6 ms·

I wonder what the extra energy required to take this "pure stream of ejected CO2" into the ground is compared to using a different style of removing CO2 that ju

by joxel 4y ago

I wonder what the extra energy required to take this "pure stream of ejected CO2" into the ground is compared to using a different style of removing CO2 that just requires extra energy during capture. I'm definitely not an engineer but I feel like injecting CO2 directly into the earth has to use a ton more energy.

kolinko 4y ago
You are comparing to something that doesn't really exist. Most - if not all - existing solutions have two separate parts - capture and storage.
- joxel 4y ago
  The only solution I've been somewhat familiar with is basically putting porous clay pellets into smoke stacks that capture some of the CO2.
- D13Fd 4y ago
  Isn’t that true of this system as well?
  - kolinko 4y ago
    Yes, this system handles carbon capture. For storage there are other systems. Carbon capture cost is half of the equation - if this sytem can be scaled and deliver it with less price, then the price of the whole ccs gets lower. Personally - having spent some time in the CCS field, I am very excited about this technology. If they manage to scale up the production (which is not certain), it will be extremely energy efficient to capture carbon with their method. The alternatives require pressure or temperature swing - so they waste a lot of energy either compressing gasses, or heating up sorbents.
epistemer 4y ago
I would think it all depends on the initial energy source. This is just one of the myriad of ways our malinvestment in cheap nuclear energy condemns us to try to build a type of perceptual motion machine.
noduerme 4y ago
I like that the shorter term goal seems to be injecting it into carbonated beverages. I'd love one of these to drop in behind my soda stream.
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
  You'd only need 450 quadrillion cans of soda to being us back to pre-industrial levels of CO2. https://what-if.xkcd.com/88/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/88/
  - noduerme 4y ago
    I sometimes have the feeling we're being nudged to terraform our own planet by an alien civilization that's really into CO2. Best case scenario, they're really just into gin and tonic.

by joxel 4y ago

kolinko 4y ago

You are comparing to something that doesn't really exist. Most - if not all - existing solutions have two separate parts - capture and storage.

joxel 4y ago
The only solution I've been somewhat familiar with is basically putting porous clay pellets into smoke stacks that capture some of the CO2.
D13Fd 4y ago
Isn’t that true of this system as well?
- kolinko 4y ago
  Yes, this system handles carbon capture. For storage there are other systems. Carbon capture cost is half of the equation - if this sytem can be scaled and deliver it with less price, then the price of the whole ccs gets lower. Personally - having spent some time in the CCS field, I am very excited about this technology. If they manage to scale up the production (which is not certain), it will be extremely energy efficient to capture carbon with their method. The alternatives require pressure or temperature swing - so they waste a lot of energy either compressing gasses, or heating up sorbents.

epistemer 4y ago

I would think it all depends on the initial energy source. This is just one of the myriad of ways our malinvestment in cheap nuclear energy condemns us to try to build a type of perceptual motion machine.

noduerme 4y ago

I like that the shorter term goal seems to be injecting it into carbonated beverages. I'd love one of these to drop in behind my soda stream.

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
You'd only need 450 quadrillion cans of soda to being us back to pre-industrial levels of CO2. https://what-if.xkcd.com/88/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/88/
- noduerme 4y ago
  I sometimes have the feeling we're being nudged to terraform our own planet by an alien civilization that's really into CO2. Best case scenario, they're really just into gin and tonic.