It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate change: 'Magic bullet' carbon solution takes big step

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), means that man-made greenhouse gasses are causing climate change.

Some believe it with a passion and would whack you upside your head with one of their protest signs if you disagree. The other side thinks it is just a way to scam people out of money and point to dumb ideas like "carbon taxes" and say things like, "Just grow more trees" to dismissively ignore that something is happening to the climate on a global scale.

Natural cycle or not. This side or that side... I don't care. That is politics and you know which forum you can shout at each other in!

This is about action. Possible CT thrown in for good measure. And somebody finally doing something, or at the very least, trying, about the mean boogey man, atmospheric carbon dioxide. Excessive amounts of it from the industrial revolution to China and India today pumping millions of tons of it into the atmosphere. Google says global CO2 emissions hit 37.1 billion tons in 2018.

I have posted about them before in several threads: Canadian Company, Carbon Engineering.

See: "Sucking Air" in MIT Technology Review, Vol 119, No. 4, p. 116. July/August, 2016.

In the article, it goes through the steps of how CO2 is pulled from 4 parts per million (PPM) and concentrated down in their pilot plant in Squamish, BC (north of Vancouver). They concentrate atmospheric CO2 into calcium carbonate (that chalky stuff in your chewable antacid) using repurposed farm and dairy equipment (i.e., off the shelf, mass produced equipment).


Around the world, a number of companies are racing to develop the technology that can draw down carbon. Swiss company Climeworks is already capturing CO2 and using it to boost vegetable production.

Carbon Engineering says that its direct air capture (DAC) process is now able to capture the gas for under $100 a tonne.

With its new funding, the company plans to build its first commercial facilities. These industrial-scale DAC plants could capture up to one million tonnes of CO2 from the air each year.


It has now been boosted by $68m in new investment from Chevron, Occidental and coal giant BHP.


The chalky calcium carbonate pellets are then treated at a high temperature of about 900C, with the pellets decomposing into a CO2 stream and calcium oxide.

That stream of pure CO2 is cleaned up to remove water impurities.

"The key to this process is about concentrating the CO2," said Carbon Engineering's Dr Jenny McCahill.

"We can then put it underground as in sequestration, or we can combine it with hydrogen to form hydrocarbons or methanol. There's a number of things you can do."

BBC.com, 3 April, 2019 - Climate change: 'Magic bullet' carbon solution takes big step.

They do not say where they are going to build their treatment plant.

They can reduce CO2 to CO to make synthetic gas or any other hydrocarbon precursor. The nay-sayers think that the CO2 will be sold to one of their Big Oil funders for EOR, Enhanced Oil Recovery, where supercritical CO2 is pumped back down oil wells to flush out more oil. They also think that people will no longer care about pumping CO2 into the atmosphere because of that **points at air sucking plant**. As if people are so dumb that just because one or two people in the world can do it then they can just keep on polluting (I will give people the benefit of the doubt. Probably a fatal mistake on my part!).

I say sell the crap to the hemp industry in Canadia to get them to extract CBD oil from their product! They can add it to CBD soda drinks to be all fizzy! And they could turn it supercritical themselves and sell electricity back to the Canadian grid! Get your money for nothing, and your electricity for free!

Or, because coal and oil companies are now involved, it could all be big sham. You know, keep the lid on it, or, as Sun Tzu said, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

This is classic, "Making money off of other people's trash." They hit $100/ton goal and if the full facility is even larger than their pilot plant (more efficient), the price may be lower.

Either way you see it, somebody, somewhere, is finally something about atmospheric CO2 emissions.

And I say it is about damn time!
edit on 3-4-2019 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: I will learn tricky acronyms one day!




posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Just pointing out as someone in the gas lift business (EOR) that what you put downhole to lift oil is coming back up with the oil.

Which is why the preferred method is to strip the nat gas coming up and send the stripped (dry) gas back downhole for your lift, enhancing the C1-C-3 quality, or simply send non stripped gas back downhole to avoid having to pay for the priviledge of getting rid of it.

Then there would be transport, having to compress it over 1,000 psi, etc.

So far it's been a real non-starter in my line of work.





edit on 3-4-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari


I thought it already was "a thing" that worked (oh, corrected it, "EOR"! My bad)

That would kick out one of the legs of stool the nay-sayers have!

Thanks for letting us know!



 


Also found this Canadian company: CarbonCure Technologies (Homepage).

They are taking CO2 and using it to steam cure concrete. They have figured out just how much they need to use where it then becomes mineralized within the concrete itself.

Maybe somebody here knows more than just the basics of concrete production (me!) and can tell us how steam curing works?

