6 ms·

How much do today's "carbon recapture" methods need to grow? What's the timeline on them looking like? P.S. The first Google result for carbon recapture is tit

How much do today's "carbon recapture" methods need to grow? What's the timeline on them looking like? P.S. The first Google result for carbon recapture is titled "“Direct air capture” of carbon dioxide won't solve climate change" P.P.S From Wikipedia with a cited source: capturing and compressing CO2 and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost per watt-hour energy produced by 21–91% for fossil fuel power plants;

eganist 8y ago
I have to wonder how much of the innovation here will couple advancements in catalytic conversion with accepted inefficiencies in "storing" renewable energy by sourcing from the atmosphere. Because that's essentially what these initiatives are doing. They're seeking to artificially tighten the carbon cycle so that we can maintain the status quo indefinitely.
- MuffinFlavored 8y ago
  > so that we can maintain the status quo indefinitely. Is that good enough? I've read that in China, they have some days where there are warnings to stay inside because there are random green substances in the air?
erik_landerholm 8y ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190212160020.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190212160020.h... There is a lot of work. I'm not an expert, but it seems like our early attempts are orders of magnitude off in terms of efficiency, but there have been some breakthroughs using nano-tech to create custom structures that are much more efficient, but i'm sure it needs a lot more research and money to become commercially viable.
rayiner 8y ago
The author of the article (who does not appear to be an expert in anything) overlooks that renewables only address part of the emissions picture. Even if the U.S. switched tomorrow to 100% renewables and 100% electric vehicles (including trains, cars, planes, and ships), and you ignore the CO2 emissions of making all those new power plants and vehicles, U.S. usage would only go down by 3.5 gigaton: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica.... It won't change the CO2 emissions created by home and commercial heating, agriculture, and industrial uses, which add up to another 3.5 or so gigatons. And even the U.S. and EU going to 0 carbon emissions wouldn't offset the growth in India, China, and Africa. And those places are a long ways away from electric cars and solar power plants. (Also, where would you put them in say India or Bangladesh?) Carbon recapture can do a very important thing renweables cannot--allow the developed world to suck out the developing world's CO2. The current cost of carbon capture is about $120 per ton. If it follows the same trend as improvements on solar panel cost, that could be $40 per ton in a decade. At that price it would cost $300 billion annually to remove the extra carbon India will be adding to the atmosphere by then. That will be just 5% of India’s GDP by then.
- hairytrog 8y ago
  You should read about process heat from nuclear. There's several companies aiming to do this: https://usnc.com/MMR.html https://usnc.com/MMR.html
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- natch 8y ago
  >It won't change the CO2 emissions created by home and commercial heating, agriculture, and industrial uses, which add up to another 3.5 or so gigatons. So address each one in turn, or in parallel. You give no reason not to.
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    Lot of people use the 'golden hammer or nothing argument' Meaning if a proposed solution is partial then we shouldn't do anything. It flies in the face of the reality that most solutions to complex problems involve chipping away at them. Currently there is a host of technologies which emit to much CO2. Personal transportation is just one of them.
- natch 8y ago
  >wouldn't offset the growth in India, China, and Africa. And those places are a long ways away from electric cars On the contrary, China is going crazy for electric cars. And the U.S. and EU are starting to turn as well. I wonder where you are getting your ideas.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    China put 28 million cars on the road in 2018. 95% were ICE. China put over 1 million heavy trucks on the road in 2018. Almost all were ICE. By 2025, the government aims to get it down to 80% ICE. That’s at least another 100 million new ICE vehicles on the road in the next half decade, plus the 300 million existing vehicles (which in developing nations are retired very slowly). Compared to maybe 20 million EVs if the government meets its target. China is currently building new coal fired capacity equal to the total amount of US coal generation capacity—and many times the renewables capacity it has added in the last year. Power plants are long term investments. These plants will be in service for decades to come. Again, we need to cut 19 gigatons in the next decade. If “going crazy for electric cars” means that 80% of new cars—forget existing cars, and new trucks, etc.—will still be ICE half a decade from now, emissions reduction is not going to work.
ForHackernews 8y ago
Realistically, "carbon recapture" barely exists today. It's a science experiment / excuse to avoid reducing emissions.
rmcginnis 8y ago
Hi, Rob from Prometheus here! Most of the skepticism about CO2 removal from the air is focused on "carbon sequestration and storage" or CSS, which is mitigation of emissions from fossil fuel by putting CO2 into the ground, for example. Turning CO2 from the air into useful products like fuels and building materials is much more capable of scaling because these products have value independently from regulations or carbon taxes/credits. If you can be the low cost producer of a commodity like gasoline or polyethylene, it's possible to grow zero or negative carbon capture very quickly to very large scale. If all transportation fuels, heating fuels, and plastics were from atmospheric CO2 capture, this would be more than 10 GT of CO2 a year, which is hugely significant.
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  It’s not thermodynamically possible to recapture carbon from the air without using more energy than was obtained by burning it the first place.
  - aey 8y ago
    I imagine the goal is to use renewables for the energy required for capture.
  - aaronblohowiak 8y ago
    Hydrocarbons are better energy stores than batteries. If we can “charge your car” by pumping hydrocarbons into it, that is better than lugging around heavy batteries (maybe.) so, in a way, co2 -> gasoline via solar power (or nuke) is an overall win.
    - bjelkeman-again 8y ago
      I personally doubt the energy cost for the conversion is so low that it makes sense, but would like to see that demonstrated. Then you are still burning hydrocarbons, which is a big health problem.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago

eganist 8y ago

I have to wonder how much of the innovation here will couple advancements in catalytic conversion with accepted inefficiencies in "storing" renewable energy by sourcing from the atmosphere. Because that's essentially what these initiatives are doing. They're seeking to artificially tighten the carbon cycle so that we can maintain the status quo indefinitely.

