Comments
UniversalMomentum t1_ixcorss wrote
That seems like a silly way to do the calculation vs CO2 sequestration tech would only be built where you could get very cheap and low CO2 energy.
Generally the idea is convert to cheaper and cleaner energy AND THEN focus on CO2 removal as well, not build CO2 removal powered by a coal power plant.
As long as we can keep the price trending down direct CO2 removal has SOME potential and shouldn't be overlooked, but we may need larger scale riskier biological based CO2 sequestration boosts as well. Doing nothing is still biological sequestration into the oceans, acidification and potential major collapse of ocean food chains... so it's worth trying to push the tech forward.
CO2 removal will always be needed on Earth because CO2 levels are not naturally stable and modern humanity can't survive the natural cycles of +10 and -10 degree changes that natural life survived. CO2 might be a convenient way to control Earth's temps long term. We are clearly great at adding it to the atmosphere, it only makes sense to keep researching how to remove it.
Maybe it won't pay off for 50 years, but that's still how technology and research works, it's not all short term rewards and it's not mostly success stories, it's far more like banging out every possibility until you find the one that works.
DrewsBag t1_ixcsn5n wrote
In scenarios where you are taking CO2 from flue gas, rather than atmospheric concentrations, it takes somewhere around 30% of the energy generated. Here is the fun part though, if you can capture waste heat from the combustion process to power the ccs equipment, it’s a really good deal.
dontpet t1_ixcsvwg wrote
A very high renewables grid is going to have an awful lot of power to use for other things, when in surplus. Tony Seba refers to that as super power.
We will be producing at 3 or 4 times the standard grid requirements at times. Some will go into storage, but not much. Then hydrogen production.
But put a good price on carbon and we will have lots of non carbon based surplus energy to tame climate change. I think where we put it will be more the question.
kidicarus89 t1_ixdkj7w wrote
A lot of that power could go to air scrubbing for cleaner air in urban areas as well, which could save thousands of lives globally.
arglarg t1_ixcub1a wrote
Even if the energy used for carbon capture is carbon neutral, that energy would be better used to replace fossil fuel energy.
ProFoxxxx OP t1_ixcjo01 wrote
Electrically activating chemicals could help remove carbon dioxide from the air, CU Boulder researchers find
Humans send millions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air each year—by generating electricity, manufacturing products, driving, flying and doing other routine activities. And while plants can absorb some of that CO2, much of it remains suspended in the atmosphere, where it acts as an insulating blanket that traps heat on Earth.
Scientists believe removing some of that CO2—and either putting it in long-term storage or converting it into something useful—is a potential option for slowing the progression of human-caused climate change. But carbon sequestration, as the process is known, is easier said than done.
arglarg t1_ixcu36h wrote
It's billions of tons each year. It'd have to he something immensely useful to need so much if it.
junkman21 t1_ixczfn4 wrote
>It'd have to he something immensely useful to need so much if it.
- Dry. Ice.
- Beer
- Carbonated beverages
- Fire extinguishers
- Pellet gun cartridges
You're welcome.
arglarg t1_ixczvdu wrote
We'd need to find use for about 5 metric tons for every person on earth, every year. But all your use cases release the CO2 back into the atmosphere.
junkman21 t1_ixd55h0 wrote
Picture this...
An air rifle range... a cloud of CO2 rolls across the range... lasers... drunk adults... kids hopped up on carbonated sugar beverages... bonfire... fireworks... target shooting... AMERICA!
Kinexity t1_ixd5axa wrote
Carbon capture can only start being deployed when will have a clear plan to remove all sources. Currently we are still adding more and it will end up as nothing more but a reason to pollute more. Removal of almost all of the emissions will be funded by societies while companies will privatize profits.
wasteddrinks t1_ixcwes9 wrote
Carbon capture technology is just a get put of jail free card for carbon emitting industry and fossil fuel producers. Rich companies and people buying a green washed image.
BlameIt_OnTheTetons t1_ixdbcej wrote
Just curious.
What's your solution for energy transition? Immediately halt all fossil fuel based energies?
Carbon capture technologies offer an excellent solution to bridge the transition to green energies. We can't simply shut off the fossil fuel energy switch without risking societial chaos.
wasteddrinks t1_ixdgjqh wrote
>What's your solution for energy transition? Immediately halt all fossil fuel based energies?
Absolutely no one is suggesting an "immediate halt" of fossil fuels is viable.
I disagree with your suggestion that carbon capture technology is a >bridge the transition to green energies . The only way it can be a viable net reducer of carbon is by using 100% green energy. It's creating additional energy usage. I haven't seen any studies that take into account the amount of carbon it takes to build, maintain, and decommission these projects either.
It should be a pretty tell tail sign that a huge amount of funding for these projects comes from fossil fuel producers. Go to Google and search"carbon capture". The first results will be companies like Exon mobile. Carbon capture is the this generation plastic recycling debacle. Large oil companies are shifting the blame onto someone else while they reap the profits and pretend to care about the consequences.
kaminaowner2 t1_ixfoxxq wrote
This is the future solution, todays solution is to green up the grid as much as possible, hopefully by 2050 this technology is ready and we can have a net negative emissions
[deleted] t1_ixcm64e wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixcn2e4 wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_ixcnj7a wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/ProFoxxxx:
Electrically activating chemicals could help remove carbon dioxide from the air, CU Boulder researchers find
Humans send millions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air each year—by generating electricity, manufacturing products, driving, flying and doing other routine activities. And while plants can absorb some of that CO2, much of it remains suspended in the atmosphere, where it acts as an insulating blanket that traps heat on Earth.
Scientists believe removing some of that CO2—and either putting it in long-term storage or converting it into something useful—is a potential option for slowing the progression of human-caused climate change. But carbon sequestration, as the process is known, is easier said than done.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z1sl2f/is_the_future_of_carboncapture_technology/ixcjo01/
Davidrussell22 t1_ixct0pi wrote
What a waste of effort CO2 is fine. In 1995 Gardingen et al measured temps over CO2 emitting springs that had CO2 air ppms varying from 750,000 at 7am to 1000 at 4pm. The temps at those times were identical to those measured nearby where CO2 ppms were 360 all the time.
Kinexity t1_ixd4sa7 wrote
That's just wrong on so many levels. CO2 adds very little to overall energy balance - like <+1W/m^2 average over the year. All the additional heat over spring will disperse through convection because you cannot compare unisolated system (air over spring) and (semi)isolated system (Earth's atmosphere). Also influence of CO2 isn't that straightforward - it causes troposphere to heat up while causing stratosphere to cool down so one random paper about incomparable system cannot explain it's function. Even putting aside effect on climate - 600 ppm of CO2 causes 10-15% decrease in measured intelligence in humans so you may not lose a lot but others may not want to.
[deleted] t1_ixe16eh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixeblk6 wrote
[removed]
Kinexity t1_ixebwlc wrote
Idk which part of your comment causes it to get deleted so I'm not going to cite any of it.
ppms are not important for interpretation of the total energy imbalance. The actual number I can find quickly is 0.47+-0.1 W/m^2. That's the energy flux of the surface of the Earth on average. It clearly indicates that the climate is warming. It's also a known fact that CO2 largely is responsible for that imbalance. I have no clue why you brought up bunch of loosely related numbers. Where even did "2 ppm yearly increase === 1W/M2" come from? That's ridicoulous rate of change.
Heat flows easily near the ground. It's not a proof that CO2 doesn't cause global warming.
Then you did not understand the point I made - it wasn't about the effect of said phenomenon on global warming but rather that atmosphere is more complex than some air over a spring.
Sources for CO2 vs intelligence:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.1510037
https://www.gwern.net/docs/co2/2015-stafford.pdf
Video explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nh_vxpycEA&ab_channel=TomScott
Now imagine schoolroom effect but global.
Davidrussell22 t1_ixetuny wrote
I got 2ppm per year from Feldman (2015) as I specified: 22 ppm increase from 2000 to 2010 is about 2 ppm per year. I got the 1 W/M2 per year from you. I asked if it was TOA or surface, presuming you meant TOA as this forcings are usually quoted that way. Surface forcings relate to TOA forcings in the ratio of 1.46 to 1 (the ratio of the 5.5 W/M2 it takes in extra surface energy to heat the surface from 288K to 289K using Stefan-Boltzmann compared to 3.7W/M2 at TOA to move 255K to 256K).
Your new 0.47 W/M2 is still ridiculously wrong even making the new calculations. Since your number is wrong, your conclusions are wrong too.
If your point was that the atmosphere is complex, you actually had no point.
What is clear to me from CERES satellite data is that the GHE is not operating as advertised. As it turns out in a rebuttal to Feldman (2015) Okulaer in 2015 points out that DWIR (the back-radiation that is putatively what causes AGW) actually declined from 2000 to 2014 by 0.63 W/M2. That rather disproves AGW for the 21st century.
[deleted] t1_ixecrfb wrote
[deleted]
pete1901 t1_ixcltuu wrote
It really all depends on how much energy the process uses and how that energy is generated. Current CO2 capture technologies produces several times as much CO2 in their energy use than they capture during operation. Obviously you could say "just use renewables" but unless the local grid is 100% renewable then it will still be causing CO2 generation by forcing other users off the limited renewable energy supply and back to fossil fuels.