5 ms·

But that goes back to technology and systems again. It is possible that this could be done efficiently during the day using solar, thus minimizing the impact o

But that goes back to technology and systems again. It is possible that this could be done efficiently during the day using solar, thus minimizing the impact of the energy requirement. It is also important to be careful about framing the intent. Carbon capture does not make continued emissions okay, but might conceivably help to minimize emissions that occur during transition.

blueflow 3y ago
> It is possible that this could be done efficiently during the day using solar, thus minimizing the impact of the energy requirement. No! It is not possible. It will always be more efficient to use the solar power directly to reduce CO2 emitters (like coal plants), because that skips the losses the CO2-emitting and CO2-capturing mechanisms will have.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  Sure, but we've reached the limit of arguing in absolutes once we're there. Due to the enormity of the physical work involved, we don't expect to have solar/wind/nuclear/hydrogen/whatever at 100% of the energy grid for many years to come. In the meantime, cracking open limestone to make it absorb carbon is a good idea.* We cannot redeploy literally everyone into making solar panels and building nuclear plants, therefore there is a relative gain to be made by switching at least some people from $UNRELATED_JOB_X to carbon capture. * Worth mentioning: carbon capture doesn't require enormous amounts of electricity or really any significant amount of energy at all AFAIK - crack rocks, when rocks full, put somewhere.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - blueflow 3y ago
    How much cracked limestone do you need to offset a coal plant?
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      Given in terms of mass of substance to mass of carbon Limestone needs 2.3 Basalt 6 nothing on seaweed, unfortch (source: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2023/11/20/carbon-dioxide-removal-options-are-multiplying https://www.economist.com/special-report/2023/11/20/carbon-d..., stick archive.is in front if you need to, I feel bad doing that directly as a customer)
  - bluGill 3y ago
    > Due to the enormity of the physical work involved, we don't expect to have solar/wind/nuclear/hydrogen/whatever at 100% of the energy grid for many years to come. My local utility sent me a message last year: they generated more power from wind than all customers total used. All it took was building windfarms all across Iowa, and they are still building more (I assume to sell to Chicago or Minneapolis, but I don't know how the grid is connected) Sure there are times when the wind isn't blowing. However there is a lot of time when it is blowing, and most of the world isn't even 100% wind during those time. Get busy building instead of being defeatists or pointing out the times wind doesn't blow - those times are why you keep the old power plants operational. (though battery storage should be investigated) Just getting todays low hanging fruit: Wind powered grid, and replacing cars with EVs would make a massive difference. Then we can start talking about other uses of energy, but between electric and cars we have covered most energy uses and those are ready to be fixed today, with today's technology.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > No! It is not possible. That's really aggressive. > It will always be more efficient to use the solar power directly to reduce CO2 emitters (like coal plants) Until you run out of coal plants. Then it stops being "always". There are uses where it's very hard to switch to batteries, to the extent that it's easier to make biofuel or synthetic fuel.
  - blueflow 3y ago
    > Until you run out of coal plants. Then it stops being "always". Then you continue with, as i called them, other "CO2 emitters". Like cars or concrete production.
    - zug_zug 3y ago
      It may turn out that it's cheaper and easier to just pull it out of the air than rebuild every single chemical reaction that produces CO2 (such as heating limestone in the creation of concrete).
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        You should capture the carbon at the source for concrete production. But airplanes are an example where producing fuel seems like a pretty good option.
- nradov 3y ago
  We're going to need significant amounts of storable liquid hydrocarbon fuels to operate long-range transportation. Most of aviation, shipping, and military activities can never be fully electrified. We'll have to figure out how to manufacture those fuels with minimal net CO2 emissions.
calvinmorrison 3y ago
Yes instead of battery storage you have hydrocarbon storage.
mrguyorama 3y ago
This isn't a technology or material science or anything problem, this is a reality problem. In reality, you cannot make an energy dense anything without expending at least that amount of energy. "Fuel" like gasoline is nothing more then a chemical battery, and if you want to remake that chemical battery, you literally have to inject enough energy to form the chemical bonds involved.

