A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Just checked the numbers, for those interested.
A gas power plant produces around. 200-300kWh per tonne of CO2.
Capture costs 300-900kWh per tonne captured.
So this is basically non viable using fossil fuel as the power. If you aren't, then storage of that power is likely a lot better.
It's also worth noting that it is still CO2 gas. Long term containment of a gas is far harder than a liquid or solid.
Who says you power that thing with fossil fuels? The real way to do that is via giant nuclear reactors or reactor complexes.
Fission power can be made cheaper per MW by just making the reactors bigger. Economies of scale, the square cube law and all that. The problem with doing this in the commercial power sector is that line losses kill you on distribution. There just aren't enough customers within a reasonable distance to make monster 10 GW or 100 GW reactors viable, regardless of how cheap they might make energy.
But DACC is one of the few applications this might not be a problem for. Just build your monster reactors right next door to your monster DACC plants.
But then the power generated by those reactors is better used to power things that burn fossil fuel in a less efficient way or to simply replace the fossil fuel powered electricity generators...
Quebec transports its electricity over more than a thousand kilometers, surely distance from nuclear reactors isn't an issue if you build the infrastructure around it.
Only when the last carbon based power plant is close, we can see if there's energy left to waste on that capture carbon machine.
I'm sure the AI datacenters would have a few GW to spare if we put the LLMs on pause.
There are 3 use cases I've seen.
Making fossil fuel power stations "clean".
CO2 recovery for long term storage.
CO2 for industrial use.
It's no good for the first, due to energy consumption. This is the main use I've seen it talked up for, as something that can be retrofitted to power plants.
It's poor for the second, since the result is a gas (hard to store long term). We would want it as a solid or liquid product, which this doesn't do.
The last has limited requirements. We only need so much CO2.
The only large scale use case I can see for this is as part of a carbon capture system. Capture and then react to solidify the carbon. However, plants are already extremely good at this, and can do it directly from atmospheric air, using sunlight.
Solar and Wind are cheaper than nuclear now. The main problem is it's not sunny and/or windy every day. A carbon capture system doesn't need to be running 24/7 though.
If we build way more wind/solar than we use then the excess can dumped into things like this.
Sorry but the economics of nuclear just doesn't work for everything.
Good luck building enough capacity in nuclear power to do that. Nuclear plants tend to be a lot more expensive and take a lot longer to build than anticipated.
It's also way easier to just stop digging up coal instead of inefficiently trying to get the exhaust from burning it partially back underground.
You would presumably capture the carbon using excess solar and wind power, which is also the cheapest power there is, sometimes going negative
Is your capture number including the cost of liquifying the CO2 for storage?
If you want to capture the CO2 from fossil fuel, it feels like it'd be easier to filter it out before dumping it in the atmosphere in the first place (apart from the obvious option of just not using fossil fuel)
That small red bulb counteracts the entropy argument because you bring energy (and quite a lot of I recall) into the system.
Would be a sad day if we no longer could reduce entropy locally under the invest of energy.
Would be a sad day if we no longer could reduce entropy locally under the invest of energy.
I don't think there'd be anyone left alive to be sad in that case...
That's sad
The wider issue is you have to generate that energy, and you have to be able to capture more carbon than that generation released.
As I understand it doesn't at all. This is why it's seen as analagous to a perpetual motion machine, it's an endless chain of power plants capturing each others carbon to no end.
You could use solar of course, but then why generate anything with fossil fuels just to capture the carbon with solar? Just use solar.
Because we still need to bring CO2 levels down even if we stop burning fossil fuel.
And then we'll probably need to burn fossil fuel to keep them at the right level, since we are in a capitalistic society and we're never going to be able to shutdown the CO2 collectors if they are ever built.
There are plenty of arguments to be made against direct air capture, but entropy isn't one of them. Nobody ever claimed this is some kind of perpetuum mobile.
This is a joke.
