121–130 of 198 posts
It should be much more cost-effective to float wind turbines to pump surface water to benthic depths. Then, the whole ocean is your CO2 collection surface. You might also pump water from (lesser) depths to the surface to distribute over coral reefs to relieve both heat and pH. (Picture a line of these some miles seaward, all up and down the Great Barrier Reef.) The wind turbine nacelle could be substantially cheaper…
"CO2 acts as an acid and will bind to a base, whether in the liquid phase or on a solid surface. We have developed a process to bring air in contact with a base substrate that captures CO2 molecules while letting N2 and O2 molecules pass through" Interesting, and of course worth noting that many geological events have done exactly this when calcium bearing rock (chemically basic) is exposed and weathered, capturing c…
It should be much more cost-effective to float wind turbines to pump surface water to benthic depths. Then, the whole ocean is your CO2 collection surface. You might also pump water from (lesser) depths to the surface to distribute over coral reefs to relieve both heat and pH. (Picture a line of these some miles seaward, all up and down the Great Barrier Reef.) The wind turbine nacelle could be substantially cheaper…
You should build this! This is one of those "all of the above" moments.
I don't know how the carbon credit economy works. I would welcome enlightenment.
It should be much more cost-effective to float wind turbines to pump surface water to benthic depths. Then, the whole ocean is your CO2 collection surface. You might also pump water from (lesser) depths to the surface to distribute over coral reefs to relieve both heat and pH. (Picture a line of these some miles seaward, all up and down the Great Barrier Reef.) The wind turbine nacelle could be substantially cheaper…
You should build this! This is one of those "all of the above" moments.
It should be much more cost-effective to float wind turbines to pump surface water to benthic depths. Then, the whole ocean is your CO2 collection surface. You might also pump water from (lesser) depths to the surface to distribute over coral reefs to relieve both heat and pH. (Picture a line of these some miles seaward, all up and down the Great Barrier Reef.) The wind turbine nacelle could be substantially cheaper…
So yeah maybe it's better for the planet but since it's harder to regulate it would be tricky to get funding to build that if the potential profit comes from the government intervening to set a price for the CO2 removal you are doing.
I think you are completely mistaken in your endeavor. Please plant trees and care for the soil, since your scheme will never do anything for biodiversity. You are just trying to cut us all off from the source of life.
I appreciate your comment & we hope to convince you otherwise as we get more process data from getting to pilot scale & beyond. Biodiversity is already being harmed today by the droughts, fires, floods, human migration patterns, etc. caused by ongoing global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, and this harm may likely only get worse in the decades to come without the development of solutions that make…
The intuitive counter-argument is that long term there shouldn't be any "burning sites" left and that capturing all burning sites would only ever get us to zero but not to negative emissions, but that's not true when you include burning sites that run on biological sources. Let plants deal with the 400ppm problem, use those plants as fuel, sequester where those plants are burnt. Negative emissions.
Why bother with 400ppm when there are so many, well, "burning sites" untapped? The intuitive counter-argument is that long term there shouldn't be any "burning sites" left and that capturing all burning sites would only ever get us to zero but not to negative emissions, but that's not true when you include burning sites that run on biological sources. Let plants deal with the 400ppm problem, use those plants as fuel,…
"Great question. We'd love to capture point-source CO2 from factory flue gas where it is orders of magnitude more concentrated (often >10%) than in air (~400ppm). And fundamentally, there is no reason our process cannot be applied for this type of CO2 capture. For now, we are choosing to focus on air for 2 reasons:
1) Market. Early buyers of CO2 credits are primarily looking to get very clean accounting of who gets credit for the CO2 removed, and will pay a premium for anyone who can do it. If a buyer (say, a software company) pays for a polluting chemical factory or power plant to capture some of its emissions, it requires complex multi-party contracts & the incentives between the parties are often conflicting. That being said, point-source CO2 removal is absolutely needed & a huge opportunity/problem and more work is needed from a technology/policy side.
2) The "extreme user" case. If we give 100% focus to solving the more challenging problem of removing CO2 from air, we may gain learnings & knowledge that will translate to an improved point-source capture process, whether from an energy/efficiency/cost perspective."
I would love to see a page on your website where you compare yourselves (in a fair and transparent way) to the best plant that does the same thing. I am not knowledgeable in the field. But there will be some algae or mangroves that get CO2 out of the air. I would love to see that comparison. Incl. the aspect that the plant does not need to be repaired, multiplies on its own, etc.
Most likely, industrial/engineered solutions and nature-based/bio-based/ocean-based solutions will need several years to evaluate which paths are most viable. We wish everyone luck in this challenge for the world's sake!
I think you are completely mistaken in your endeavor. Please plant trees and care for the soil, since your scheme will never do anything for biodiversity. You are just trying to cut us all off from the source of life.
I appreciate your comment & we hope to convince you otherwise as we get more process data from getting to pilot scale & beyond. Biodiversity is already being harmed today by the droughts, fires, floods, human migration patterns, etc. caused by ongoing global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, and this harm may likely only get worse in the decades to come without the development of solutions that make…
Please understand, this is not as simple as you think.