example.
It is almost as if most people from the U.S.A. think the world stops at their borders and their TV contexts.

You disagree that the amount of electricity generated by renewables is not increasing?  Or that people are not increasing the number of EVs purchased?  Or do you disagree with the 60% and 2.2% numbers I posted?  With what do you disagree?

As for the last part of  your post, honestly, many people in the US do somewhat think only inside the US.  If you haven't spent time here you probably have no idea of how geographically isolated the US is from the rest of the world.  If I want to go to another country I have to drive two long days to get there.  In a single day of driving in Europe one can pass through multiple countries. 

Most Americans don't get long vacations.  And there's lots to see and do inside the country.  Travel to other continents is not a common thing.  Travel north and you encounter a fringe of population along Canada's southern border.  And the people there are very similar to Americans.  Travel south and the first thing you encounter is a lot of desert.  It's necessary to travel deeply into Mexico before one encounters much of the Mexican culture.  People from other countries come to the US but, in general, we don't interact with them.  They spend their time running from tourist attraction to tourist attraction, not interacting with regular Americans.

Other than a few British TV sitcoms that have been played on public TV (which most people don't watch) European movies and TV haven't made their presence know here.  The flow is in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 28, 2019, 06:54:11 PM
What if we don't have more than a decade before the start of society collapse?
In what timeframe do you, oren, think these things (from your post) can be solved one at a time?
I expect the civilizational collapse mid-century, so about 3 decades away. But regardless of the timeline, I am not aware of any quick solution that can save us in time, asuming current trajectories and human behavior. The best we can do is accelerate what we are already doing (renewable energy etc.), and hoping to minimize the damage.

What makes the difference between painful damage and civilization collapse?  By civilization collapse I assume you mean something of a Mad Max world or a return the the Dark Ages.  What is the tipping point you envision?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: nanning on June 28, 2019, 07:13:22 PM
Quote
You disagree that the amount of electricity generated by renewables is not increasing?
Quote
the Keeling curve and paleoclimate
You disagree that the amount of CO2 is still increasing (record year 2018) and perhaps, in the near future, get help from living nature? You disagree that paleoclimate records say that if there's this amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, science says: These (pliocene) things have happened and therefore will happen again?
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: nanning on June 28, 2019, 07:18:15 PM
What makes the difference between painful damage and civilization collapse?  By civilization collapse I assume you mean something of a Mad Max world or a return the the Dark Ages.  What is the tipping point you envision?
Essentials. The endpoint of the trends.
The tipping point: Hunger and thirst. Violence and unsafety, fear.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 28, 2019, 07:21:07 PM
Quote
You disagree that the amount of electricity generated by renewables is not increasing?
Quote
the Keeling curve and paleoclimate
You disagree that the amount of CO2 is still increasing (record year 2018) and perhaps, in the near future, get help from living nature? You disagree that paleoclimate records say that if there's this amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, science says: These (pliocene) things have happened and therefore will happen again?

Are you accusing me of something which I have not stated?  Please don't just make stuff up. 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 28, 2019, 07:39:48 PM
What makes the difference between painful damage and civilization collapse?  By civilization collapse I assume you mean something of a Mad Max world or a return the the Dark Ages.  What is the tipping point you envision?
Essentials. The endpoint of the trends.
The tipping point: Hunger and thirst. Violence and unsafety, fear.

That's too abstract to have any meaning.

People have been dying in very large numbers due to hunger and thirst for a long time.  Long before the climate began to change.  We may see death rates increase.  Some portion of the world's population has been living with violence , unsafety, and fear for all of recorded history and likely well before. 

The Great Famine of 1315-1317 killed an estimate 7.5 million people in Europe.
The Chalisa Famine which occured in India in 1783/84 killed 11 million.  Another famine in India a few years later killed another 11 million.
The 'Great Four' famines in China in the 1800s killed 45 million.
The famine that hit China at the end of the 1960s killed as many as 43 million.

Throughout history there have been wars that have killed millions upon millions.  As many as 65 million died in World War One.  As many as 85 million died in  World War Two.

Those things did not cause worldwide civilization collapse.  Give me something that might cause civilization collapse thirty years from now.

I will grant you that there may be some climatic consequence we have yet to identify that could really mess things up.  But since we don't know about it you can't use it as an explanation to back your claim.

Let me ask again, what would cause the collapse of civilization about 30 years from now? 
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tor Bejnar on June 28, 2019, 09:35:35 PM
Quote
It is almost as if most people from the U.S.A. think the world stops at their borders and their TV contexts.
Are you implying it doesn't?   ;D :o ::) :P

Massive migrations from hot/wet places (Bangladesh, India, Central America, Middle East), plus a few nuclear bombs tossed here and there (in somebody's desperation), with coastal disruptions and a food scare or two plus some tropical diseases spreading 'north' making Western societies more on edge, all together may cause vigilantism to increase to the point civil society in the traditional sense ceases to exist in many places (like it does in some ghettos and in some war-torn countries today).  I think this could happen by 2050.

The "Wild West" wasn't wild everywhere.  (I very much remember Reies Tijerina (and La Alianza) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reies_Tijerina) doing his (their) thing in the 1960s, so that's not so very long ago!  The Wikipedia article doesn't mention their turning a New Mexican highway into a toll road, by stopping cars with a road block, deciding how rich a driver was, and extracting a toll [something like $1 if they looked middle class; $10 if they looked rich].  When the police came to arrest them, they simply got on their horses and rode off into the distance, only to start a new road block someplace else later. More of that time (http://larrycalloway.com/courthouse-raid/).)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: oren on June 28, 2019, 11:04:38 PM
Yeah, something like that. Food stresses, water problems, resource depletion, places becoming less livable, heat, drought, storms, flooding and SLR, but with the help of conflicts, trade wars, actual wars, populist leaders, inflation etc.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: zizek on June 28, 2019, 11:16:13 PM

Big companies are not existential threats to the plant's living flora and fauna.


denialism.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: kassy on June 29, 2019, 10:39:27 PM
India looks interesting and it is a lot of people. At some point you can not truck in enough water if the monsoons are failing.

Earlier famines are not really a reference point for 2019. Any famine now can be seen better then in the 18th century. If people know you won´t help them they will help themselves in some way.

Hunger and thirst are powerful motivators never mind having kids you know they willl just let starve. At some point you have nothing to lose and ´or die trying´ becomes an option.

Then it mixes with local ideology and it goes boom.

PS: As a radical OT thought my favourite CCS scheme is growing Azolla and weighing it down with lots of career politicians. The whole lot should be dumped into the ocean.


Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 29, 2019, 11:08:29 PM
Remember to distinguish between a localized collapse and global civilization collapse.

We've already seen local civilization collapses due, at least in part, to climate change.  Syria and Sudan’s Darfur region are two conflicts that seem to be partially driven by climate change.  But think out what it would take to cause the entire world to fall into conditions that would drive us back to the stone age.  Or whatever version of civilization collapse you envision.

Think about how rapidly or not rapidly that might happen and what ways we might have to maintain the general civilization we now have, albeit perhaps on a smaller scale.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: nanning on June 30, 2019, 05:45:59 AM
Quote
But think out what it would take to cause the entire world to fall into conditions that would drive us back to the stone age
We can't go 'back' to the stone age I think because we miss the expertise, the know-how. Almost all skills have been forgotten, especially in richer countries.

Our global interconnectedness and extreme dependence on technology makes us very vulnerable. Local collapse will have ripple on effects. I don't think 'we' can scale back. Once it goes, it goes. We don't have the resilience and redundancy like e.g. ecosystems. We've built a house of cards.
Seeing what's left of ideals and enlightenment, empathy and morals, I'd say civilisation is already collapsing.

sorry for the off-topic.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 30, 2019, 08:33:01 AM
Quote
But think out what it would take to cause the entire world to fall into conditions that would drive us back to the stone age
We can't go 'back' to the stone age I think because we miss the expertise, the know-how. Almost all skills have been forgotten, especially in richer countries.

