Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

CCS - Carbon Capture and Storage

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
This process does not lead to acidification as the CO2 ends up being locked in aa solid concrete.

Don't see that.
dissolve carbonic acid H[SUB]2[/SUB]0 + CO[SUB]2[/SUB] -> H[SUP]+[/SUP] + HCO[SUB]3[/SUB][SUP]-[/SUP]
mix with sea water to extract calcium ions
Ca[SUP]2-[/SUP] + 2 HCO[SUB]3[/SUB][SUP]-[/SUP] -> Ca(HCO[SUB]3[/SUB])[SUB]2[/SUB] Calcium- Hydrogen- Carbonate
There are two H[SUP]+[/SUP] left over from the initial reaction. Hydrogen ions are what constitute an acid.

I expect the waste water of that process to be acidic.
 
I did some more looking at their process and they say the equations are:
Ca+2 + 2OH + C02 ==> CaCO2 + H2O
Mg+2 + 2OH + CO2 ==> MgC02 + H2O

They claim the fly ash will make the seawater slightly alkaline and the the CaCO2 and MgC02 precipitate out and can be used for roads and in concrete. If it does work it would be of great help as we are not moving away from carbon based fuels very fast.
 
If you are looking for general information on CCS in Europe and the different projects unergoing already visit www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu

An interesting point to consider. How are we manufacturing the wind turbines? Where is the CO2 from this production going? CCS is definitely a viable solution with 1 new fossil fuel plant opening in China every week. We are a long way from the replacement of fossil fuel plants, so we need to think about today as well as the future.
 
I don't want to drag the thread off topic but I remember reading that the average carbon payback time for a wind turbine was 6.6 months. It even depended on things like how peaty the ground it is built upon is. I'll try to find the paper.
 
I actually taught an online course on clean coal and one of the modules was on CCS. The cheapest way to capture is to do it is through an IGCC plant. What to do with it afterwards is still up in the air, though some of the best ideas are pumping it into old oil and gas wells or unmineable coal beds. The problem that I have with CO2 sequestration is that you lose 2 oxygens for every carbon sequestered. Coal is about 70-90% carbon but your resultant sequestration is 67% oxygen. Not the best long term idea...
 
This old thread seems like a good place to post this new story since the idea just won't go away.
Chevron's Fig Leaf Part 1: Carbon Engineering Burns Natural Gas To Capture Carbon From The Air | CleanTechnica

The solution is energy intensive, would be a net carbon emitter in many jurisdictions if it used electricity, and has some already dubious claims. Experts such as Mark Jacobson rightly point out that just building wind and solar generation with the money instead would lead to much better emissions and pollution outcomes.
 
Sucking carbon out of the air is no magic fix for the climate emergency

Sucking carbon out of the air is no magic fix for the climate emergency | Simon Lewis

Negative emissions tech is important, but the idea it could replace decarbonisation is pure fantasy. Business as usual is not an option

Negative emissions are treated as a “get out of jail free” card – a licence to keep emitting and clean up the mess later with new technologies. Politicians and their advisers love them, because they can announce a target such as 1.5C while planning to exceed it, with temperatures hopefully clawed back later in the century through negative emissions.

We all want a magic bullet that solves the climate emergency, but negative emissions technologies are not it. Of course, it makes no sense to be against these technologies in principle. Investment in them is needed, as hard-to-mitigate emissions will need removing from the atmosphere, and some options such as forest restoration bring many additional benefits. But we should recognise the dual role they also play in encouraging a delay to the action we need to take: rapidly ending the use of fossil fuels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aubreymcfato
Unfortunately, there seems to be very little prospect that we as a world species are actually going to do close to enough to stop carbon pollution anytime soon. At some point, likely when wealthy people start getting effected, my belief is that we'll panic and start trying to do everything at once. By then it's likely there will be so much CO2 in the atmosphere that we'll have to go seriously negative, net zero won't cut it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aubreymcfato
Unfortunately, there seems to be very little prospect that we as a world species are actually going to do close to enough to stop carbon pollution anytime soon. At some point, likely when wealthy people start getting effected, my belief is that we'll panic and start trying to do everything at once. By then it's likely there will be so much CO2 in the atmosphere that we'll have to go seriously negative, net zero won't cut it.
The rich people are good at thinking that they can buy their way to a safe place where they won't be affected by climate change. Probably wrong but they aren't motivated.
 
The rich people are good at thinking that they can buy their way to a safe place where they won't be affected by climate change. Probably wrong but they aren't motivated.
Not yet! They can (and will) run, but ultimately they can't hide.
If my crystal ball is right, by the time the movers and shakers do get concerned, the Earth is going to be in a real mess and it will be all hands on deck.
 
Google’s carbon-spewing climate change conference at an Italian resort has been widely slammed as a tone-deaf party for the elite A-listers who jetted there.

“Is there anything more hypocritical than a bunch of rich people flying their private jets across the world to sit on yachts and discuss the future of our planet?” said Twitter user @asilia1981, reflecting the general reaction online to this week’s Google Camp event in Sicily.

As the party drew to a close on Thursday, newspaper columns and social media were awash with criticism for the three-day, billionaire-packed event — which saw more than 200 of the world’s richest and most famous names take private jets to the Italian island and stay on mega yachts while also talking about stopping climate change.
 
Carbon Capture and Storage.

I have figured this out pretty much.

This is going to take energy to start but has to have a building impact over time. The energy needs to be solar or at least renewable.

The impact has to be global and low tech and mult-pronged.

The idea is to transform housing construction and agriculture and the answer is hemp lime construction or hempcrete construction.

Hemp is a low resource agricultural crop with multiple uses from food to fiber and the waste is called hemp hurds and it is the key to carbon sequestration. Combining hemp hurds with lime and water in a simple ratio and easily mixed, yields a building material that is carbon negative. It absorbs carbon from the air for about 100 years as the lime returns to a state of a kind of limestone entombing the hemp hurds for potentially centuries. Hempcrete is nearly pest proof, fire proof, high R value, sound dampening, mold resistant and is typically utilized in form-based construction (easy).

Using this building material displaces a large portion (not all) of the need for forest harvesting of wood for construction so not great for loggers but wonderful for farmers.

There is a chemical process called the lime cycle.

Lime Cycle - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Creating lime releases CO2 (but it is absorbed back later) and is energy intensive but the energy source can be mostly electrical and solar sourced. The raw material required is limestone and is widely available so transportation is reduced.

Hempcrete homes are healthy, efficient, safe and potentially cheaper. Lime production is industrial but the hemp part is local and generally low tech.

Hemp has been held back by legality but much of that has been removed.

The trick with hemp lime or hempcrete is that hemp hurds contain silica and lime has an affinity for silica creating more stable substance that one using straw or sawdust. Together the lime stabilizes the hemp hurds such that they do not rot nor do they support molds. The lime allows the slow movement of moisture without restriction such that moisture problems do not happen. Formed construction techniques create a very tight envelope without creating moisture problems (think a 12 inch wall poured into forms of infinite shapes).

The US has somewhere between 60-90 million acres of GMO corn and a LOT of this corn (not being used for ICE fuels) could become hemp used for housing, food and fiber.

I view this as a relatively low tech solution but it is also broadly applicable and is in harmony with solar energy, recycling, high efficiency, labor friendly and healthful. There are many wins and few challenges.

Barriers that do exist are related more to zoning where hempcrete is curiously viewed as insulation in many cases. These are challenges to architecture. There are challenges to construction timing since hempcrete has a longer setting process. Decorticators need to be expanded to support the fiber industry but these are known technologies.

This is a solution that has many harmonies and could be well on its way globally in 5 years with a few modest governmental incentives IMO.
 
It could be a troll, but might also want to offset Boring and SpaceX.
My guess is that Elon is thinking about sea level rise. He has been spending a good amount of time at the SpaceX facilities in Boca Chica, Texas. He has also been in communication with the Miami mayor about the possibility of Boring tunnels under the city. Needless to say, both of those locations, and so many others, are severely elevation challenged.

Even with aggressive adoption of clean energy, the CO2 already in the atmosphere puts us on track for continued sea level rise. Sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, if done on a massive scale at tolerable expense, could play a role in saving a vast number of low-lying cities, facilities, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
Even with aggressive adoption of clean energy, the CO2 already in the atmosphere puts us on track for continued sea level rise. Sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, if done on a massive scale at tolerable expense, could play a role in saving a vast number of low-lying cities, facilities, etc.

As usually bandied about, 'CCS' is not net removal of CO2, it is low(er) emission fossil combustion.

I worry that CCS will delay the transition to clean energy generation and provide an excuse for the fossil extraction industry to continue.

To paraphrase Jacobson, CCS is a ***huge*** opportunity cost. It is also besides the point in the context of centralized electricity generators, since those are best replaced by variable renewables. There is no place for 'Net zero' in a zero carbon economy, and CCS cannot be implemented locally where variable renewables most struggle -- flight, trans-oceanic ships, and super high heat industrial applications.

It could have a place as long term energy storage but opportunity cost comes up again.
 
Last edited: