Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)  (Read 12384 times)

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #50 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.)


DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #51 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.
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 710
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #52 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.

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

ghoti

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #53 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.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #54 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. 

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #55 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.
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #56 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.

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #57 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.
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #58 on: April 27, 2017, 09:51:57 PM »
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?


DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #59 on: April 28, 2017, 12:15:58 AM »
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.
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

mati

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #60 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.
and so it goes

ghoti

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #61 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.

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #62 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 ??
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2039
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #63 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)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #64 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 ....

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1716
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #65 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

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #66 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.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1051
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #67 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.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #68 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

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

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1051
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #69 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. 
 

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #70 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.

Tor Bejnar

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1519
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #71 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!

Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1051
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #72 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.






Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #73 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.


Tor Bejnar

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1519
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #74 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.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #75 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.

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 710
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #76 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/

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.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #77 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/

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.


ghoti

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #78 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.

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 710
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #79 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/


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/

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. 
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #80 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.
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1590
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #81 on: June 06, 2017, 06:47:38 AM »
I still fail to understand the benefit of CO2 capture without storage.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #82 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.)

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 710
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #83 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

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

 
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #84 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

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
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1590
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #85 on: June 06, 2017, 08:58:19 PM »
Thanks for the response Bob.

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 317
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #86 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.

Martin Gisser

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 437
  • alias Mars Joh. P. Florifulgurator
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #87 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

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:
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.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 12:21:52 AM by Martin Gisser »
"The universe is irrelevant for all practical purpose." --Florifulgurator

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2241
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #88 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


Martin Gisser

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 437
  • alias Mars Joh. P. Florifulgurator
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #89 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...
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

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
http://peaksurfer.blogspot.de
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:
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.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 05:15:39 PM by Martin Gisser »
"The universe is irrelevant for all practical purpose." --Florifulgurator

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #90 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.

morganism

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #91 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

"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


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....

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 317
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #92 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).

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #93 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

"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


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.

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1793
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #94 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
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'.



Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #95 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
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.

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1716
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #96 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



oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1590
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #97 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.

etienne

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
    • About energy
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #98 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.

timallard

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 133
  • designer
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« Reply #99 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 ...

-tom