MuffinFlavored 8y ago
> so that we can maintain the status quo indefinitely. Is that good enough? I've read that in China, they have some days where there are warnings to stay inside because there are random green substances in the air?

erik_landerholm 8y ago

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190212160020.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190212160020.h... There is a lot of work. I'm not an expert, but it seems like our early attempts are orders of magnitude off in terms of efficiency, but there have been some breakthroughs using nano-tech to create custom structures that are much more efficient, but i'm sure it needs a lot more research and money to become commercially viable.

rayiner 8y ago

The author of the article (who does not appear to be an expert in anything) overlooks that renewables only address part of the emissions picture. Even if the U.S. switched tomorrow to 100% renewables and 100% electric vehicles (including trains, cars, planes, and ships), and you ignore the CO2 emissions of making all those new power plants and vehicles, U.S. usage would only go down by 3.5 gigaton: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica.... It won't change the CO2 emissions created by home and commercial heating, agriculture, and industrial uses, which add up to another 3.5 or so gigatons. And even the U.S. and EU going to 0 carbon emissions wouldn't offset the growth in India, China, and Africa. And those places are a long ways away from electric cars and solar power plants. (Also, where would you put them in say India or Bangladesh?) Carbon recapture can do a very important thing renweables cannot--allow the developed world to suck out the developing world's CO2. The current cost of carbon capture is about $120 per ton. If it follows the same trend as improvements on solar panel cost, that could be $40 per ton in a decade. At that price it would cost $300 billion annually to remove the extra carbon India will be adding to the atmosphere by then. That will be just 5% of India’s GDP by then.

hairytrog 8y ago
You should read about process heat from nuclear. There's several companies aiming to do this: https://usnc.com/MMR.html https://usnc.com/MMR.html
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
natch 8y ago
>It won't change the CO2 emissions created by home and commercial heating, agriculture, and industrial uses, which add up to another 3.5 or so gigatons. So address each one in turn, or in parallel. You give no reason not to.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  Lot of people use the 'golden hammer or nothing argument' Meaning if a proposed solution is partial then we shouldn't do anything. It flies in the face of the reality that most solutions to complex problems involve chipping away at them. Currently there is a host of technologies which emit to much CO2. Personal transportation is just one of them.
natch 8y ago
>wouldn't offset the growth in India, China, and Africa. And those places are a long ways away from electric cars On the contrary, China is going crazy for electric cars. And the U.S. and EU are starting to turn as well. I wonder where you are getting your ideas.
- rayiner 8y ago
  China put 28 million cars on the road in 2018. 95% were ICE. China put over 1 million heavy trucks on the road in 2018. Almost all were ICE. By 2025, the government aims to get it down to 80% ICE. That’s at least another 100 million new ICE vehicles on the road in the next half decade, plus the 300 million existing vehicles (which in developing nations are retired very slowly). Compared to maybe 20 million EVs if the government meets its target. China is currently building new coal fired capacity equal to the total amount of US coal generation capacity—and many times the renewables capacity it has added in the last year. Power plants are long term investments. These plants will be in service for decades to come. Again, we need to cut 19 gigatons in the next decade. If “going crazy for electric cars” means that 80% of new cars—forget existing cars, and new trucks, etc.—will still be ICE half a decade from now, emissions reduction is not going to work.

ForHackernews 8y ago

Realistically, "carbon recapture" barely exists today. It's a science experiment / excuse to avoid reducing emissions.

rmcginnis 8y ago

Hi, Rob from Prometheus here! Most of the skepticism about CO2 removal from the air is focused on "carbon sequestration and storage" or CSS, which is mitigation of emissions from fossil fuel by putting CO2 into the ground, for example. Turning CO2 from the air into useful products like fuels and building materials is much more capable of scaling because these products have value independently from regulations or carbon taxes/credits. If you can be the low cost producer of a commodity like gasoline or polyethylene, it's possible to grow zero or negative carbon capture very quickly to very large scale. If all transportation fuels, heating fuels, and plastics were from atmospheric CO2 capture, this would be more than 10 GT of CO2 a year, which is hugely significant.

fallingfrog 8y ago
It’s not thermodynamically possible to recapture carbon from the air without using more energy than was obtained by burning it the first place.
- aey 8y ago
  I imagine the goal is to use renewables for the energy required for capture.
- aaronblohowiak 8y ago
  Hydrocarbons are better energy stores than batteries. If we can “charge your car” by pumping hydrocarbons into it, that is better than lugging around heavy batteries (maybe.) so, in a way, co2 -> gasoline via solar power (or nuke) is an overall win.
  - bjelkeman-again 8y ago
    I personally doubt the energy cost for the conversion is so low that it makes sense, but would like to see that demonstrated. Then you are still burning hydrocarbons, which is a big health problem.
- onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago