Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's really hard to believe that this is a better use of time and resources than just continuing to improve and expand the renewable energy infrastructure.
So is it getting subsidized somehow ?
oops. i should have read the F'ing summary
DAC is still very expensive -- it can cost upwards of $600 to capture a ton of carbon dioxide. That figure is expected to come down with time as the technology advances. But for now, it takes a lot of energy to run DAC plants, which contributes to the big price
It makes some sense as an R&D project since we will need to eventually do DAC to get CO2 back down.
But there is no reason to do it now, since we won't need it for decades, and there is no reason to do it on such a large scale.
So, yes, this is really stupid.
The big question is: Cui bono? Who is profiting from this insanity? How? Why?
At first, I assumed the CO2 was going to enhanced oil recovery [wikipedia.org], which would make much more economic sense. But according to TFS, that is not the case.
DAC is still very expensive -- it can cost upwards of $600 to capture a ton of carbon dioxide. That figure is expected to come down with time as the technology advances.
DAC is still very expensive -- it can cost upwards of $600 to capture a ton of carbon dioxide. That figure is expected to come down with time as the technology advances.
Currently liquid carbon dioxide sells for about $365 per metric ton. So they are in shooting range of being able to sell it at a profit, which would be a lot easier than pumping it underground.
Currently liquid carbon dioxide sells for about $365 per metric ton.
Currently liquid carbon dioxide sells for about $365 per metric ton.
That's what Google says, but I am very skeptical if that is the actual market price.
A tonne of coal costs $30 and generates three tonnes of CO2. If those three tonnes could then be sold for over $1000, everyone would be burning coal and getting rich.
Coal generates a lot of other things you probably don't want in your nice pure CO2-using industrial process.
Currently liquid carbon dioxide sells for about $365 per metric ton. That's what Google says, but I am very skeptical if that is the actual market price. A tonne of coal costs $30 and generates three tonnes of CO2. If those three tonnes could then be sold for over $1000, everyone would be burning coal and getting rich.
Currently liquid carbon dioxide sells for about $365 per metric ton.
Currently liquid carbon dioxide sells for about $365 per metric ton.
That's what Google says, but I am very skeptical if that is the actual market price.
A tonne of coal costs $30 and generates three tonnes of CO2. If those three tonnes could then be sold for over $1000, everyone would be burning coal and getting rich.
Carbon capture leads to burning even more coal. Someone should suggest this to Donald Trump. Good old-fashioned American entrepreneurship at work. That would be hilarious. Almost sounds like an article from The Onion.
It'll start small and work up to 5 million metric tons a year
It'll start small and work up to 5 million metric tons a year
That's like removing one drop of water from the ocean. DAC simply cannot scale up big enough to remove a *SIGNIFICANT* amount of carbon and do it at anything even remotely near a reasonable price. This is another pointless boondoggle.
It'll start small and work up to 5 million metric tons a year
It'll start small and work up to 5 million metric tons a year
Carbon emissions are currently estimated to be 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide (9.5 billion tons of carbon) per year. Get out your calculator. 5 million is ____ percent of 35 Billion. Hint: It's a really, really, really small number.
I am not an expert, but it's difficult to see how this can be a more economical capture strategy than growing and burying biomass. e.g Locally I can get a 4x5 round bale of hay for $50 that weighs about 800 pounds. Spitballing that you'd need 5 of those for a ton of CO2, that's still leaves a lot of headroom to cover the cost of digging the hole and burying it. ... not that you'd have to use a good product like hay. Slab wood from sawmills is (or used to be) cheaper than that.
What happens when the storage leaks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
What happens when the storage leaks?
What happens when the storage leaks?
The CO2 is pumped into geological formations that held methane for millions of years. Methane is much more geologically mobile than CO2.
Under pressure, CO2 forms a super-critical fluid denser than water, so it will sink beneath the saline layer.
This is a stupid project, but leaks aren't a problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That is nothing like this project. It was methane, not CO2, injected into a temporary storage well, not a deep saline layer.
Why not just use it on natural gas and coal power plants?
Why not just use it on natural gas and coal power plants?
Because the cost is prohibitive.
Instead of coal+CCS, it is cheaper to just erect wind turbines and close the coal mines.
The problem with all these harebrained DAC/CCS schemes is that they only make sense if they are cheaper than building wind turbines, and they never are.
Specifically, project leaders are looking at stowing it 12,000 feet underground in 'saline aquifers' -- areas of rock that are saturated with salt water."
Specifically, project leaders are looking at stowing it 12,000 feet underground in 'saline aquifers' -- areas of rock that are saturated with salt water."
Sure. Until some enterprising official who didn't get paid off "discovers" an obscure amoeba in the aquifers. Then cue the lawsuits to "protect the delicate habitat".
Making all the actual useful stuff that we need can't be done at home.
Making all the actual useful stuff that we need can't be done at home.
12% of American workers are employed in manufacturing.
sounded like a giant machine was headed to remove Wyoming. I was thinking wouldn't it be more efficient to start with a coastal state?\
sounded like a giant machine was headed to remove Wyoming.
sounded like a giant machine was headed to remove Wyoming.
Not an entirely bad idea.
We still pump CO2 from the Jackson Dome [wikipedia.org]. Maybe we should stop pulling carbon out of the ground before we play around with putting it back in. You'll never be able to put it in faster than we can take it out. And it's not clear how permanent these experimental carbon capture techniques will be.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Vultures Prevent Tens of Millions of Metric Tons of Carbon Emissions Each Year
Accused Russian RSOCKS Botmaster Arrested, Requests Extradition To US
Ever notice that even the busiest people are never too busy to tell you just how busy they are?