4 ms·

Using existing cooling towers to capture atmospheric CO2 seems like a much better idea than using energy to otherwise pump tonnes of air through a process. Howe

Using existing cooling towers to capture atmospheric CO2 seems like a much better idea than using energy to otherwise pump tonnes of air through a process. However, I can't help wonder whether it is better than capturing the exhaust emissions (primarily CO2 and H20) directly from the exhaust gasses, before they are released to the atmosphere.

jsantos511 6y ago
There are two equally-needed levers we have to reverse climate change: the first is reducing current emissions, and the second is removing carbon from the atmosphere. Removing emissions from smokestacks is critical to ensuring we can stop dumping waste into the sky, but we are at the point now where we need scalable, low-cost processes to pull carbon out of the atmosphere. So, we need to definitely do what you're suggesting and capture all emissions from as many smokestacks as possible until we've fully transitioned to a clean grid. And, we also need to begin pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm still not convinced that pulling atmospheric carbon out of the air makes sense until practically all smokestack emissions are captured at source. Something like putting the heating on while all the windows are open. I wish you guys luck though, hopefully you can carve out a niche market which will mean carbon capture technologies are ready when the time comes.
  - jsantos511 6y ago
    I hear you and agree - reducing emissions is a very important thing to do, followed immediately by stopping all unnecessary power wasting (like with the windows + heating problem). In the UN's most recent climate report [1], most of the pathways that are shown to avoid a 1.5°C global temperature rise involve both emissions reduction and carbon removal. Since the current technology portfolio is not anywhere near where it needs to be for any of their suggested pathways, we need new solutions (not just Noya's!) to be developed and scaled to give ourselves a shot of removing the amount of carbon required. [1]: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/
woeirua 6y ago
DAC will be needed for the foreseeable future because there are some applications still where hydrocarbons are just unbeatable. In particular, large-scale marine and air transportation are just not feasible yet with anything other than some kind of hydrocarbon based fuel. That might not be the case forever, but it is for now. Eventually the goal will be to use DAC to synthesize hydrocarbon based fuels, thereby making them completely carbon neutral.

jsantos511 6y ago

There are two equally-needed levers we have to reverse climate change: the first is reducing current emissions, and the second is removing carbon from the atmosphere. Removing emissions from smokestacks is critical to ensuring we can stop dumping waste into the sky, but we are at the point now where we need scalable, low-cost processes to pull carbon out of the atmosphere. So, we need to definitely do what you're suggesting and capture all emissions from as many smokestacks as possible until we've fully transitioned to a clean grid. And, we also need to begin pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.

VBprogrammer 6y ago
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm still not convinced that pulling atmospheric carbon out of the air makes sense until practically all smokestack emissions are captured at source. Something like putting the heating on while all the windows are open. I wish you guys luck though, hopefully you can carve out a niche market which will mean carbon capture technologies are ready when the time comes.
- jsantos511 6y ago
  I hear you and agree - reducing emissions is a very important thing to do, followed immediately by stopping all unnecessary power wasting (like with the windows + heating problem). In the UN's most recent climate report [1], most of the pathways that are shown to avoid a 1.5°C global temperature rise involve both emissions reduction and carbon removal. Since the current technology portfolio is not anywhere near where it needs to be for any of their suggested pathways, we need new solutions (not just Noya's!) to be developed and scaled to give ourselves a shot of removing the amount of carbon required. [1]: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/

woeirua 6y ago

DAC will be needed for the foreseeable future because there are some applications still where hydrocarbons are just unbeatable. In particular, large-scale marine and air transportation are just not feasible yet with anything other than some kind of hydrocarbon based fuel. That might not be the case forever, but it is for now. Eventually the goal will be to use DAC to synthesize hydrocarbon based fuels, thereby making them completely carbon neutral.