Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

pubs.rsc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 269 posts

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#21

Post by seesawtron »

This [0] AMA from the research group answers most of the questions I am seeing here in the thread.

"Technologies range from aqueous amines - the water-rich solvents that run through modern, commercially available capture units - to energy-efficient membranes that filter CO2 from flue gas emitted by power plants. Our newest solvent, EEMPA, can accomplish the task for as little as $47.10 per metric ton - bringing post-combustion capture within reach of 45Q tax incentives."

[0] reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/mdouzu/askscience_ama_series_hi_reddit_we_are_scientists/

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#22

Post by raverbashing »

adammunich wrote: post #3
qeternity wrote: post #2

Alright HN domain experts. I’m prepared. What’s the rub?

It’s only practical on mixtures with high co2 gas concentrations

I wonder how research is doing to concentrate CO2 from the PPM amounts we have "in regular air"

There are at least two low-hanging fruits that make it "easier": CO2 is heavier than other important gases and mildly polar.

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#24

Post by macspoofing »

iamthemonster wrote: post #13
GekkePrutser wrote: post #8

For making a dent in global warming we'll need to have billions of tonnes of this "N-(2-ethoxyethyl)-3-morpholinopropan-1-amine (2-EEMPA)" stuff.. I wonder if this won't be an environmental hazard in itself. What do we do with it after it's captured its CO2? We can't just dump that stuff in the sea. I wonder if CO2 capture does not cause more problems than it solves. Even if we magically could capture CO2 as pure car…

1. The solvent in carbon capture runs in a closed loop. You typically heat it, and it releases the CO2 so you can compress it and inject it below ground. 2. You don't necessarily need a depleted natural gas reservoir to inject CO2 subsurface (though they sure are convenient) and there is plenty of room for CO2 subsurface. It also doesn't creep to the surface on any meaningful timescale. 3. How do we transport it ther…

>I feel like CO2 sequestration is second only to nuclear in the amount of unfounded concerns

The problem with CO2 capture specifically (specifically from the atmosphere as opposed to at the source) is that CO2 comprises a very small part of air. This means you have to move huge amounts of air through a capture device to capture a very small amount of carbon. How is that ever going to make sense?

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#25

Post by chobeat »

dalbasal wrote: post #19
chobeat wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like with every other solution, under the current political and economic systems, there's no incentive to scale it up quickly enough to make a dent in global warming and it will just live in small local prototypes and in the dreams of techno-solutionists.

True, but if it's really good, it probably could be brought into the political/economic system at some point. Just mandate zero emissions for certain classes of carbon fuel burners... like power new stations. Replacing the first 30% of fossil fuel usage is hard/slow. At some point, it will become much easier/quicker... because the economics will be favourable. The last 30% of fossil fuel will be hard/slow. Fossil fue…

lot of wishful thinking here. There's clearly not enough time for this

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#26

Post by chobeat »

chr1 wrote: post #7
chobeat wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like with every other solution, under the current political and economic systems, there's no incentive to scale it up quickly enough to make a dent in global warming and it will just live in small local prototypes and in the dreams of techno-solutionists.

That's not a techno solution worth to dream about, the real techno solution is a fine grained control of weather (like https://viento.ai ) and in that case the extra CO2 in atmosphere will be naturally sequestered in fields and farms in Sahara.

thanks but no thanks

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#27

Post by dalbasal »

neolog wrote: post #17
chr1 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a techno solution worth to dream about, the real techno solution is a fine grained control of weather (like https://viento.ai ) and in that case the extra CO2 in atmosphere will be naturally sequestered in fields and farms in Sahara.

That "leadership team" doesn't seem qualified to be working in this area.

Aubrey de Grey, heh? IDK... now I like it more.

What he is qualified for is running this sort of effort. I just don't know what to call this sort of effort.

Viento is a ‘moonshot’ nonprofit pioneering targeted weather security... by combining big data, forecasting breakthroughs and AI directed weather interventions... framed as "break glass in case of climate emergency."

So... I don't like the idea. I do however, like the way he puts together moonshot projects, generally. Maybe this will evolve into something better. It's useful to have 0.X% of people working on tech, to be doing it in an environment that isn't standard academia or big tech.

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#28

Post by GekkePrutser »

shoo wrote: post #16
GekkePrutser wrote: post #8

For making a dent in global warming we'll need to have billions of tonnes of this "N-(2-ethoxyethyl)-3-morpholinopropan-1-amine (2-EEMPA)" stuff.. I wonder if this won't be an environmental hazard in itself. What do we do with it after it's captured its CO2? We can't just dump that stuff in the sea. I wonder if CO2 capture does not cause more problems than it solves. Even if we magically could capture CO2 as pure car…

I agree that avoiding emissions in the first place is preferable to trying to figure out how to undo the emissions afterwards. Mental model of emission removal scope is some giant world system maybe 1x or 2x the size of the fossil fuel industry, trying to run in reverse what we've spent the last hundred or two years doing. Carbon tax, carbon tax, carbon tax. Something significant like $250 / ton. Cannot come soon eno…

Exactly that's what I think too. We have to do the removal much faster than we did the actual burning. And the removal will only cost us money, not fuel our economy. I just don't see this happening at significant enough scale. And the capture will have lots of environmental impact too if we do it at that massive scale.

And I agree about the carbon tax. It could even pay for some of the removal.

The strange thing here now in Europe is that greener alternatives like trains are taxed much higher than dirtier ones like airplanes. Because trains have VAT taxes on them, but the planes fly on kerosene that's exempt from tax and the price kept down due to international agreements.

As a result trains aren't a reasonable alternative and won't be for at least the next 20 years or so (as the train network would have to be scaled up significantly which would have been happening already if it was more a better alternative to flying). It's a shame because Europe is a great place for this with lots of short-distance trips.

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#29

Post by cryptica »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #8

For making a dent in global warming we'll need to have billions of tonnes of this "N-(2-ethoxyethyl)-3-morpholinopropan-1-amine (2-EEMPA)" stuff.. I wonder if this won't be an environmental hazard in itself. What do we do with it after it's captured its CO2? We can't just dump that stuff in the sea. I wonder if CO2 capture does not cause more problems than it solves. Even if we magically could capture CO2 as pure car…

As a rule of thumb, any attempt to control things on a global scale when there are millions of unknown variables will always have unexpected drawbacks and more likely than not, the drawbacks will not be worth the benefits.

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#30

Post by magicalhippo »

iamthemonster wrote: post #13
GekkePrutser wrote: post #8

For making a dent in global warming we'll need to have billions of tonnes of this "N-(2-ethoxyethyl)-3-morpholinopropan-1-amine (2-EEMPA)" stuff.. I wonder if this won't be an environmental hazard in itself. What do we do with it after it's captured its CO2? We can't just dump that stuff in the sea. I wonder if CO2 capture does not cause more problems than it solves. Even if we magically could capture CO2 as pure car…

1. The solvent in carbon capture runs in a closed loop. You typically heat it, and it releases the CO2 so you can compress it and inject it below ground. 2. You don't necessarily need a depleted natural gas reservoir to inject CO2 subsurface (though they sure are convenient) and there is plenty of room for CO2 subsurface. It also doesn't creep to the surface on any meaningful timescale. 3. How do we transport it ther…

> I also happen to think a $100 per tonne carbon price is not such a bad idea.

Government here in Norway recently released their climate plan, and part of it was the gradual increase to 2000 NOK (~234 USD) per tonne of CO2 in 2030[1].

Not sure if it survives the years of politics between then and now though...

[1]: https://www.dn.no/politikk/erna-solberg/sveinung-rotevatn/kl...

Post reply on HN