Our global interconnectedness and extreme dependence on technology makes us very vulnerable. Local collapse will have ripple on effects. I don't think 'we' can scale back. Once it goes, it goes. We don't have the resilience and redundancy like e.g. ecosystems. We've built a house of cards.
Seeing what's left of ideals and enlightenment, empathy and morals, I'd say civilisation is already collapsing.

sorry for the off-topic.

I simply don't buy into domer porn.  The total collapse of civilization due to extreme climate change is as unlikely as the other big fantasy that entertained so many a few years back, the total collapse due to peak oil.

Peak oil is no longer a danger because within a few years we could transform our transportation systems, make some unliked but tolerable changes in lifestyle, and continue on.  There was no oil cliff over which the world would have tumbled but, at worse, a decrease of affordable oil supply played out over several years.

If we screw up and allow extreme climate change we won't wake up one morning and find seas eighty feet higher and summer temperatures unbearable over the entire planet.  Those changes would happen over time and as thing became worse at least a portion of us would devise a way to survive. 

We've got the technology to protect ourselves from extreme heat and grow the food we need in controlled conditions.  We probably couldn't support billions, but we could support hundreds of thousands or millions.  And we can take our knowledge and technology with us as we retreat underground or into heavily insulated buildings during the worst of the heat.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: vox_mundi on July 05, 2019, 06:54:17 PM
Call for Green Burial Corridors Alongside Roads, Railways and Country Footpaths
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-green-burial-corridors-roads-railways.html

A leading public health expert is calling for a strategic initiative to develop green burial corridors alongside major transport routes because British graveyards and cemeteries are rapidly running out of room. With 500,000 deaths annually in England and Wales, it is likely that there will be no burial space left within five years.

Writing in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Professor John Ashton points to the recent announcement of a scheme to plant 130,000 trees in urban areas as a contribution to reducing pollution and global warming. While lacking in ambition, he writes, it gives a clue as to what might be possible by joining up the dots of green environmentalism and human burial.

Open Access: John Ashton, Necropolis in crisis: housing the living is one thing, there is also a problem in housing the dead (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0141076819860091), Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (2019)
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on July 06, 2019, 11:00:15 PM
Just plant a forest the size of the United States (where?) and remove 205 billion tons:
https://news.sky.com/story/planting-a-forest-the-size-of-the-us-could-stop-climate-change-study-11757051
and https://news.mongabay.com/2019/07/two-studies-provide-dueling-looks-at-where-trees-should-go/
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: sidd on July 07, 2019, 06:20:24 AM
Re: where

i attach fig 2 b and c

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on July 12, 2019, 03:44:34 AM
Can't solve AGW just by planting trees:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/07/10/reforestation-climate-change-plant-trees/#.XSflZ5NKiis
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on July 16, 2019, 03:21:06 PM
More on reforestation not being the answer:
https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/7xgymg/planting-billions-of-trees-isnt-going-to-stop-climate-change
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: nanning on August 01, 2019, 11:17:33 AM
"Sucking carbon out of the air is no magic fix for the climate emergency"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/01/negative-emissions-tech-climate-emergency-carbon-dioxide-emissions (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/01/negative-emissions-tech-climate-emergency-carbon-dioxide-emissions)
By Simon Lewis, professor of global change science at University College London.

Quote:
With a range of options, we might think that negative emissions means that climate change can be tackled, and tackled fast. But evidence that these technologies can work at a small demonstration scale is causing the opposite. Negative emissions are treated as a “get out of jail free” card – a licence to keep emitting and clean up the mess later with new technologies. Politicians and their advisers love them, because they can announce a target such as 1.5C while planning to exceed it, with temperatures hopefully clawed back later in the century through negative emissions.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on August 01, 2019, 11:38:11 AM
"Sucking carbon out of the air is no magic fix for the climate emergency"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/01/negative-emissions-tech-climate-emergency-carbon-dioxide-emissions (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/01/negative-emissions-tech-climate-emergency-carbon-dioxide-emissions)
By Simon Lewis, professor of global change science at University College London.

