3 ms·

"Liquid metal proven to be cheap and efficient CO2 converter" In their paper, the research team show a 92 percent efficiency in converting a ton of CO2 as desc

"Liquid metal proven to be cheap and efficient CO2 converter" In their paper, the research team show a 92 percent efficiency in converting a ton of CO2 as described, using just 230kWh of energy. They estimate this equates to a cost of around $100 per ton of CO2. Source: https://phys.org/news/2021-10-liquid-metal-proven-cheap-efficient.html https://phys.org/news/2021-10-liquid-metal-proven-cheap-effi... (To put this price into perspective, according to the EPA, a single passenger vehicle emits 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year. Source: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t...) And if that's not your jam, check out Prometheus Fuels, which produces synthetic fuels from captured carbon: https://www.prometheusfuels.com https://www.prometheusfuels.com

gmuslera 5y ago
How much time for that? How big can that scale? To give an idea of the current trend, every single day, near 100 million barrels of oil are produced. Each of those barrels make between 500 and 750kg of CO2 equivalent (source https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/02/09/breaking-down-barrel-tracing-ghg-emissions-through-oil-supply-chain-pub-62722 https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/02/09/breaking-down-barre...) And that only counts as fossil carbon from oil (gas and coal should be added), that has been going for decades (at a slower rate, in 1998 it was 73 million of barrels/day, still a big number). And positive feedback loops are adding new carbon to the party as coming from permafrost thawing and other sources in increasing volumes, as the planet warms up. So for making the trick carbon capture should not only offset what is being produced in that moment, but capture everything ever emitted till reaching an amount below the one we had in preindustrial times. And keep it that way for enough time to undo the warming and try to shutdown the bad feedback loops. Creating synthetic fuel from captured carbon doesn't lower the amount of carbon in the system (once it is burned as fuel, at least), but if it is used instead of pumping out fossil fuels, at least will accelerate less the amount of carbon we still add to the atmosphere. Having a small scale demo doesn't mean that it will be ever feasible a production of the size and the speed that will be needed.
- EGreg 5y ago
  Carbon capture aint easy, and scaling it isn’t as easy as “solar freakin roadways” makes it seem. This would give us a lot of bang for the buck but for some reason it’s been years and it’s not taking off — why? https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/10/12/seaweed-could-help-cow-farts-contribute-less-to-climate-change.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/10/12/seaweed-could-help-cow-f...

gmuslera 5y ago

How much time for that? How big can that scale? To give an idea of the current trend, every single day, near 100 million barrels of oil are produced. Each of those barrels make between 500 and 750kg of CO2 equivalent (source https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/02/09/breaking-down-barrel-tracing-ghg-emissions-through-oil-supply-chain-pub-62722 https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/02/09/breaking-down-barre...) And that only counts as fossil carbon from oil (gas and coal should be added), that has been going for decades (at a slower rate, in 1998 it was 73 million of barrels/day, still a big number). And positive feedback loops are adding new carbon to the party as coming from permafrost thawing and other sources in increasing volumes, as the planet warms up. So for making the trick carbon capture should not only offset what is being produced in that moment, but capture everything ever emitted till reaching an amount below the one we had in preindustrial times. And keep it that way for enough time to undo the warming and try to shutdown the bad feedback loops. Creating synthetic fuel from captured carbon doesn't lower the amount of carbon in the system (once it is burned as fuel, at least), but if it is used instead of pumping out fossil fuels, at least will accelerate less the amount of carbon we still add to the atmosphere. Having a small scale demo doesn't mean that it will be ever feasible a production of the size and the speed that will be needed.

EGreg 5y ago
Carbon capture aint easy, and scaling it isn’t as easy as “solar freakin roadways” makes it seem. This would give us a lot of bang for the buck but for some reason it’s been years and it’s not taking off — why? https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/10/12/seaweed-could-help-cow-farts-contribute-less-to-climate-change.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/10/12/seaweed-could-help-cow-f...