5 ms·

This sounds really interesting, but I'm a little nervous about the "baking produces pure CO2 that can be pumped underground" part. Is that really happening, or

This sounds really interesting, but I'm a little nervous about the "baking produces pure CO2 that can be pumped underground" part. Is that really happening, or is that CO2 just going to get used for industrial processes and then dumped back into the atmosphere?

throwaway4aday 3y ago
You wouldn't want to not recycle the quicklime otherwise you would have to release the CO2 from it first, then absorb the same amount of CO2 and then throw it away so you'd only be emitting CO2 in that case.
breadwinner 3y ago
They have "transparent methods for verification". "Developing and adopting scientifically rigorous and transparent methods for monitoring, reporting, and verification is essential for permanent carbon removal." See: https://www.heirloomcarbon.com/news/heirloom-joins-carbon-removal-alliance https://www.heirloomcarbon.com/news/heirloom-joins-carbon-re...
crazygringo 3y ago
Does it really matter if the CO2 in your SodaStream or your favorite beer comes from this or an industrial process that generates CO2 (such as from ammonia)? I mean, even if this all went to industry, if it was removing new CO2 that would have been generated otherwise, then it would still reducing atmospheric CO2 by the same amount from what it would have been otherwise -- right? (Assuming this doesn't magically provide so much CO2 that it depresses prices and leads to new/increased CO2 uses, but that seems unlikely since this seems to be a much more expensive method than existing ones.)
- mordechai9000 3y ago
  Industrial and food service CO2 is mostly captured from power plants right now, as I understand it. Besides that, most of that CO2 is only very temporarily stored - it's going right back into the atmosphere as soon as possible.
- NegativeLatency 3y ago
  You’d need a full lifecycle analysis to determine that. Sorta like how ethanol fuel is more polluting than just gasoline https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/13/ethanol-burns-clean-but-creates-more-emissions-than-gasoline/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/13/ethanol-burns-clean-but...
  - djmips 3y ago
    It is argued that ethanol is more polluting than gasoline based on the entire lifecycle but that article only shows how complicated it is to calculate - and ended with only an opinion that biofuel is worse than gasoline.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  Providing cheap CO2 to industry (at any price!) is almost certainly going to be incentivized vs. pumping it underground, since the former provides revenue and the latter is pure expense. At small scales that probably won't matter, and will just offset dirtier sources. But at small scales this technology is just a novelty: it's only interesting to think about it at very large scale. And once it exists at large scale you really have to think very hard about how you're going to (artificially) counter the natural incentives that might produce perverse effects.
  - erikerikson 3y ago
    Not if you can sell carbon credits for pumping underground?
    - natch 3y ago
      *claiming to pump underground. ftfy If pumping underground even works beyond the timeline needed to claim the tax credit.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    That isn't quiet true. One of the major pushes for carbon capture is CCUS which is a fancy word for greenwashing. You install carbon capture facilities and pump that carbon deep underground. But you do it not to store the carbon, but to get even more oil out of the ground [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery
    - gretch 3y ago
      I would support this, assuming ratio is ~1:1. It’s much bette than the alternative today where people pump oil and don’t put anything back. Quote from your link > “The project is expected to inject a net 18 million ton CO2“
refulgentis 3y ago
The bar for answering that is ambiguous. What evidence would provide proof that it is really happening, as opposed to it being just words in an article? Do we need to go to a plant? Will following only _some_ of the carbon through it's lifecycle be sufficient? Is burying _some_ of it sufficient? Or are we looking for a full audit framework? Is it okay if that's enforced by force of law?
stuaxo 3y ago
Yeah this is dubious, they get all the Co2 out of these rocks, and then the rocks will asorb Co2.
- function_seven 3y ago
  The rocks aren't the carbon sink in this process. They're a concentrating mechanism. They sit there and absorb CO2 from the air, then the kiln process is used to pull the CO2 from the rock to whatever sink they're using.

throwaway4aday 3y ago

You wouldn't want to not recycle the quicklime otherwise you would have to release the CO2 from it first, then absorb the same amount of CO2 and then throw it away so you'd only be emitting CO2 in that case.

breadwinner 3y ago

They have "transparent methods for verification". "Developing and adopting scientifically rigorous and transparent methods for monitoring, reporting, and verification is essential for permanent carbon removal." See: https://www.heirloomcarbon.com/news/heirloom-joins-carbon-removal-alliance https://www.heirloomcarbon.com/news/heirloom-joins-carbon-re...

crazygringo 3y ago

Does it really matter if the CO2 in your SodaStream or your favorite beer comes from this or an industrial process that generates CO2 (such as from ammonia)? I mean, even if this all went to industry, if it was removing new CO2 that would have been generated otherwise, then it would still reducing atmospheric CO2 by the same amount from what it would have been otherwise -- right? (Assuming this doesn't magically provide so much CO2 that it depresses prices and leads to new/increased CO2 uses, but that seems unlikely since this seems to be a much more expensive method than existing ones.)

mordechai9000 3y ago
Industrial and food service CO2 is mostly captured from power plants right now, as I understand it. Besides that, most of that CO2 is only very temporarily stored - it's going right back into the atmosphere as soon as possible.
NegativeLatency 3y ago
You’d need a full lifecycle analysis to determine that. Sorta like how ethanol fuel is more polluting than just gasoline https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/13/ethanol-burns-clean-but-creates-more-emissions-than-gasoline/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/13/ethanol-burns-clean-but...
- djmips 3y ago
  It is argued that ethanol is more polluting than gasoline based on the entire lifecycle but that article only shows how complicated it is to calculate - and ended with only an opinion that biofuel is worse than gasoline.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
Providing cheap CO2 to industry (at any price!) is almost certainly going to be incentivized vs. pumping it underground, since the former provides revenue and the latter is pure expense. At small scales that probably won't matter, and will just offset dirtier sources. But at small scales this technology is just a novelty: it's only interesting to think about it at very large scale. And once it exists at large scale you really have to think very hard about how you're going to (artificially) counter the natural incentives that might produce perverse effects.
- erikerikson 3y ago
  Not if you can sell carbon credits for pumping underground?
  - natch 3y ago
    *claiming to pump underground. ftfy If pumping underground even works beyond the timeline needed to claim the tax credit.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  That isn't quiet true. One of the major pushes for carbon capture is CCUS which is a fancy word for greenwashing. You install carbon capture facilities and pump that carbon deep underground. But you do it not to store the carbon, but to get even more oil out of the ground [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery
  - gretch 3y ago
    I would support this, assuming ratio is ~1:1. It’s much bette than the alternative today where people pump oil and don’t put anything back. Quote from your link > “The project is expected to inject a net 18 million ton CO2“

refulgentis 3y ago

The bar for answering that is ambiguous. What evidence would provide proof that it is really happening, as opposed to it being just words in an article? Do we need to go to a plant? Will following only _some_ of the carbon through it's lifecycle be sufficient? Is burying _some_ of it sufficient? Or are we looking for a full audit framework? Is it okay if that's enforced by force of law?

stuaxo 3y ago

Yeah this is dubious, they get all the Co2 out of these rocks, and then the rocks will asorb Co2.

function_seven 3y ago
The rocks aren't the carbon sink in this process. They're a concentrating mechanism. They sit there and absorb CO2 from the air, then the kiln process is used to pull the CO2 from the rock to whatever sink they're using.