How One Company Pulls Carbon From The Air, Aiming To Avert A Climate Catastrophe

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
25,046
Location
ON, Canada eh?
Interesting Article: https://www.npr.org/2018/12/10/6737...mPJ2tg0o4pRF5aJPtqLI4tVZ56yb0nLenTzx0SB0
Quote
At a major climate meeting in Poland, nearly 200 countries are trying to reach a deal on dramatically reducing carbon emissions. But a recent U.N. report found that may not be enough to avoid dangerous impacts from the warming climate. In fact, the world is falling so far short of what's needed, it said, that it might be necessary to pull massive amounts of carbon dioxide out of the air. The problem is that there's no feasible — let alone economical — way to do that yet. But there are a number of efforts underway to find one, including in the small, picturesque town of Squamish, British Columbia, an hour's drive north of Vancouver. Carbon Engineering has been working for nearly a decade on the technology behind a "direct air capture" pilot plant, which sits just outside its office. That may sound simple, but it's not. Even though scientists say there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere now, it's at a very small concentration — only about 0.04 percent. "So you have to pull in a huge volume of air to get that CO2, and that's really the trick to direct air capture," says Jenny McCahill, a chemist and engineer who works for Carbon Engineering. Next, more chemicals are added and the solution is heated to create white pellets that look like the filling in bean bag chairs. These contain about 50 percent CO2. Then the pellets are heated to 900 degrees Celsius (1,652 degrees Fahrenheit) to further concentrate the CO2 into a gas. At this point the company could inject that underground. That's one way to address climate change. But there's no business model for that right now, and Carbon Engineering is looking for profits to help its technology expand. To that end, it combines the CO2 gas with hydrogen extracted from water and makes a clear, synthetic fuel that McCahill says is similar to crude oil. "It's a lot purer, so we don't have impurities like sulfur and nitrogen components that end up with that soot when you combust," she says. Once this fuel is put through a refinery, McCahill says it can be turned into products such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. But burning those emits carbon dioxide, so essentially carbon would just be moved around instead of reduced in the atmosphere. Still, the company argues there's an environmental benefit. "We capture it again the next day and we make more fuel out of it," says company CEO Steve Oldham. "So the CO2 becomes recycled, and consequently there's no additional emissions from using fuel." That's because Carbon Engineering's fuel would replace carbon-intensive fossil fuels. But that cleaner fuel comes with a cost. "If we were to sell our fuel directly at the pump today, we're about 20 percent more expensive than regular gasoline," Oldham says. Right now you can't buy this fuel, though, because the company's pilot plant removes just one ton of CO2 from the air each day and produces only about two barrels of synthetic fuel. But Oldham says his company is ready to start building larger plants. With investors that include Bill Gates, Carbon Engineering has spent $30 million perfecting this process. The company says it can extract carbon dioxide from the air for less than $100 a ton, a claim two other companies, Climeworks and Global Thermostat, also make. But some experts are skeptical this can be done that cheaply. It takes a lot of energy to move that much air and heat to concentrate the CO2. And energy costs money. "The reality is, it's a lot cheaper to keep CO2 out of the air than to capture it once we get it into the air," says Howard Herzog, senior research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative. He thinks reducing emissions makes more economic sense than direct air capture technologies. But many scientists argue it's too late to rely only on reducing emissions, with mounting projections of dire consequences from climate change. "Certainly, in light of the recent climate reports, we don't have the option of simply avoiding carbon emissions any more. We now are at a point where we need to start removing CO2 directly from the atmosphere," says Jennifer Wilcox, chemical engineering professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Wilcox says this technology shouldn't be seen as the one solution to climate change. But combined with many other efforts, she thinks it could make a valuable contribution. Still, Wilcox and others say the technology needs more research and development. "I see this industry similar to the renewable energy industry, maybe 20 or 30 years ago," says Carbon180 Executive Director Noah Deich. His group in Oakland, Calif., advocates for an economy that removes more carbon than it emits. Deich says direct air capture needs the kind of private and government investment that helped wind and solar grow. Earlier this year Congress did expand tax credits for extracting carbon. "I think an even bigger opportunity on the policy front is in California," Deich says. The state's Low Carbon Fuel Standard includes a carbon trading program for transportation fuels such as gasoline. That could be a big boost for Carbon Engineering's fuel. Carbon Engineering's Oldham also wants more governments to put a price, or tax, on carbon dioxide emissions. "It will force companies that have a carbon footprint today to find ways to mitigate that carbon footprint, and we're a very good way of doing so," he says. Oldham says his company plans to soon build its first full-size plant, one that will remove much more carbon dioxide from the air and run on renewable energy. (The pilot plant uses natural gas.) If all goes well, he hopes it will become a model for many more such plants in the near future.
More on this here: https://www.sciencealert.com/a-cana...from-the-air-and-turning-it-into-pellets
Quote
A Canadian Start-Up Is Removing CO2 From The Air And Turning It Into Pellets A pilot project to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into pellets that can either be used as fuel or stored underground for later has been launched by a Vancouver-based start-up called Carbon Engineering. While the test facility has so far only extracted 10 tonnes of CO2 since its launch back in June, its operations will help inform the construction of a $200 million commercial plant in 2017, which is expected to extract 1 million tonnes per day - the equivalent of taking 100 cars off the road every year. It plans to start selling CO2-based synthetic fuels by 2018. "It's now possible to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, and use it as a feed stock, with hydrogen, to produce net zero emission fuels," company chief executive Adrian Corless told the AFP. Funded by private investors, including billionaires Bill Gates and oil sands financier Murray Edwards, Carbon Engineering is not the only company in the world intent on solving our carbon dioxide problems, but it claims to be the first to demonstrate how its technology can be scaled up to have both an actual environmental impact and commercial potential. Instead of tackling the CO2 that pours out of factory smokestacks - because there are existing machines that do this pretty well - the Carbon Engineering 'direct air capture plant' will deal with everyday carbon emissions from buildings, transportation, and agriculture. "Emissions from sources you just can't otherwise capture," Corless says. "It's still a pilot-scale plant," he told CBC News. "But it's very important, because it's the first time that anyone's demonstrated a technology that captures CO2 that has the potential to be scaled up to be large enough to be relevant from an environmental or climate point of view." As we reported back at the time of the test plant launch, direct air capture works just like these new solar cells that split water into a hydrogen fuel. The recycling plant extracts CO2 from the air using a giant complex of fans and a liquid hydroxide solution that reacts with the air to form a carbonate mineral. This carbonate pellet is processed inside a locked vessel and converted back into carbon dioxide and water vapour, which can be used as fuel, or stored for later. [Linked Image] According to CBC News, the larger plant should be able to produce up to 400 litres of gasoline or diesel per day using this method. One of the main things it has going for it is that because it turns the CO2 into fuel, no change in infrastructure will be needed to power big fuel-guzzlers such as ships, planes, and long-haulage trucks. Even existing petrol pumps can work with the fuel. A major limitation of solar and wind technologies, on the other hand, is that they require specific technologies to capture and disperse energy. "The nice thing about the technology is that there are no real limitations for it to ultimately, in theory, displace all of the existing fossil-based transportation fuels," Corless said. Going forward, the most important thing for Carbon Engineering to figure out is how to be commercially viable. As Kesavan Unnikrishnan points out at Digital Journal, carbon can cost anything from $1/tonne (Mexico and Poland) to $130/tonne (Sweden) around the world, and Carbon Engineering will need to sell its product at around $100/tonne to support itself commercially. We'll have to wait and see how things go for direct air capture in the future, but we're so excited by its potential. Watch the video below to find out more about how it works:
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,940
Location
...
The big question is, is this energy efficient in the production of these carbon pellets? It sounds like a takeoff of a air separation plant.
 
