Atmospheric CO2 removal technologies?

[Jimster41]

Are there any legitimate candidates for technologies that might provide inverse leverage over atmospheric CO2 levels? Super trees, Algae towers, I don't know, anything at all?

I'm just asking about atmospheric control technologies, not about climate change per-se.

of course the wiki has some stuff...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal

 

[rootone]

Any technology which could be capable of significantly altering CO2 levels globally would have to applied on a massive scale and would take a very long time to be effective.
Think about it - although CO2 level is rising and human activity is highly likely to be contributing factor, it has taken nearly 200 years of industrialisation for the changing level of CO2 to become a matter of serious concern.
On a global scale as would be required, I think it's likely that some kind of bio engineering would be more effective than something like chemically processing air.

 

[Jimster41]

Yeah, clearly it's a scale problem. Makes it seem like a cross between a "vast long plan" and some... things is required. I'm just wondering if there is thought to be any chance of an effective and feasible combo, any conceptions.

 

[Rippetherocker]

Despite being an engineer and having an interest in this I have found that the easiest and best approach is reforestation.
The russian taiga frozen all winter comes alive in the summer and replenishes the Earth's oxygen content by 1/3rd !
Zero capital.zero maintainance.
Other than that compounds which absorb CO2 and release them when heated are the most promising.

 

[insightful]

The russian taiga frozen all winter comes alive in the summer and replenishes the Earth's oxygen content by 1/3rd !

I assume you mean that 1/3 of the oxygen that was depleted over the winter is replenished (a tiny fraction of the atmosphere's total oxygen content).

 

[Rippetherocker]

Man I remember that quote verbatim from BBC's Planet Earth. i would assume that they do not lie.

 

[Jimster41]

Despite being an engineer and having an interest in this I have found that the easiest and best approach is reforestation.
The russian taiga frozen all winter comes alive in the summer and replenishes the Earth's oxygen content by 1/3rd !
Zero capital.zero maintainance.
Other than that compounds which absorb CO2 and release them when heated are the most promising.

The compounds you are referring to are these oceanic phytoplankton type compounds (that capture CO2 then sink and decay at depth to form methane hydrate?) Or is there something else.

Could super dense "phytophlankton corrals" be used to crank up that cycle - without destroying the chemistry of the ocean?

Probably this should have been in the "Earth" forum. I didn't even see that forum. Sorry. If the mod wanted to move it?

 

[insightful]

So, you really believe the total oxygen content of the atmosphere is replenished by 1/3? Please to some research and report back.

 

[Jimster41]

A link to the phytoplankton entry on the wiki...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton

Couple of quotes:

"Phytoplankton account for half of all photosynthetic activity on Earth".[3][4]

"Large-scale experiments have added iron (usually as salts such as iron sulphate) to the oceans to promote phytoplankton growth and draw atmospheric CO2 into the ocean. However, controversy about manipulating the ecosystem and the efficiency of iron fertilization has slowed such experiments."[8]

 

[Baluncore]

More phytoplankton can mop up more CO₂, but the requirement for two critical doses of iron about one week apart limits phytoplankton production.

There is a natural iron cycle in seawater that involves phytoplankton, which are eaten by krill, that are in turn eaten by whales, that kindly provide the faecal iron on a regular basis. To have more phytoplankton therefore requires proportionally more krill and whales.

There is a critical tipping point situation here in that higher dissolved CO₂ can block the iron cycle. Krill require a low dissolved CO₂ in order to form their exoskeleton.

 

[rootone]

Bio engineering is a fascinating idea, but it can't exactly be said to be 'safe', in the sense of being fairly confident of the outcome.
Reforestation and probably greening of deserts are both possible and safe.
I am less sure about engineered super-plankton in the sea, but it could work.

 

[jim hardy]

Mother Nature is able to push CO2 down smartly every growing season.

I assume she uses solar powered photosynthesis.

I'm downright cynical about sequestration , those huge compressors will be powered by carbon and the process consumes about 10% of a whatever power you're making.

http://www.kbr.com/Technologies/Process-Technologies/CO2-Compression-and-Sequestration/

A question that is often asked is 'What to do with the CO2 after it has been captured?' Small quantities of essentially pure CO2 can be used for industrial applications including carbonated beverages but, at the scale required for significantly reducing atmospheric CO2 emissions, the two main options for CO2 capture are (a) using CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) or (b) permanent sequestration. For these applications, it is necessary to compress CO2 to about 150 bar. Multiple compressor stages with inter-stage cooling are necessary to reach this minimum miscible pressure for EOR.

This link might interest you...
http://site.ge-energy.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/literature/en/downloads/CCS.pdf

To date, much of the industry’s CCS research has focused on
separating carbon from either the fuel or post-combustion exhaust
streams. This is critical because CO2 separation is the most energy-intensive process step in CCS. But separation isn’t the only area where signifi can't progress canbe made. Closer examination shows that CO2 compression and transportation can account for overall power plant efficiency drains of 6-10%.

 

[Rippetherocker]

The compounds you are referring to are these oceanic phytoplankton type compounds (that capture CO2 then sink and decay at depth to form methane hydrate?) Or is there something else.

Could super dense "phytophlankton corrals" be used to crank up that cycle - without destroying the chemistry of the ocean?

Probably this should have been in the "Earth" forum. I didn't even see that forum. Sorry. If the mod wanted to move it?

I'm talking about scrubbing with amines or metal hydroxides. Though they get degraded really fast. I read somewhere that were trying to create new scrubbers with what else- carbon nanotubes.

 

[Rippetherocker]

So, you really believe the total oxygen content of the atmosphere is replenished by 1/3? Please to some research and report back.

Haha no I don't believe that. Of course its the regeneration of used O². It is largest forest in the world and does contain almost a 3rd of the world's trees.

 

[Baluncore]

It is usually easier to free Mother Nature than to do her job for her.

Mother Nature is able to push CO2 down smartly every growing season.
I assume she uses solar powered photosynthesis.

Every which growing season? The graph "Recent Monthly Mean CO₂ At Mauna Loa" clearly shows an annual cycle.
I would have expected the CO₂ use to be more or less constant with both hemispheres alternating production.
CO₂ seems to rise during the Northern winter while the Southern Ocean is absorbing CO₂ during the Southern summer. Why?

 

[Jimster41]

Yeah that Mauna Loa graph is pretty cool. Haven't seen that before. I would want to make sure and factor out prevailing wind, though I think that's pretty doable in Hawaiii, If I recall. I do remember being struck by just how ridiculously nice the air is in Hawaii. Could have sworn I could smell the O2. . Even if the prevailing wind is part of that graph, still pretty interesting.

Yeah, huge complicated gas to gas separators on coal power plants, to my thinking just aren't going to happen. I'm prepared to be surprised but just holding your thumb up to that idea, especially the compression and injection process, gives pause. Capital investment up front is just massive.

I have to admit, I find the phytoplankton idea a bit comforting. Seems like, if things did get desperate enough, that could be a Hail Mary lord help us lever. Not sayin they will, (they either will,or won't) but it's always a good idea to scan the room for exits. Even if you don't know exactly where they go. The catalysis process, iron seeding, seems like something a few big boats could do, with some tough boats to protect them.

If it was a game of "Risk" and I was Indonesia (at risk of getting drowned), I would be outfitting my navy to do it, if nothing else just to get some leverage on the big CO2 countries.

At least one link re: risk to pacific island nations.
http://www.worldbank.org/content/da...AP/Pacific Islands/climate-change-pacific.pdf

 

[Jimster41]

I met a guy who was involved with this on the utility side. Very interesting dude. One of those probably-genius types that only ever is filthy dirty. He was working on the pilot, or had. We had lunch in the cafeteria at a different plant (I would love to have seen the project). He could have been any big dirty rigger. Someone had given me the impression he had really been the one to figure out the scale and cost problem in the context of the project. Tarps and ditches was how, not domes and pipes, as I recall. He mentioned how the lab guys were thinking of it as a science project, when really it was a farm. I asked him how well it worked, what removal efficiency was possible. He said something like "whatever you want".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreenFuel_Technologies_Corporation

I had wondered whatever happened

 

[insightful]

CO2 seems to rise during the Northern winter while the Southern Ocean is absorbing CO2 during the Southern summer. Why?

By far, most of the land mass and vegetation is in the northern hemisphere.

 

[johnbbahm]

The New e-gas and e-diesel projects in Germany, use atmospheric CO2.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-creat...uture-using-just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524
It takes like 20 lbs of CO2 to make a single gallon of diesel, so the curve that made
burning hydrocarbon fuels bad, makes the synthetic version good.
If we move to making all fuels from scratch, it will not make CO2 go down, it just will not rise much ether.
The technology kills many theoretical birds.
Photovoltaic solar power, is great except for it lacked storage, so the energy was not available when needed.
In addition when we get a large number of solar roof installs, the grid load will become difficult to balance.
Storing all the surplus electricity as man made hydrocarbons, will store the energy for future use, as well as sequester
vast amounts of CO2.

 

[Lok]

I met a guy who was involved with this on the utility side. ...He said something like "whatever you want".

If anybody tells an investor, whatever you want, the investor will turn his back and gently walk away.

The New e-gas and e-diesel projects in Germany, use atmospheric CO2.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-creat...uture-using-just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524
It takes like 20 lbs of CO2 to make a single gallon of diesel, so the curve that made
burning hydrocarbon fuels bad, makes the synthetic version good.
If we move to making all fuels from scratch, it will not make CO2 go down, it just will not rise much ether.
The technology kills many theoretical birds.
Photovoltaic solar power, is great except for it lacked storage, so the energy was not available when needed.
In addition when we get a large number of solar roof installs, the grid load will become difficult to balance.
Storing all the surplus electricity as man made hydrocarbons, will store the energy for future use, as well as sequester
vast amounts of CO2.

The main issue with CO2 sequestration on an industrial scale is the same that green veggies experience. Plants capturing 1 mole of CO2 require around 120 moles of water or worse (google the transpiration ratio). There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the other gases (400ppm or 1 in 2500). Any chemical or physical process of CO2/air separation will be strongly hampered by this low yield condition.
The ideea of fuel from CO2 is nice and rather old, yet impractical to say the least.

 

[johnbbahm]

If anybody tells an investor, whatever you want, the investor will turn his back and gently walk away.

The main issue with CO2 sequestration on an industrial scale is the same that green veggies experience. Plants capturing 1 mole of CO2 require around 120 moles of water or worse (google the transpiration ratio). There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the other gases (400ppm or 1 in 2500). Any chemical or physical process of CO2/air separation will be strongly hampered by this low yield condition.
The ideea of fuel from CO2 is nice and rather old, yet impractical to say the least.

The reality is the cost of finding and extracting oil from the ground will continue to rise.
However impractical, hydrocarbons offer the best long term energy storage currently available.
They are now saying the process is 70% efficient, so it would take about 55 Kwh of electricity
to make a gallon of diesel.
While there could be other sources of carbon, for making hydrocarbons (the Navy extracts CO2 from sea water),
part of this is political. Atmospheric CO2 extraction for making fuel would provide the fuel necessary
for our modern lifestyles, while also satisfying the issue of CO2 emissions.
In addition the solution is compatible with all of our existing distribution infrastructure.

 

[Jimster41]

I'd be a little surprised if Audi hadn't done their basic homework before investing in developing the process. Though I can imagine that they are assuming huge uncertainty across a number of dimensions. This whole idea of using it as a storage mechanism for wasted off-peak wind etc, seems solid to me.

No doubt water is a big constraint. Luckily the planet still has a lot.
Which brings up the subject of desalination technology, and how key it may be to the cost and feasibility problem in other domains, and whether or not there may be breakout opportunities in the physics there. Topic for another thread.

To which cross-domain systems mapping seems really important to me. Since none of the worlds problem are really isolated from all the other problems, and the whole darn thing gets almost totally empirical at that scale, and at that level of integration, given uncertainty.

 

[Baluncore]

Any chemical or physical process of CO2/air separation will be strongly hampered by this low yield condition.
The ideea of fuel from CO2 is nice and rather old, yet impractical to say the least.

There is no need to take the CO₂ from the air. CO₂ is available concentrated (with water) in the exhaust of many devices that consume fuel.
It makes no difference to atmospheric CO₂ concentration if the CO₂ is taken from the atmosphere or taken from a process with higher concentration that would otherwise release it to the atmosphere.

 

[Jimster41]

There is no need to take the CO₂ from the air. CO₂ is available concentrated (with water) in the exhaust of many devices that consume fuel.
It makes no difference to atmospheric CO₂ concentration if the CO₂ is taken from the atmosphere or taken from a process with higher concentration that would otherwise release it to the atmosphere.

I had originally been thinking of the problem of removing it from the atmosphere. But I guess it's more correct to picture it as a cyclic system, in which there is not a static atmosphere. And as you say, it makes the most sense in terms of total carbon-cycle leverage to capture/remove it from the points of highest leverage (highest concentration being probably the biggest factor in that leverage). If rates of release are reduced through source-centric strategies of capture, natural sequestration processes do provide a counter weight capable of reversing total atmospheric concentration.

I think the question that led me to wonder is, what if those natural counter-processes are insufficient to support our choices, or lack thereof, w/respect to carbon release?

I guess the cool thing about Audi's proposal is that it could create a market driver for capture - and money makes the herd do stuff.

That said there could be a situation where the sources are not under the control of decision makers or effective markets...kinda sort of like it is now.

 

[johnbbahm]

I'd be a little surprised if Audi hadn't done their basic homework before investing in developing the process. Though I can imagine that they are assuming huge uncertainty across a number of dimensions. This whole idea of using it as a storage mechanism for wasted off-peak wind etc, seems solid to me.

No doubt water is a big constraint. Luckily the planet still has a lot.
Which brings up the subject of desalination technology, and how key it may be to the cost and feasibility problem in other domains, and whether or not there may be breakout opportunities in the physics there. Topic for another thread.

To which cross-domain systems mapping seems really important to me. Since none of the worlds problem are really isolated from all the other problems, and the whole darn thing gets almost totally empirical at that scale, and at that level of integration, given uncertainty.

Audi picked this up from work started at Fraunhofer University.
https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html
The idea started as a way to store Germany's vast summer photovoltaic surplus, for winter heating.
The idea of e-gas storage is not viable currently, due to the low price of natural gas,
I thought using the national natural gas grid as storage was cool idea.

 

[Lok]

And as you say, it makes the most sense in terms of total carbon-cycle leverage to capture/remove it from the points of highest leverage (highest concentration being probably the biggest factor in that leverage). If rates of release are reduced through source-centric strategies of capture, natural sequestration processes do provide a counter weight capable of reversing total atmospheric concentration.

Well even so, there is the problem of capture and storage, considering that a high portion of gas/oil (around 70%) is used for transportation . At this point we carry 40 kg of fuel and absorb another 140 kg of oxygen which is really close to a 0.6 metric tonnes of air (fast calculation...could be wrong). So you fill er up with 40 kg and need to capture (lets assume only CO2) 170 kg of gas. Well... this would be a huge engineering endeavor in a car and even a bus, maybe a ship.

But as stated above you can get the CO2 from power plants or other more fixed means. They would still need a huge storage tank or complex infrastructure to move the gas around to the processing plants, unless on site processing, as gas transport per big distances is not something we like (expensive piping, maintenance and cost etc.)
There is also the question of how fast is the CO2/water reaction vs. the CO2 production (very fast), as they need to be close to similar otherwise a huge processing plant is needed in comparison to the power plant (volume wise).

 

[johnbbahm]

Well even so, there is the problem of capture and storage, considering that a high portion of gas/oil (around 70%) is used for transportation . At this point we carry 40 kg of fuel and absorb another 140 kg of oxygen which is really close to a 0.6 metric tonnes of air (fast calculation...could be wrong). So you fill er up with 40 kg and need to capture (lets assume only CO2) 170 kg of gas. Well... this would be a huge engineering endeavor in a car and even a bus, maybe a ship.

But as stated above you can get the CO2 from power plants or other more fixed means. They would still need a huge storage tank or complex infrastructure to move the gas around to the processing plants, unless on site processing, as gas transport per big distances is not something we like (expensive piping, maintenance and cost etc.)
There is also the question of how fast is the CO2/water reaction vs. the CO2 production (very fast), as they need to be close to similar otherwise a huge processing plant is needed in comparison to the power plant (volume wise).

You are speaking as if this technology is hypothetical, Pilot programs are already working.
http://www.audi.com/com/brand/en/vorsprung_durch_technik/content/2013/10/energy-turnaround-in-the-tank.html
I remember reading Audi e-gas plant was an old refinery.
The Navy extracts CO2 from seawater, their test unit is skid size.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas
They do not say how much jet fuel that size unit produces.

 

[Lok]

You are speaking as if this technology is hypothetical...

No, but besides the highly marketed benefits I insist on showing the ohh so obvious downsides that will contribute to the practical realization that this is sadly not the future.

 

[johnbbahm]

No, but besides the highly marketed benefits I insist on showing the ohh so obvious downsides that will contribute to the practical realization that this is sadly not the future.

As we build photovoltaic installs, the variable source will need a dump load.
No matter how inefficient the process, storing the surplus energy in a long term medium
is favorable to letting it turn to heat and potentially damage the grid.
Recovering oil from the ground for fuel, has been what allowed one of the great expansions
of Human civilization.
Maintaining that level of civilization will require an equally dense energy storage.
I do not see much else on the horizon, that can store enough energy to fly a jet across the ocean.
I suspect an electric ducted fan motor could be built with the same or better HP to weight ratio
as a modern turbo-fan engine, but carrying the energy is the problem.
This technology is still in the infant stage, with just small players publicly working on it.
(The big petrochemical players are almost certainly working on this, but keep their cards close)
I think the technology is feasible on a complete replacement scale, it is just a matter of costs.
When a refinery finds it is cheaper to make their own feedstock rather than buying oil,
that is the choice it will make!

 

[Jimster41]

Yeah, cheap natural gas, on the one hand it's nice to see something cleaner sliding us off of coal, on the other hand, it makes the raw value proposition of even a clever market centric approach like Audi's technology a really hard target to hit. And that leaves us still in a fundamentally un-controlled carbon release situation, with no guarantees that the natural mitigation of that fuel switch is really going to make any difference. With natural gas though one other benefit is the much more efficient engine. Combined Cycle, an approach that projects generally.

 

[anorlunda]

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/09/norway-scraps-large-scale-carbon-capture-plan.html

Money is no object to those blue-eyed arabs of the north. If they can't do it, probably nobody can.

 

[Jimster41]

Inneresting. Looks like largely a case of fractious politics and complex economics... As usual.

My wife is a knowledgeable optimist (studying sustainability management at Harvard, and a bussiness strategist for a big AE firm), I asked her about this and she insisted progress is being made toward global regulation of carbon emissions. She had a lot of sources. I could only bring up the what if - a volcano, or say an oceanic methane hydrate eruption. The ultimate uncontrolled source(s) etc.

She got irritated then later sent me a link to this paper. I found it interesting. http://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u13/the_paradox_of_climate_engineering_global_policy.pdf

What I wonder is if such an event were to happen, what would be the potential upside to an outfit, company, technology, person who had something to offer on that side. The value proposition seems potentially as white a swan as the black swan of such an event. Set that against the ambient situation we have today, where the mean signals point to increasing risk of high atmospheric CO2. If I was Neo-Rockefeller rich, like some of these folks today. I might put some chips over on that.

Then go buy a bunch of coal futures and pipeline stocks...

 

[johnbbahm]

Inneresting. Looks like largely a case of fractious politics and complex economics... As usual.

My wife is a knowledgeable optimist (studying sustainability management at Harvard, and a bussiness strategist for a big AE firm), I asked her about this and she insisted progress is being made toward global regulation of carbon emissions. She had a lot of sources. I could only bring up the what if - a volcano, or say an oceanic methane hydrate eruption. The ultimate uncontrolled source(s) etc.

She got irritated then later sent me a link to this paper. I found it interesting. http://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u13/the_paradox_of_climate_engineering_global_policy.pdf

What I wonder is if such an event were to happen, what would be the potential upside to an outfit, company, technology, person who had something to offer on that side. The value proposition seems potentially as white a swan as the black swan of such an event. Set that against the ambient situation we have today, where the mean signals point to increasing risk of high atmospheric CO2. If I was Neo-Rockefeller rich, like some of these folks today. I might put some chips over on that.

Then go buy a bunch of coal futures and pipeline stocks...

I think when the alternative energy solutions are naturally cheaper than the oil extracted from the ground,
people will choose them. If the Governments of the world want to fund research into making the alternatives
cheaper and as practical as the current fuels, I can get behind that.
I do think actual geoengineering could be very dangerous, and have plenty of unexpected results.

 

[Jimster41]

By "naturally cheaper" do you mean "when it is capable of spontaneously overturning the economic status quo"?
And I gather you do not worry about danger on the course of status quo?

 

[anorlunda]

she insisted progress is being made toward global regulation of carbon emissions

Wow, now there's a specific statement that anybody could fact check. She could do well as a politician.

 

[Jimster41]

Wow, now there's a specific statement that anybody could fact check. She could do well as a politician.

I'm sorry, what did you say?

Are you are saying my wife is an idiot, or a liar, or do you actually respect and admire politicians?

Or do you just have problems with smart women?

 

[johnbbahm]

By "naturally cheaper" do you mean "when it is capable of spontaneously overturning the economic status quo"?
And I gather you do not worry about danger on the course of status quo?

The alternative I am talking about is man made hydrocarbon fuels.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/04/150428-audi-ediesel-made-from-water-air/
The status quo will not be upset, as the oil companies will likely be the ones deploying the technology.
They already own the refineries and the distribution infrastructure.
The exploration and extraction leg of their business, will still have markets for their products,
The man made feedstock will just set the ceiling for the price.
Audi now says the process for e-diesel is 70% efficient, This means it would
take about 55 Kwh of electricity to make a gallon of diesel.
Wholesale electricity can be purchased for about $.05 a Kwh,
which would be the equivalent to about $100/ barrel oil.

 

[Jimster41]

I agree that Audi's approach does some pretty clever things, you enumerate there, that leverage the status quo. I had not heard of it until your earlier post.

Problem is oil is like 50$ a barrel this morning, and it's arguably not the floor. Do you think the technology can be become viable in the near, medium or long term, given production and price context for fossil crude? Electricity would need to be closer to .02$ kWh. Maybe that's doable. But looking at Climeworks tech, I do wonder about scalability? Their demo machine is saying 8kg/day nominal. Even if it is efficient and cheap to run, you would need a whole lot of them right? Or a really big one. I wonder if the technology scales well theoretically and if they make one designed to sit in the exhaust stream of a coal plant, which runs around 12% CO2, 200+ degF and also has a lot of nasty corrosive stuff.