blueflow 3y ago

> It is possible that this could be done efficiently during the day using solar, thus minimizing the impact of the energy requirement. No! It is not possible. It will always be more efficient to use the solar power directly to reduce CO2 emitters (like coal plants), because that skips the losses the CO2-emitting and CO2-capturing mechanisms will have.

refulgentis 3y ago
Sure, but we've reached the limit of arguing in absolutes once we're there. Due to the enormity of the physical work involved, we don't expect to have solar/wind/nuclear/hydrogen/whatever at 100% of the energy grid for many years to come. In the meantime, cracking open limestone to make it absorb carbon is a good idea.* We cannot redeploy literally everyone into making solar panels and building nuclear plants, therefore there is a relative gain to be made by switching at least some people from $UNRELATED_JOB_X to carbon capture. * Worth mentioning: carbon capture doesn't require enormous amounts of electricity or really any significant amount of energy at all AFAIK - crack rocks, when rocks full, put somewhere.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- blueflow 3y ago
  How much cracked limestone do you need to offset a coal plant?
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    Given in terms of mass of substance to mass of carbon Limestone needs 2.3 Basalt 6 nothing on seaweed, unfortch (source: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2023/11/20/carbon-dioxide-removal-options-are-multiplying https://www.economist.com/special-report/2023/11/20/carbon-d..., stick archive.is in front if you need to, I feel bad doing that directly as a customer)
- bluGill 3y ago
  > Due to the enormity of the physical work involved, we don't expect to have solar/wind/nuclear/hydrogen/whatever at 100% of the energy grid for many years to come. My local utility sent me a message last year: they generated more power from wind than all customers total used. All it took was building windfarms all across Iowa, and they are still building more (I assume to sell to Chicago or Minneapolis, but I don't know how the grid is connected) Sure there are times when the wind isn't blowing. However there is a lot of time when it is blowing, and most of the world isn't even 100% wind during those time. Get busy building instead of being defeatists or pointing out the times wind doesn't blow - those times are why you keep the old power plants operational. (though battery storage should be investigated) Just getting todays low hanging fruit: Wind powered grid, and replacing cars with EVs would make a massive difference. Then we can start talking about other uses of energy, but between electric and cars we have covered most energy uses and those are ready to be fixed today, with today's technology.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Dylan16807 3y ago
> No! It is not possible. That's really aggressive. > It will always be more efficient to use the solar power directly to reduce CO2 emitters (like coal plants) Until you run out of coal plants. Then it stops being "always". There are uses where it's very hard to switch to batteries, to the extent that it's easier to make biofuel or synthetic fuel.
- blueflow 3y ago
  > Until you run out of coal plants. Then it stops being "always". Then you continue with, as i called them, other "CO2 emitters". Like cars or concrete production.
  - zug_zug 3y ago
    It may turn out that it's cheaper and easier to just pull it out of the air than rebuild every single chemical reaction that produces CO2 (such as heating limestone in the creation of concrete).
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      You should capture the carbon at the source for concrete production. But airplanes are an example where producing fuel seems like a pretty good option.
nradov 3y ago
We're going to need significant amounts of storable liquid hydrocarbon fuels to operate long-range transportation. Most of aviation, shipping, and military activities can never be fully electrified. We'll have to figure out how to manufacture those fuels with minimal net CO2 emissions.

calvinmorrison 3y ago

Yes instead of battery storage you have hydrocarbon storage.

mrguyorama 3y ago

This isn't a technology or material science or anything problem, this is a reality problem. In reality, you cannot make an energy dense anything without expending at least that amount of energy. "Fuel" like gasoline is nothing more then a chemical battery, and if you want to remake that chemical battery, you literally have to inject enough energy to form the chemical bonds involved.