Quote:
With a range of options, we might think that negative emissions means that climate change can be tackled, and tackled fast. But evidence that these technologies can work at a small demonstration scale is causing the opposite. Negative emissions are treated as a “get out of jail free” card – a licence to keep emitting and clean up the mess later with new technologies. Politicians and their advisers love them, because they can announce a target such as 1.5C while planning to exceed it, with temperatures hopefully clawed back later in the century through negative emissions.

The technology works ( actually it is easy to scrub CO2 from the air). The problem is the footprint of the facilities ( huge surface area needed ), the energy to absorb pure CO2 ( is it not negative ) and the capital needed. All around estimates are really lowballing it. The famous examples of outfits that have been seen lately in the news dont have the skills or the desire to scale them up.
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: DrTskoul on August 01, 2019, 11:39:50 AM
Call for Green Burial Corridors Alongside Roads, Railways and Country Footpaths
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-green-burial-corridors-roads-railways.html

A leading public health expert is calling for a strategic initiative to develop green burial corridors alongside major transport routes because British graveyards and cemeteries are rapidly running out of room. With 500,000 deaths annually in England and Wales, it is likely that there will be no burial space left within five years.

Writing in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Professor John Ashton points to the recent announcement of a scheme to plant 130,000 trees in urban areas as a contribution to reducing pollution and global warming. While lacking in ambition, he writes, it gives a clue as to what might be possible by joining up the dots of green environmentalism and human burial.

Open Access: John Ashton, Necropolis in crisis: housing the living is one thing, there is also a problem in housing the dead (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0141076819860091), Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (2019)

Composting is even better
Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 23, 2019, 02:00:57 AM
An overlooked solution to climate crisis
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2019/columnists/an-overlooked-solution-to-climate-crisis.html
Quote
Grasslands are, perhaps, the most neglected ecosystem in the world. However, their ability to meet the climate change challenge must galvanise nations into putting them high on the conservation agenda. The Government must take note

Grasslands across the globe,  especially in India, have played a silent but stellar role in reining in the process of climate change. But according to a study by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal, climate change, pollution and various environment alterations across the globe are changing their identity. One of the key contributions made by grasslands is their inconspicuous role in containing carbon levels in the atmosphere. It is this storage capacity for carbon that makes grasslands effective warriors against climate change.

Title: Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Post by: Ken Feldman on August 29, 2019, 08:28:20 PM
Here's a link to a good article about biochar and the role it can play in sequestering carbon dioxide.  The format is an interview with the CEO of a start-up company that is making bio-char from bio-mass burning.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/28/biochars-role-in-mitigating-climate-change/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/28/biochars-role-in-mitigating-climate-change/)

Quote
Biochar is a stable form of carbon, made from woody materials in a heat and oxygen-deprived system. Conventionally, biochar has been made as a small residue of biomass power production. Each tonne of biochar contains about three tonnes of carbon dioxide. When the wood is taken and turned into a stable carbon, it can’t escape as a liquid or gas, which would happen if it were burned or decomposed.
Biochar is carbon that you can hold in your hand – like charcoal. In the natural carbon cycle, about 1% of carbon is sequestered. By making biochar of the biomass, you can sequester up to two-thirds of the carbon in the biomass. Nature already knows how to sequester carbon into the soils, but we need to learn.

Quote
I’ve read that there are over 50 known use cases for biochar, and new research comes out every month indicating a new use possibility. Could you maybe give us a few examples of the best use cases?
Our first use case is urban landscaping. Plants are under severe stress in urban areas and campuses with not much space to live and runoff water can have a lot of toxins.
Stockholm did a very successful trial where biochar was planted in the root system of the trees as a stormwater filter, aerating the roots and providing some room to move about, while filtering the toxins out.
To me, the most powerful application for biochar is raising the pH of acidic soils, helping the soil ‘microbiome’ by co-composting to put into the ground. This way, biochar can have a long-lasting effect on the living part of the soil, and stabilize the nutrients.
Other use cases include stopping nutrient or other matter leaching into waterways (biofilters), water cleansing, speeding up compost, and environmental remediation from toxins.