http://www.climeworks.com/demonstrator/articles/demonstrator.html
[Edit] just found this on their website.
http://www.climeworks.com/co2-capture-plants.html

You look at an article like this (somewhat dated),
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-captured-carbon-save/.
where capture is touted as relatively easy, but storage is the nightmare... and Audi does seem to have a pretty compelling missing piece.
If a utility with a fleet of old fully paid off coal boilers could all of a sudden sell their CO2 rich exhaust, and paint their stacks green... they would probably be pretty happy. They are spending literally billions on scrubbers that do nothing but keep them legal to run with respect to NOx, SOx, Hg, and Particulates. It's all about the sunk cost of the asset, and the prohibitive cost of building something else.

I'd love to know more about their 'sorbent' physics. What material, compound, and chemical/physical process are they using? Gotta be paying the piper somewhere? Maybe it's like some crazy vanadium doped catalyst that costs 5000 $/sqft and lasts for 6 months.

 

[Jimster41]

Not to mention, these old coal assets suffer and suck when cycled, and often sit idle because of startup cost, or high turn-down limits. If they were just base-loaded again, running all day at the top, like back in the good old days, and even all night making liquid fuel... coal is cheap, abundant and relatively easy to get out of the ground. Pretty interesting. Gotta be a catch somewhere.

 

[johnbbahm]

I agree that Audi's approach does some pretty clever things, you enumerate there, that leverage the status quo. I had not heard of it until your earlier post.

Problem is oil is like 50$ a barrel this morning, and it's arguably not the floor. Do you think the technology can be become viable in the near, medium or long term, given production and price context for fossil crude? Electricity would need to be closer to .02$ kWh. Maybe that's doable. But looking at Climeworks tech, I do wonder about scalability? Their demo machine is saying 8kg/day nominal. Even if it is efficient and cheap to run, you would need a whole lot of them right? Or a really big one. I wonder if the technology scales well theoretically and if they make one designed to sit in the exhaust stream of a coal plant, which runs around 12% CO2, 200+ degF and also has a lot of nasty corrosive stuff.

http://www.climeworks.com/demonstrator/articles/demonstrator.html
[Edit] just found this on their website.
http://www.climeworks.com/co2-capture-plants.html

You look at an article like this (somewhat dated),
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-captured-carbon-save/.
where capture is touted as relatively easy, but storage is the nightmare... and Audi does seem to have a pretty compelling missing piece.
If a utility with a fleet of old fully paid off coal boilers could all of a sudden sell their CO2 rich exhaust, and paint their stacks green... they would probably be pretty happy. They are spending literally billions on scrubbers that do nothing but keep them legal to run with respect to NOx, SOx, Hg, and Particulates. It's all about the sunk cost of the asset, and the prohibitive cost of building something else.

I'd love to know more about their 'sorbent' physics. What material, compound, and chemical/physical process are they using? Gotta be paying the piper somewhere? Maybe it's like some crazy vanadium doped catalyst that costs 5000 $/sqft and lasts for 6 months.

I would rather we get off of coal as soon as possible.
I lived near a coal plant for a few years, the dust gets on everything.
I envision this as drawing the CO2 straight out of the air, or water as the Navy plans.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas
I think the Navy is in the process of getting the man made jet fuel flight certified.
Oil is low right now, but much of that supply was created on the hope of a much higher market.
It will go back up, as the higher cost of the enhanced extraction processes has to come from somewhere.
The cheap easy oil, has already been found and is being recovered.
All the new stuff will be at higher cost, if the price stays low, they will stop looking for it.

 

[Jimster41]

yeah coal has other problems, to be sure. And I agree with what you say. Problem with getting off of it fast - the shift now is toward natural gas, result of which is likely to be a new status quo around that, with even stronger economic momentum. Better than no change. But if you could stick a veritable Mr. Fusion on the old F150 and have something that drives clean, you might be able to hold out until the Hover Skateboard actual comes to the corner store.

As I understand it Hawaii has a 100% renewables target, but their plan is to build to it through Natural gas (imported!). The infrastructure they will need to do that isn't going to be easy to mothball, once it is in place, even after the renewables are there.

 

[johnbbahm]

yeah coal has other problems, to be sure. And I agree with what you say. Problem with getting off of it fast - the shift now is toward natural gas, result of which is likely to be a new status quo around that, with even stronger economic momentum. Better than no change. But if you could stick a veritable Mr. Fusion on the old F150 and have something that drives clean, you might be able to hold out until the Hover Skateboard actual comes to the corner store.

As I understand it Hawaii has a 100% renewables target, but their plan is to build to it through Natural gas (imported!). The infrastructure they will need to do that isn't going to be easy to mothball, once it is in place, even after the renewables are there.

As we build out photovoltaic solar, and it's going on as we type, the grid will need some way to handle
the fluctuation. Off grid solar systems us a dump load, to keep extra power from damaging the system.
I could envision a large refinery, converting all of the surplus to fuels for later use.
Who knows, maybe the surplus solar electricity, can be used for F150 fill up credits.
Kind of an indirect Mr. Fusion.

 

[Fenster Karton]

Since there is sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb 100% of its lines, and has been all your life, what effect does more CO2 have besides second order effects?

 

[mfb]

Since there is sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb 100% of its lines

Where did you get that from?

 

[Finny]

Are there any legitimate candidates for technologies that might provide inverse leverage over atmospheric CO2 levels?

It's not solar cells. It's not electric cars.
Not from the few life cycle studies I have seen which are at BEST a wash.

Best bet so far may be killing off 6.5B people, leave 500m elites.
Oh, and kill off most of the cows and steers...waaaay to flatulent.

 

[Baluncore]

Since there is sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb 100% of its lines, and has been all your life, what effect does more CO2 have besides second order effects?

The Sun emits black body radiation at a temperature of about 5500K. The Earth radiates at about 300K.
Black body radiation is not an ionisation line spectrum. It is a broadband phenomena.

Absorption close to 100% is the same as close to 0% transmission.
2% transmission is not the same as 1%, it differs by a factor of two.
1% transmission is not the same as 0%, it differs by a factor of infinity.

 

[jim hardy]

We are still a small part of the annual carbon cycle, maybe 4%.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Increasing CO2 ought to encourage plant growth .
http://cdn5.theweedblog.com/wp-content/uploads//co2-marijuana-graph.jpg
http://www.theweedblog.com/co2-and-marijuana-plants/
okay, i apologize for that reference it's hardly a scientific journal

here's a more appropriate one
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf
also at https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream...d=87B29D0BA5181B4756709285624E3BBC?sequence=1

Longer growing seasons and reforestation of extreme latitudes will have some effect, i don't know how much.

What's the panic?

 

[Baluncore]

Since there is sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb 100% of its lines, and has been all your life, what effect does more CO2 have besides second order effects?

This is getting very close to the subject of global warming that is forbidden on PF. It is a favorite of the sceptics and makes the false assumption that absorbtion is 100% when it is not.
Can we please get back to the subject of possible or hypothetical removal mechanisms of CO2 from the atmosphere. Please avoid the subject of the validity, causes or effects of global warming.

 

[Baluncore]

Longer growing seasons and reforestation of extreme latitudes will have some effect, i don't know how much.

What's the panic?

Swings and roundabouts. More plant growth on land will mop up more CO₂, but more CO₂ will acidify the ocean and so prevent krill development in the Southern Ocean. That will break the "iron - phytoplankton - krill - whale - iron" cycle.
Let's avoid the politics and belief systems to concentrate on potential CO₂ removal technologies.

 

[jim hardy]

fair enough.

GE and Siemens are working on ideas

http://7bf847d11d127c20fa70-cd6cb91...4ba.r34.cf1.rackcdn.com/gernotschneiderv2.pdf