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

111–120 of 269 posts

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

#111

Post by magicalhippo »

marvin wrote: post #98
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...

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 fri…

> I get the impression that the tax is to be levied on the entity that emits CO2 to the atmosphere

Yes that seems to be the case[1].

> It's not a fringe left-wing environmental party.

Indeed, so will be interesting times ahead. Not unsurprisingly Norway has a very oil-oriented industry, which obviously did not think too highly of this proposal. There's lots of talk about transitioning to a "greener economy" but precious few concrete proposals about how to turn those jobs green.

So yeah, interesting times ahead.

[1]: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/okonomi-og-budsjett/skatt...

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

#112

Post by inglor_cz »

Aachen wrote: post #55
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 wonder if this won't be an environmental hazard in itself. What do we do with it after it's captured its CO2? I don't see coal being an environmental hazard and that's carbon captured in the ground. Plus you have to ask whether some risk of leaks or whatever is worse than not even trying at all. > I don't think we'll manage to do significant CO2 capture before the effects are irreversible anyway. - Without joking…

"I don't see coal being an environmental hazard"

As long as you do not accidentally set it on fire ...

This is actually fairly close to Aachen, no?

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

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

#113

Post by inglor_cz »

graeme wrote: post #50
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…

Avoiding emissions would certainly be better. It is supremely inefficient to dig up and burn fuel now then capture it and bury it later. But current global plan is to keep doing the first part, so we’ll have to undo it. We actually already likely have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if we went to zero emissions today the climate would keep warming from the accumulated CO2 and feedback effects. Takes some years f…

Well, anyone can decide to run potential future capture plants, cleaning up after others (that includes the previous generations), while everyone would have to agree to reduce emissions.

What looks inefficient as far as pure physics goes, might be very efficient politically. Build some solar power plants in the Sahara, use the energy to sequester carbon, pay poor countries like Niger some money for that, reduce the current migration stream to Europe by creating local green jobs - that does not sound too bad.

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

#114

Post by marcosdumay »

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…

> My experience on a 2009 carbon capture plant design was that approx $100 per tonne of CO2 was the lowest carbon price that would really make carbon sequestration highly attractive and widespread.

Is there a market for captured carbon? I understand there is a small market for industrial process and carbonated water, but are there people buying long-term capture in large enough quantities to make an impact?

Anyway, I don't think the price matters on that scale. Once we decarbonize electricity, I think it will be governments and non-profits that will do most of the carbon capture (unless there exists a large market for my previous question), and for those a lower price only means a higher rate of growth, not the difference between viable or non-viable.

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

#115

Post by ehnto »

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 doesn't have to be competitive, it has to be regulated. If coal plants and CO2 emissions heavy processes aren't viable once the cost of sequestering the carbon is charged to the people emitting the carbon, then they should give way to processes that do (or be expensive enough that they're only used when necessary)

We can't solve the crisis by trying our best not to disturb the status quo, things are going to get shaken up a bit.

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

#116

Post by magicalhippo »

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?

As I understand it no, it only covers usage of oil and other fossil products.

On the one hand I absolutely agree that's ignoring a major CO2 source.

On the other hand, if Norway added the CO2 tax to exported fossil fuel but other countries did not, would that affect fossil fuel consumption in any meaningful way?

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

#117

Post by marcosdumay »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #14
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…

Ok closed loop sounds better, the article didn't clarify this. But the compression itself and the heating will cost significant energy too, don't forget this. But consider for a moment how much coal and oil we've been digging up since the industrial age. CO2 is much less dense once it's uncontained underground. It won't stay liquid at that pressure. In that case we'll need to have underground space of a size of many…

> But the compression itself and the heating will cost significant energy too, don't forget this.

That's in the abstract, it's 2GJ/ton of carbon. So, it's roughly 1/20 of the energy generated by burning the carbon at the first place.

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

#118

Post by watertom »

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…

The effects are irreversible. Once the permafrost began to thaw, and that started back in the 80’s, it’s been game over. The permafrost is releasing massive amounts of CO2, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide, in about 10 years the earth itself will be releasing as much greenhouse gasses as humans release.

The entirety of the Paris agreement has been a joke, cap warming? You can’t cap the warming, you need to put the earth into a stable situation to cap the warming, but that’s not possible. The earth’s climate has a number of positive feedback loops running, positive feedback loops don’t stop until either they run out of “fuel” in this case it would be greenhouse gases as the fuel, but with the permafrost thawing it will continue to thaw and release greenhouse gases, causing more warming, causing more gases to be released.

The other way to stop a positive feedback loop is a disruptive event. The climate positive feedback loop is massive so the disruptive event would also need to be massive, like a large meteor hitting the earth, or a super volcano erupting, of course both of those events would kill most life on earth, but it would stop global warming.

All we can do is witness what we’ve set into motion. What I think will happen is that through the acidification of the oceans the phytoplankton population will crash. Phytoplankton is the basis for the entire marine ecosystem, when that population crash happens, the entirety of the marine food chain will collapse quickly. 40% of the world’s population relies on the ocean as their primary source of protein.

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

#119

Post by dalbasal »

chobeat wrote: post #92
dalbasal wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see.
Post reply on HN