While physically possible DAC is a waste of money and energy compared to effective measures such as constructing solar farms, batteries and power lines. Even hydrolysis may look attractive.
At the latest after decarbonization of the power grid (yes I am laughing as I write this), we will want to remove CO2 from the air which was emitted 50 years ago. Also I would like to point out that the IPCC scenarios about reducing global warming already include carbon capture. Plans to remove CO2 from energy production till 2035 already only work under the premise that we actively start removing CO2 from the atmosphere simultaneously.
The point is to use a low carbon power source to power it.
Yes that’s the point but why take the extra steps. Use the low carbon energy directly and stop using the high carbon sources.
The argument is that there exist some use cases where we do not have a viable low carbon energy source yet (things like heavy farming equipment or aircraft), and one can effectively counteract the emissions of these things until we do develop one. Or alternatively, by the time that we eliminate all the high carbon energy, the heating effect already present may be well beyond what we desire the climate to be like, and returning it to a prior state would require not just not emitting carbon, but removing some of what is already there.
It does also get pushed by organisations that profit from fossil fuels as an excuse to never need to decarbonise as they can hypothetically just capture it all again later, which is dumb and impractical for a variety of reasons, including the one alluded to above. Some kind of Carbon sink will need to be part of the long-term solution, but the groups pushing most strongly want it to be the whole solution and have someone else pay for it so they can keep doing the same things as caused the problem in the first place.
viable low carbon energy source yet
Not limited to energy sources either: steel production requires carbon as part of the alloy.
In the production of cement, calciumcarbonate gets heated and emits co2.
Both of these products can not be made without the emission of co2, even when using 100% solar and wind energy
I think the ideal argument is both. Have a grid that's (at least vast majority) green, and work towards using said green energy to recapture some CO2
Even if we went to zero emissions soon, we'd still want to decrease CO2 over time to reverse the effects of climate change. Capturing co2 is always going to be much more energy intensive than not emitting it in the first place, but sometimes you don't have another choice.
The problem isn't a missing technology. it's our political and economic system.
I'm all for advancing tech but nothing is going to work until we fix our behavior. We use fossil fuels because they're profitable and allow or growth-at-all-cost economy. There's nothing for which they're the only option. Only a few things for which they're the best option; the power grid and transit aren't on that list.
Yes but no. The two actual uses of carbon capture is to remove the co2 from the air before it would happen naturally and the other is making fuel sustainable for retro or novelty vehicles. You dont have to stop selling gas cars if all the fuel they use is made with carbon capture. This makes the fuel more expensive but more sustainable. Once you have driven a 911 or skyline you will understand why someone would want to drive a gas car ;) Also, technically you are going from a higher energy fuel to lower energy so as long as you can do something with the co2 it abides by thermodynamics but the problems arise when you consider real world losses.
TLDR: carbon capture is a technology we should use after we stopped polluting to fix the earth.
TLDR: carbon capture is a technology we should use after we stopped polluting to fix the earth.
Yeah, it would just give people a blank check to use more fossil fuels. It is kinda like a diabetic person who acquired the disease later in life, and still not adjusting their lifestyle because drugs mitigate the effects anyhow. And the person will keep eating unhealthy food or not exercising.
Carbon capture is problematic. If I remember the area required to reduce C02 would be the size of Georgia and the air intake would be pulling in hurricane force winds. The numbers could be off but it would be a massive project that would require to be built by probably CO2 dumping infrastructure like factories.
Personally I'd say it would be better to colonize the Pacific Ocean so algae goes in deep ocean to be a carbon sink
That's essentially how many gases are made from mixtures, like notrogen or oxygen. Showing this as something new tells a lot about author's uderstanding. Carbon capture is not about making entirely new tech, it's optimization, and that's where startups suck at everything except for getting and then wasting cash.
Where are we putting all this CO2?
Old oil wells, preferably in high limestone areas
Just wait until they figure out how much carbon is captured by planting a tree.