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

131–140 of 269 posts

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

#131

Post by TigeriusKirk »

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 think we should really reduce our energy usage instead.

There is no viable future scenario in which mankind's energy usage decreases. It's a pipe dream, and ultimately a dangerous one.

Energy use is fundamentally tied to progress to such an extent that we should always be looking for ways to increase the energy available to us.

Of course the energy should be produced in as low-impact a manner as possible, but it's long past time to accept that energy usage will go up, not down.

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

#132

Post by namibj »

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…

Be aware that capturing exhaust CO2 of coal plants is about the cheapest source of CO2 for capturing, as you just need to pre-enrich the air in oxygen to get nearly-pure CO2 exhaust.

This expensive part is for capturing CO2 out of ambient air, where you only get like 0.04%.

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

#133

Post by LatteLazy »

quotemstr wrote: post #51
LatteLazy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put it in perspective, 100usd/tn would let me (limey brit) maintain my wasteful lifestyle for just 5300 a year. That's very affordable when the alternatives are Water World level flooding or living like a vegan hermit in a cave...

> 100usd/tn would let me (limey brit) maintain my wasteful lifestyle for just 5300 a year. That's very affordable In the eyes of the annoying kind of climate activist, the affordability you've mentioned is a bug, not a feature. Too many people who claim to care about the planet want to use the climate as a pretext to reform everyone's lifestyle and to roll back industrial civilization more generally. This sort of act…

Best get on and solve it as an engineering issue before too many people read the Unabomber Manifesto...

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

#134

Post by scsilver »

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…

If coal plants produce 50$ in unaccounted externalities for every 1MWh they produce, is it fair to any of us to allow them not to have to pay for it's mitigation?

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

#135

Post by namibj »

DennisP wrote: post #53
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…

For electricity generation, it'll be cheaper to build low-carbon generators. For long-distance jet travel, it's probably cheapest to turn the captured CO2 into fuel. For emissions from concrete, ambient capture and sequestration might be best. The great thing about a price on carbon is that the market would sort all this out.

The emissions from concrete come from limestone kilns, which are even easier to capture the CO2 from than coal power plants.

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

#136

Post by gfodor »

rbanffy wrote: post #126
ethbr0 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issues with coal mining are (a) it sucks and is dangerous, (b) therefore, people who do it, or whose families have done it, feel a lot of pride about it, (c) in the US, it's typically located in parts of states that don't have a lot of other employment (Wyoming, Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia). If you're serious about getting rid of coal in the US, it needs to start with "We appreciate your and your family…

> (a) it sucks and is dangerous, (b) therefore, people who do it, or whose families have done it, feel a lot of pride about it We really need to get rid of that “proud to kill myself to make my employer richer” trait. > "We appreciate your and your family's work over the years, and here's a truckload of money and economic development for your region so that you can lay down that burden." It’s only fair.

They’re not proud because they’re killing themselves for their employer, they’re proud for killing themselves to feed their families, and perhaps because they are creating energy for others to use.

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

#137

Post by DennisP »

namibj wrote: post #135
DennisP wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For electricity generation, it'll be cheaper to build low-carbon generators. For long-distance jet travel, it's probably cheapest to turn the captured CO2 into fuel. For emissions from concrete, ambient capture and sequestration might be best. The great thing about a price on carbon is that the market would sort all this out.

The emissions from concrete come from limestone kilns, which are even easier to capture the CO2 from than coal power plants.

Ah, interesting.

Agriculture is a pretty diffuse source though. And ultimately, we need to take CO2 levels back down to 350ppm or so.

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

#138

Post by kenmacd »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #131
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 think we should really reduce our energy usage instead. There is no viable future scenario in which mankind's energy usage decreases. It's a pipe dream, and ultimately a dangerous one. Energy use is fundamentally tied to progress to such an extent that we should always be looking for ways to increase the energy available to us. Of course the energy should be produced in as low-impact a manner as possible, but it's…

It seems this excludes increases in efficiencies. For example today we have lighting that uses a small fraction of the power of a couple decades ago.

Plus we're nearing peak populations, after which the number of humans will be going down.

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

#139

Post by namibj »

DennisP wrote: post #137
namibj wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The emissions from concrete come from limestone kilns, which are even easier to capture the CO2 from than coal power plants.

Ah, interesting. Agriculture is a pretty diffuse source though. And ultimately, we need to take CO2 levels back down to 350ppm or so.

Oh, for sure.

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

#140

Post by plutonorm »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #131
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 think we should really reduce our energy usage instead. There is no viable future scenario in which mankind's energy usage decreases. It's a pipe dream, and ultimately a dangerous one. Energy use is fundamentally tied to progress to such an extent that we should always be looking for ways to increase the energy available to us. Of course the energy should be produced in as low-impact a manner as possible, but it's…

Is transitioning slowly back to a hunter gatherer life style morally a bad idea? If so why?
Post reply on HN