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

191–200 of 269 posts

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

#191

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #178
rayiner wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You should read my Facebook wall. I’m not saying there’s a lot of them, but I’m apparently Facebook friends with all of them. :D

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

#192

Post by epistasis »

revax wrote: post #177
epistasis wrote: post #171

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…

>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...

There's a lot going on with US gasoline consumption:

1) land use decisions are pushing people further from workplaces

2) consumers are switching from the "car" class of vehicle to "light truck" which is negating fuel efficiency improvements [1]. There's a lot going on here, from people getting larger vehicles for perceived safety, to better comfort, to just having more money to spend on larger vehicles. Plus, all those people who think they need a truck despite using the bed once or twice per year.

3) Demand for gasoline is incredibly inelastic in response to price, with huge price spikes having almost no change in gallons of gasoline even as consumption in dollars spike [2]

[1] https://thenextweb.com/shift/2021/01/12/despite-ev-growth-ga...

[2] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40893

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

#193

Post by corty »

throwaway316943 wrote: post #70
DennisP wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One great idea for storage is underground basalt formations. Inject CO2, and it'll turn into limestone in under two years. It can't solve the whole problem by itself, but there's enough capacity for gigatons of CO2. There are several entities working on this. Here's a company with a small pilot project, and links to scientific papers: https://www.carbfix.com/

I believe basalt can be produced artificially as well, is there a chance we could build limestone farms? That would be a neat trick.

Artificial production alone doesn't do the trick. It would have to be low in energy consumption, preferably exothermic. I don't think there is such a reaction with plentifully available material. Otherwise you spend more energy on the basalt than the CO_2 production gave you.

Also, large parts of this planet consist of natural basalt deposits, every area with some current or historic vulcanism has them. E.g. half of Siberia is a huge basalt deposit. Google Siberian Trap. So I do not think artificial production would be necessary.

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

#194

Post by eitland »

CharlesW wrote: post #163
londons_explore wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$47.10 per ton smells like someone has calculated the cost of the reagents and cited that as the price... Any estimate of this process cost would never be to 3 Sig fig.

I don't know why $47.10 is any less credible than $47, but here's more detail on what the estimate represents from TFAMA: "For the $47.10/metric ton carbon capture cost, 48% comes from CAPEX while the remaining is OPEX. The equipment life of a carbon capture unit would be similar to that of a power plant, about 20-30 years. The $47.10/metric ton cost is just for carbon capture, and does not include transportation and…

It is still suspicious to use so exact numbers for a technology that has not yet been tested out at scale at all.

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

#195

Post by hansvm »

londons_explore wrote: post #40
seesawtron wrote: post #21

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-…

$47.10 per ton smells like someone has calculated the cost of the reagents and cited that as the price... Any estimate of this process cost would never be to 3 Sig fig.

Sig figs are just a crude method to in-band signal some bounds on your estimates. They don't seem super relevant here when communicating an order of magnitude improvement.

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

#196

Post by phreeza »

eitland wrote: post #194
CharlesW wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why $47.10 is any less credible than $47, but here's more detail on what the estimate represents from TFAMA: "For the $47.10/metric ton carbon capture cost, 48% comes from CAPEX while the remaining is OPEX. The equipment life of a carbon capture unit would be similar to that of a power plant, about 20-30 years. The $47.10/metric ton cost is just for carbon capture, and does not include transportation and…

It is still suspicious to use so exact numbers for a technology that has not yet been tested out at scale at all.

In my experience, the obsession with correct significant figures is an american high school thing. Why should you deliberately have to choose a number that is not your best guess? Ideally you should include confidence bounds, but if you don't, it shouldn't imply that you are confident to that level.

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

#197

Post by ByteJockey »

rbanffy wrote: post #182
gfodor wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody should have to choose between living a healthy life and feeding their family.

Ok, but people did.

And there's a certain amount of pride in that struggle.

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

#198

Post by phreeza »

tim333 wrote: post #120

For comparison I was looking back at the "Project Vesta – Mitigating climate change with green sand beaches" thing. There were estimates of $10-$25 a ton for olivine rock https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20415138

Neither of these mechanisms are likely to be completely price inelastic, so in a perfect world we would pursue both of them to a degree relative to their price.

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

#199

Post by petra »

thechao wrote: post #141
tim333 wrote: post #120

For comparison I was looking back at the "Project Vesta – Mitigating climate change with green sand beaches" thing. There were estimates of $10-$25 a ton for olivine rock https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20415138

I don't know why the Democrats, in particular, don't turn this into political hay: it's literally the perfect counter to the coal issue. 1. Olivine is plentiful, everywhere, including as the tailings from huge defunct coal mines; 2. All of the mining & transportation infrastructure is already in mining country; 3. Mining country is desperate for solid, dependable blue collar work; and, 4. Mining country already has e…

It's not enough to change people's beliefs about climate change and political choices.

>> Olivine is plentiful, everywhere,

That means olivine will be mined everywhere. not necessarily in coal country.

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

#200

Post by adrianmonk »

phreeza wrote: post #196
eitland wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is still suspicious to use so exact numbers for a technology that has not yet been tested out at scale at all.

In my experience, the obsession with correct significant figures is an american high school thing. Why should you deliberately have to choose a number that is not your best guess? Ideally you should include confidence bounds, but if you don't, it shouldn't imply that you are confident to that level.

That's definitely where I learned that it was expected.

I look at it as one of many possible conventions for communicating precision. For what it is, it works well. But it's not universal, and people who do and don't use it should both keep in mind that the other group exists.

Post reply on HN