Live data from Hacker News

A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

pubs.rsc.org

171–180 of 269 posts

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

#171
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Energy efficiencies do not decrease energy use, you just get more of the cheaper thing. I agree more with the second point; the way that I'd say that is humans as a species will never self-moderate energy use.

This is false, energy efficiencies do decrease energy use, in most situations. Jevon's paradox is the exception, not the rule.

For example, increasing fuel efficiency of cars does decrease energy use, because fuel cost is not the limiting factor foe most car travel. Similarly, more efficient lighting, more efficient home space heating and water heating, and better weatherization of homes, all increase energy efficiency and decrease energy use.

There's only so much lighting I would ever want to use, only so much heat, only so much time I want to spend in a car. Energy efficiency is one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce pollution, because it makes all the other things easier.

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

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely we can agree that growth in total energy usage must stop at some point? With continuous growth, you run into the limit of the earth's ability to radiate heat into space, or later on, the energy produced by the sun, in worryingly short timeframes.

We can agree to talk about it again once we’re exploiting the energy of the entire galaxy.

Without FTL, I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about a "we" doing galactic conquest, it'll be a bunch of societies who never talk to each other, or even separate species given the timescales involved.

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

#173
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy efficiencies do not decrease energy use, you just get more of the cheaper thing. I agree more with the second point; the way that I'd say that is humans as a species will never self-moderate energy use.

This is false, energy efficiencies do decrease energy use, in most situations. Jevon's paradox is the exception, not the rule. For example, increasing fuel efficiency of cars does decrease energy use, because fuel cost is not the limiting factor foe most car travel. Similarly, more efficient lighting, more efficient home space heating and water heating, and better weatherization of homes, all increase energy efficien…

As an anecdote: if you take an ant population (or any controllable population), and put it into a confined space with constrained resources, the population eventually dies due to one of two things:

1. Elimination of resources

2. Excessive waste product (in this case, excrement and bodily wastes; pollution)

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

#174

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…

> There is no viable future scenario in which mankind's energy usage decreases

sure there is. reduce the population by a factor of 10.

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

#175
post #57

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...

The flooding is hardly "water world": https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z "Central estimates in the recent literature broadly agree that global mean sea level is likely to rise 20–30 cm by 20503,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. End-of-century projections diverge more, with typical central estimates ranging from 50–70 cm under representative concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 and 70–100 cm under RCP 8.53,9,10,12, though mo…

#1 thank you for sharing, I was all prepared to come back here and say "20 cm-30 cm is a lot! that puts half of boston underwater!", but it doesn't, not even remotely, and thus is a useful reminder to me I can chill

#2 to be fair to OP, think they're referencing what would happen to humanity as a whole if we _didn't_ have carbon capture, not specifically "water world by 2100", and something I've picked up since moving to Boston from Buffalo is that storm surge has a _much_ more significant effect when you're around so much water. Even the 20-30 cm, once you add a foot or two of storm surge that we get a handful of times a year, floods most of Boston in 2050.

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

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false, energy efficiencies do decrease energy use, in most situations. Jevon's paradox is the exception, not the rule. For example, increasing fuel efficiency of cars does decrease energy use, because fuel cost is not the limiting factor foe most car travel. Similarly, more efficient lighting, more efficient home space heating and water heating, and better weatherization of homes, all increase energy efficien…

As an anecdote: if you take an ant population (or any controllable population), and put it into a confined space with constrained resources, the population eventually dies due to one of two things: 1. Elimination of resources 2. Excessive waste product (in this case, excrement and bodily wastes; pollution)

You seem to be talking about the need of a species to rely on a greater ecosystem in order to survive. However, I'm not sure how that relates to demand elasticity and energy efficiency. Perhaps you could be a bit more explicit?

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

#177
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy efficiencies do not decrease energy use, you just get more of the cheaper thing. I agree more with the second point; the way that I'd say that is humans as a species will never self-moderate energy use.

This is false, energy efficiencies do decrease energy use, in most situations. Jevon's paradox is the exception, not the rule. For example, increasing fuel efficiency of cars does decrease energy use, because fuel cost is not the limiting factor foe most car travel. Similarly, more efficient lighting, more efficient home space heating and water heating, and better weatherization of homes, all increase energy efficien…

>For example, increasing fuel efficiency of cars does decrease energy use

MPG from passenger car didn't decreased since 1976 despite huge advancement in fuel efficiency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CAFE_mpg_curve_from_NHTSA...

