So there are filters that simply collect CO2 by trapping the molecules directly? Wow, TIL.
Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂
11–20 of 168 posts
Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂
#12The way I see it is that we are way beyond all reasonable bounds already, concerning co2 ppm in the air. Even if we stop all emissions this very moment, there’s still way too much already in the atmosphere. So, we are going to need co2 removal either way if there shall be any hope of ever returning to a world climate similar to before 1980. I am no expert in the field, but this is an area that at least gives me some…
It’s hard for me to believe that the answer isn’t biological given the whole self replication thing.
Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂
#13I'm curious what happens with all the bugs that get stuck in the filters. I imagine a huge amount of air has to pass through everyday and bugs have no chance to escape these giant fans and they will get stuck and die in the different levels of filters.
It's great if this technology works, but side effects have to be studied as well before they are put in use at scale.
Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂
#14The way I see it is that we are way beyond all reasonable bounds already, concerning co2 ppm in the air. Even if we stop all emissions this very moment, there’s still way too much already in the atmosphere. So, we are going to need co2 removal either way if there shall be any hope of ever returning to a world climate similar to before 1980. I am no expert in the field, but this is an area that at least gives me some…
Superfluous renewable energy already has to go to hydrolysis to produce hydrogen to be saved for times whenever renewables don't produce energy.
Actually battery storage and stored hydro work. As does long duration battery storage options that are in the works now.
Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂
#15The way I see it is that we are way beyond all reasonable bounds already, concerning co2 ppm in the air. Even if we stop all emissions this very moment, there’s still way too much already in the atmosphere. So, we are going to need co2 removal either way if there shall be any hope of ever returning to a world climate similar to before 1980. I am no expert in the field, but this is an area that at least gives me some…
Superfluous renewable energy already has to go to hydrolysis to produce hydrogen to be saved for times whenever renewables don't produce energy.
Superfluous energy should go to the consumer which otherwise would consume the most CO2. We do not need to use hydrogen when renewables aren't available (if such a situation should arise). We can continue to use fossils for these (rare) situations.
The only thing which matters is to use energy in the most CO2 efficient way to achieve goals overall.
Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂
#16I don't see how these are improvements over algae bioreactors. Capturing the CO2 without reducing it will lead to less oxygen in the atmosphere as well. Also at least with bioreactors you get useful products/energy. This just generates more waste products and consumes energy.
Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂
#17"Our plants require less land than other techniques. E.g., on a land area of 0.42 acres, our Orca plant can remove 4,000 tons of CO₂ from the air every year, which is almost 1,000 times more effective than trees. The same land would host around 220 trees with an estimated capacity of 22kg each" How much land, in solar panels for example, is required to power this? Also what's the carbon waste that this generates? Is…
How much carbon is produced by the transportation and storage of the carbon that is captured? I want to see their carbon math for the whole process (including electricity) to prove this is all truly carbon neutral, seems like something that should be front and center on their website but they only vaguely discuss the carbon footprint of the plants.
Having a business saying their product is carbon negative when the actual end to end process isn't seems par for the course, especially one with VC backing...
Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂
#18"Our plants require less land than other techniques. E.g., on a land area of 0.42 acres, our Orca plant can remove 4,000 tons of CO₂ from the air every year, which is almost 1,000 times more effective than trees. The same land would host around 220 trees with an estimated capacity of 22kg each" How much land, in solar panels for example, is required to power this? Also what's the carbon waste that this generates? Is…
For context, 4000 tons of CO2 is roughly the emissions of a full 777 flying from San Francisco to London and back twice.
Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂
#19The way I see it is that we are way beyond all reasonable bounds already, concerning co2 ppm in the air. Even if we stop all emissions this very moment, there’s still way too much already in the atmosphere. So, we are going to need co2 removal either way if there shall be any hope of ever returning to a world climate similar to before 1980. I am no expert in the field, but this is an area that at least gives me some…
It’s hard for me to believe that the answer isn’t biological given the whole self replication thing.
The Industrial Revolution is a history of various industrial processes outcompeting biology within a narrow boundary. Cars pull more than any horse, trains as well, an airplane flies faster and with much more cargo than any bird, and the industrial production of nitrogen is faster than bat guano.
CO2 fixation might also follow this curve, in fact, as a technology in isolation that's what I would bet on. Economics aside, a machine that sucks CO2 directly out of the air will remove much more CO2 than the equivalent parcel of land would if biology were used.
Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂
#20"Our plants require less land than other techniques. E.g., on a land area of 0.42 acres, our Orca plant can remove 4,000 tons of CO₂ from the air every year, which is almost 1,000 times more effective than trees. The same land would host around 220 trees with an estimated capacity of 22kg each" How much land, in solar panels for example, is required to power this? Also what's the carbon waste that this generates? Is…
>The energy usage: We're committed to driving down energy consumption as much as possible. We only use renewable energy, energy-from-waste, or other waste heat to power our plants.
They make it impossible to do the math. Energy consumption, lifetime capital cost per ton, are what make or break this scheme.