4 ms·

From the abstract: "The analysis uses meta-analysis tools.." I.E., they didn't do any actual research themselves, they just curated a list of "representative"

by rhelz 3y ago

From the abstract: "The analysis uses meta-analysis tools.." I.E., they didn't do any actual research themselves, they just curated a list of "representative" papers which, when run through "meta-analysis tools" will give them the conclusion they are looking for. Can somebody explain to me how carbon capture can beat the laws of thermodynamics? It seems to me that it would take at least as much energy to pull the carbon out of the air, or even the exhausts of a coal-burning plant, than was yielded by burning it and putting it there in the first place. It will never be cost effective to pull capture all of the carbon released during the entire industrial age. I suspect the reason people are suggesting this is they have the ulterior motive of making fossil-fuel burning seem less dangerous than it is.

PaulHoule 3y ago
There are two different changes here: (1) The chemical change that produces CO2 and liberates energy, and (2) the physical change of diffusion as concentrated CO2 is diluted in the atmosphere If you have concentrated CO2 in one place (say an oil refinery or power plant) you can inject it underground. To produce concentrated CO2 from the atmosphere you have to overcome change (2) but that has nothing to do with change (1). Now someone who wanted to keep using old engines in say 2060 might want to use an e-fuel where (1) is reversed too to synthesize a fuel. The US Navy likes the idea that it could use water, air and energy from a nuclear power plant to make jet fuel. The main theme in that article is building a coal burning power plant that captures CO2 and never releases most into the air.
- rhelz 3y ago
  The distinction between 1) and 2) is very helpful, thanks for that. I really wonder whether we know all the costs associated with storing co2 underground, for geological timescales.... > energy from a nuclear power plant to make jet fuel. I mean, yeah, it would be cool if an aircraft carrier could just make its own jet fuel, but the energy books have got to balance; taking CO2 out of the air and turning it into jet fuel has to take at least as much energy as burning the jet fuel and putting the CO2 into the air in the first place. Otherwise, you could just have free power by burning the jet fuel and converting it back, over and over... > article is [about] building a coal burning power plant that captures CO2 Yeah, but really, solar and wind are already cheaper than coal--and that's when you just vent the CO2 into the air. So we're not talking about building new sequestering power plants....at best we're talking about retro-fitting already existing ones....is every one of them going to have the geology which can store CO2 for geological timescales?? Maybe I'm still missing something, but I just don't see it. I mean, if I had a bunch of coal I wanted to sell, certainly it would be handy to be able to whip this paper out and shove it in the face of one of those annoying green-type protesters. It would knock them back on their heels--until they had a chance to read it. But that's all i see it being useful for.

by rhelz 3y ago

PaulHoule 3y ago

There are two different changes here: (1) The chemical change that produces CO2 and liberates energy, and (2) the physical change of diffusion as concentrated CO2 is diluted in the atmosphere If you have concentrated CO2 in one place (say an oil refinery or power plant) you can inject it underground. To produce concentrated CO2 from the atmosphere you have to overcome change (2) but that has nothing to do with change (1). Now someone who wanted to keep using old engines in say 2060 might want to use an e-fuel where (1) is reversed too to synthesize a fuel. The US Navy likes the idea that it could use water, air and energy from a nuclear power plant to make jet fuel. The main theme in that article is building a coal burning power plant that captures CO2 and never releases most into the air.

rhelz 3y ago
The distinction between 1) and 2) is very helpful, thanks for that. I really wonder whether we know all the costs associated with storing co2 underground, for geological timescales.... > energy from a nuclear power plant to make jet fuel. I mean, yeah, it would be cool if an aircraft carrier could just make its own jet fuel, but the energy books have got to balance; taking CO2 out of the air and turning it into jet fuel has to take at least as much energy as burning the jet fuel and putting the CO2 into the air in the first place. Otherwise, you could just have free power by burning the jet fuel and converting it back, over and over... > article is [about] building a coal burning power plant that captures CO2 Yeah, but really, solar and wind are already cheaper than coal--and that's when you just vent the CO2 into the air. So we're not talking about building new sequestering power plants....at best we're talking about retro-fitting already existing ones....is every one of them going to have the geology which can store CO2 for geological timescales?? Maybe I'm still missing something, but I just don't see it. I mean, if I had a bunch of coal I wanted to sell, certainly it would be handy to be able to whip this paper out and shove it in the face of one of those annoying green-type protesters. It would knock them back on their heels--until they had a chance to read it. But that's all i see it being useful for.