A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by imtringued » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 12:59 PM UTC

Klapaucius wrote: post #54

holoduke wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Key is to plant plans and trees. Billions of them. Our energy needs will only become bigger. Transition to renewable economy is in progress. That's good. But there is not enough focus on plants and trees.

For any mitigation solution, you have to ask 3 questions 1) How much does it cost 2) How much space does it require 3) How does it scale Planting trees performs excellent on (1) but terribly on (2) and (3). According to Bill Gates' recent book on the topic (where he aims as best has he can to summarize the state of knowledge as per today), you'd basically have to make a big forest of the rest of the world just to off…

You're supposed to turn the Sahara into a green forest. The obvious problem is that you would need the cooperation of those countries.

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

#92

Post by chobeat » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 1:00 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #33

chobeat wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Enough time for what? All I'm predicting is that carbon reduction will follow a path. Slow, then fast, then slow again. At that late point, exhaust capture may be mandatory... I would even say probably.

Enough time to prevent systemic collapse that will inevitably make intervetions to such a scale possible.

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

#93

Post by DennisP » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 1:02 PM UTC

Gravityloss wrote: post #61

iamthemonster wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

$50 per tonne? A coal plant produces about a tonne of CO2 for every MWh produced. Industrial electricity price might be $50 per MWh. So just paying for the carbon capture doubles your electricity price? $100 carbon capture charge would triple it. I can't see how this could be competitive. We have an excellent carbon storage technology, it's called coal. And what's best, it's already there, underground, very safely, p…

It certainly makes no sense to capture CO2 from burning coal. But lots of industries are harder to decarbonize than electricity production. On top of that, we're past the point where just stopping emissions is enough; we have to draw CO2 levels back down.

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

#94

Post by samlosodesign » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 1:03 PM UTC

If we do this we also need to build Snowpiercer

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

#95

Post by khuey » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

Gravityloss wrote: post #61

iamthemonster wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

$50 per tonne? A coal plant produces about a tonne of CO2 for every MWh produced. Industrial electricity price might be $50 per MWh. So just paying for the carbon capture doubles your electricity price? $100 carbon capture charge would triple it. I can't see how this could be competitive. We have an excellent carbon storage technology, it's called coal. And what's best, it's already there, underground, very safely, p…

> I can't see how this could be competitive.

It can't. Coal plants are dinosaurs that need to be shut down. Charging a carbon price is one way to make that happen faster.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 1:12 PM UTC

layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #78

magicalhippo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Does this include the carbon ultimately released from oil that was sold to other countries by Norway?

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by vbezhenar » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

Just plant trees, cut them and bury in the oceans. Nature already have all the necessary mechanisms to capture carbon. On the plus side it'll serve as an energy reserve for future civilizations should ours collapse.

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

#98

Post by marvin » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 1:16 PM UTC

magicalhippo wrote: post #30

iamthemonster wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Super fascinating. Wasn't aware that the suggested CO2 tax was this high. This is the order of magnitude we need to aim for, in order to make CO2 removal and reduction of CO2 emissions properly profitable.

I get the impression that the tax is to be levied on the entity that emits CO2 to the atmosphere, not the fuel producer?

What's also encouraging is that it's the right party fronting this suggestion. It's not a fringe left-wing environmental party.

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

#99

Post by elgfare » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

Jouvence wrote: post #44

elgfare wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the low hanging fruit is to attach this to a power plant or some other CO2 emitting process.

That's true, but then it is surely better to cut out the middle-man and just not use fossil fuels for static generation in the first place. The energy needs which are hard to meet with renewables (aviation, other large-scale transport) are the same places where CCS is non-viable due to the efficiency hit. The best we can do is decarbonise as quickly as possible, and live with the fallout of our failure to act this fa…

The best we can do is to do everything we can. It might also be interesting to start burning biomass and capturing the CO2, which would be net negative.

Maybe it's viable for cement production as well.

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

#100

Post by khuey » Sun, Apr 04, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

linknoid wrote: post #80

iamthemonster wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe you can help enlighten me on this. I've been struggling to understand the basics thermodynamics of carbon capture for quite some time. So we have a hydro-carbon, we mix it with oxygen, and the oxygen combines with the hydrogen and the carbon, and releases heat as a byproduct. The heat energy increases the pressure of the newly created CO2. This higher pressure is placed on one side of a turbine or a piston, and…

Enthalpy of combustion for CH4 is 802 kJ and for an equivalent amount of gaseous hydrogen it's 286 kJ so most of the energy does come from the carbon.