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

#178

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...

Yes. But don’t forget that for many, berating people into living like a vegan hermit is part of the point, and if science solves that problem it gets taken away from them. It’s the same people who want everyone to keep using masks even after vaccination.

Where are those "masks forever" people? I hear about them, but I never seem to hear them. Is there a news report or something I can read?

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

#179

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…

You are mostly right, but the missing part is that you don't need to turn the CO2 back into a hydrocarbon fuel, you just need to turn it into something that isn't gaseous CO2.

So carbon capture hinges on the idea that we can find a low-energy route that involves a chemical reaction with CO2 that produces something that isn't a fuel but isn't gaseous CO2 either. And that we can find a LOT of it.

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

#180
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The fact is that coal energy externalities have been ignored, artificially depressing the cost. Increasing the cost of a product to reflect those externalities is not a "blow to the industry", but rather the first time in history coal's price will reflect its externalities. Nope, it's not a great time to be a coal-miner, but I hear Biden is trying to spend $4T on infrastructure so maybe some of those miners c…

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…

>Nobody reacts favorably to doing a hard job, every day, and then listening to someone tell them they're killing the planet.

Sorry, but them's the breaks! Don't mean to sound harsh, but larger industries have died for worse reasons. What you do is what the wage earner did in the past: you suck it up and you move on because you have to provide for your family.

How many layers of industries have we invented and then rendered obsolete by subsequent industries? That number varies, in energy alone consider all the changes in distribution, extraction, etc. There has been a great deal of change in our understanding of the world since the invention of the coal industry, and it turns out coal is far more expensive than we realized.

I can see though why this seems synthetic, and why one would be motivated to challenge the assertion of fact. And it is true, that this argument is "synthetic" in the sense that it requires synthesizing many different observations spread over time and space using methods most of us aren't familiar with.

But a lot of us are swayed by the argument that using all this stored up energy in the ground has a side-effect of increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in direct proportion to that consumption, and that this in turn is unwanted because CO2 is opaque to IR, and it will increase global temperature.

There is a "false debate" about whether or not the global temperature is actually increasing. If you look at the data, or even just the satellite photos of the arctic over time, you should be convinced that there is no debate, and its just a simple fact. (And while a conspiracy that has modified those images is technically a possibility, I think there's enough on-the-ground evidence to back it up. If those Richard Attenborough narrated programs are computer generated, then they have rendering technology beyond anything in Hollywood.)

This simple assertion of fact (and its acceptance by a strong majority) has real ramifications for us in the most personal of ways, because it is a matter of the quality of life for our kids and grand-kids.

The scale of the change we must make is going to be big, and I think the coal miners are going to get the least of it. We Americans are all going to have to consider our consumption more carefully, become more frugal, more European. Our cars will shrink, and become electric. Our physical store options will become more limited, but computer mediated options more diverse, more local, more self-sustaining.

Ideally this change comes naturally as small town kids get educated in major universities in big cities, and are introduced to what I can only describe as an "Enlightenment Era Ethos", one that is rational, reasonable, skeptical, experimental (and innovative), and which is clearly convinced of the reality and importance of Global Warming. Personally, I'm convinced on first principles. Clearly energy expenditure we make, moving a 4-ton SUV 15 miles each way for one person to go to the supermarket, where each item comes wrapped in its own weight of disposable, nested wrappers that serves more of a marketing purpose than a "safe food delivery" purpose."

America can and must go through what I call the "Contraction", where life here becomes more European, communal, local and frugal in terms of the daily details of your life. There will also be the further embrace of a national safety net, and not just for old people. My hope is that cultural shifts will help major chains like Starbucks contract, too, being eclipsed by local cafes with better products, made with greater care, at similar prices, and giving more people the experience of running a business and being the boss! Heck, I would like to see the return of the local ISP business, just a rack of computers in an office park with battery backups and a person who knows how to maintain it all and secure it.

So, don't be fooled. American coal workers have an outsized influence on national politics in those states because reasons. Their jobs aren't more sacred than anyone elses and if they feel "tied to the land" or their "way of life", I tell them: I'm sorry. We will all need to change if we're to keep our ecosystem healthy by averting a possibly unfixible tragedy.

I will volunteer right now and in a legally binding way, to tutor, for free, any coal miner who wants to learn how to code for a living. Reach out via profile. First come, first serve.

Post reply on HN