Messages
43,651
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by PimTac
The big question is, is this energy efficient in the production of these carbon pellets? It sounds like a takeoff of a air separation plant.
The process in the lower picture is not the process described in the upper speil. It shows using 1 half tonne of CO2 to capture 1 tonne, then storing the 1.5 tonnes for "later" or for fuel....immediately that has lowered the efficiency of the process that lead to the CO2 release by 30-50%. Re the upper process described (to fuel). * Heating the mineral to 900C...fair bit of energy in that, espacially as only 50% is Carbon * Hydrogen from water - massively inefficient process. So there's vast embedded energy in the fuel produced....again an efficiency loss. I would be interested if the plant could self sustain (i.e. produce enough fuel to run the process)...I'd like to see a test plant that does that first, then see it improve to the point of producing more than itneeds.
 
Messages
15,940
Location
...
Originally Posted by MolaKule
Many unsupported assumptions in that 'fluff" title.
It's from NPR, not exactly a fair and balanced news source.
 
Messages
3,134
Location
Western S.C.
That scheme impresses me as a complicated perpetual-motion machine, which might be useful to manufacture fuel from carbon dioxide only if powered by a source of low-cost carbon-free electric power.
 

StevieC

Thread starter
Messages
25,046
Location
ON, Canada eh?
Even if it buys us time by shifting the CO2 around and no extra CO2 is added in the process by running this off of clean energy sources it might be part of the solution until we can find something better. And yes I know this is a long stretch, I'm just talking hypothetically.
 
Mother Nature ain't exactly a dummy... as CO2 increases, plant growth rates increase, sequestering the additional CO2 all on its own. As CO2 decreases, the growth rates slow. You remember the touching scene in The Lion King, the circle of life? It's not just a catchy tune. Last time I checked, the planet has been keeping track of itself for just a little bit longer than since men invented the Industrial Revolution. Everything else is related to commerce, and specifically, the fleecing of the wealth of the people "for their own good". If these things like carbon sequestration and "global warming/climate change" were really truly a problem, instead of effectively adding taxes to the people in forms of "carbon credits" and additional regulations, the governments would close down the offending companies/industries and throw all of the company executives in prison for life. Since this isn't what's happenning, it's pretty good proof you're not really being told the whole truth, as the "bad people" stay free, and get richer as the government subsidizes their paychecks with OUR money to "control the problem".
 

StevieC

Thread starter
Messages
25,046
Location
ON, Canada eh?
Sure but we have to stop cutting down trees at the astonishing rate we are doing so. I'm also sure that we are creating more CO2 than plants can eat up at the same rate considering the amount in our atmosphere keeps increasing and not leveling off or decreasing.
 
Last edited:
Messages
109
Location
Flyoverland, KY
The Rube Goldberg design and inherent economic impracticalities of this process make me wonder if the original release date of the article was April 1, 2018. It will be far simpler not to put CO2 into the air to begin with than try to pick 4 molecules of CO2 out of 10,000 molecules of ambient atmosphere.
 
Messages
9,410
Location
Canuck living in California
So the cap and trade scheme is not working? Who would've thought. Now we need more taxpayer dollars to pull the carbon out of the air. Now, is anybody looking at China, India and other developing nations for emissions? Nope that's probably where the carbon tablets will end up anyways, paid for us of course, to make even more money.
 
Messages
3,648
Location
Worst Case, Ontario
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Mother Nature ain't exactly a dummy... as CO2 increases, plant growth rates increase, sequestering the additional CO2 all on its own. As CO2 decreases, the growth rates slow. You remember the touching scene in The Lion King, the circle of life? It's not just a catchy tune. Last time I checked, the planet has been keeping track of itself for just a little bit longer than since men invented the Industrial Revolution.
I learned that from PBS Eons on YouTube!
Originally Posted by KrisZ
So the cap and trade scheme is not working? Who would've thought. Now we need more taxpayer dollars to pull the carbon out of the air.
Carbon tax = tax on energy that is difficult to for the public to quantify and evaluate.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Now, is anybody looking at China, India and other developing nations for emissions?
That would interfere with the wealth transfer.
 
Messages
9,025
Location
Virginia
Tell their buddy AG to stop flying his private jet all over the world.... That will help just by itself. And tell that champion to sell his two large homes and live in a tiny house with solar panels.... Then I believe...
 
Messages
43,651
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by StevieC
Even if it buys us time by shifting the CO2 around and no extra CO2 is added in the process by running this off of clean energy sources it might be part of the solution until we can find something better. And yes I know this is a long stretch, I'm just talking hypothetically.
Digging holes to fill the ones in behind you isn't accomplishing anything. Burning an extra half tonne of carbon to shuffle a tonne of carbon is worse than accomplishing nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top