Nice idea.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 04:58 PM
link   

CE’s [Carbon Engineering] investors now include: Bill Gates, Murray Edwards, BHP, Chevron Technology Ventures, Oxy Low Carbon Ventures, LLC, Bethel Lands Corporation Ltd, Carbon Order, First Round Capital, Lowercase Capital, Rusheen Capital Management, LLC, Starlight Ventures, Thomvest Asset Management (an affiliate of Peter J. Thomson), the Benjamin Family, the Hodgkinson Family, and the Hutchison Family. Additionally, all of CE’s Board, management and many of CE’s staff have personally invested into the company as part of this round.

carbonengineering.com, news and updates, 21 March, 2019 - Carbon Engineering concludes USD$68 million private investment round and proceeds with commercialization of carbon dioxide removal technology.

Interesting list of investors!

Something seems to be going on with Bill Gates and Canada. I am not sure what. He is also funding at least 2 nuclear fusion projects: TerraPower and Commonwealth Fusion. I wonder if he is involved with General Fusion through Breakthrough Energy Ventures?

Then the circle would be complete! And we would see money making more money as the cycle continues.

But why Canada? Hum...



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF



Natural cycle or not. This side or that side... I don't care. That is politics and you know which forum you can shout at each other in! 

This is about action.


If this "something" that is happening on a global scale is actually happening on a solar system wide level, or more, then this particular action of removing CO2 from our planet's atmosphere Might be the equivilant of a single bandaid to cure the multiple wounds from a shotgun pellet blast.

What if the appropriate "action" in this case involves the good ole J-shape bunker at sufficient altitudes? And anything less is "a joke", and functions only as a distraction?

I'm just curious what you have to say about the planetary changes happening within our solar system.

Also, I just wanna say, if it IS true that something utterly cataclysmic awaits us, and most of us will surely perish anyway especially because you cant convince enough of them that this will actually happen since we don't have enough evidence at the citizenry level, then I see no harm in pursuing this endeavor, just in case it works, or at least helps or functions as a stepping stone to something that DOES work or help.

If we had real evidence that we should expect total disaster, THEN I would say we should divert all efforts into moving the population underground, because then it would be easier to convince people.

Also, Im not saying something will happen, Im only asking what if and also would like your opinion on the Other "global events" happening inside our solar system. I believe it was Electric Universe theory that hypothesized a star size body, with planets or no, coming close to another star size body, or close enough so that their "sheath" (like an outer shell protecting the entire solar system from all manner of nastiness KIND OF in the same way Earths geomagnetic field and thick atmosphere protect us down here on the surface, because our Earthly shields protect us from both physical dangers like space rocks, AND "invisible" danger like radiation) touches or rubs up against the "sheath" of the other star, it causes energies to intensify, or something like that...





As if people are so dumb that just because one or two people in the world can do it then they can just keep on polluting (I will give people the benefit of the doubt. Probably a fatal mistake on my part!). 


Of course if only 2 people are doing this, we cannot continue to pollute in this particular manner (ejecting co2 into the atmosphere). But, what if we created like, 2,000 of these air cleaners, spread across the globe, all equidistant like?

THEN can we still eject CO2 into the atmosphere?

I'm not saying we CAN. I'm just ASKING...
For a friend! Yeah! That's the ticket!





This is classic, "Making money off of other people's trash." They hit $100/ton goal and if the full facility is even larger than their pilot plant (more efficient), the price may be lower. 


Pretty soon the polluting mega companies will be claiming "THAT pollution is property of EvilCorp, Incorporated! You OWE us a slice of the pie!"

Like how Monsanto will sue if the wind, insects, or any other natural process humans have no control over, brings THEIR specially modified product that THEY spent big money developing, into ANOTHER farmer's plot of land.

You could say "why cant they just grow indoors using electric lighting or like a greenhouse or something if they are so possessive over their seeds?" but when you have power, you can just grow outside, using free sunlight, and force everyone else to be legally responsible for what Mother Nature does.


I can ALMOST see that same "logic" being applied here in the future.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470


There are other harmful AGW man-made pollutants (NOx, for example; methane; and lets not forget the light coating of black dust covering the world's ice caps), but the big one that everybody points to is CO2. So, for this thread to stay on course, that is what the topic is (today! We can go anywhere, but for today, let's keep it on target. The solar system wide change is interesting as there were predictions of entering "thicker" space and more stuff would collide us... just looking at a few threads here, there seems to be more space debris, so it could be a reality).

I think the idea is the we do this in other places around the globe (or flat earth map if you swing that way!). The synth gas makes sense if you get other countries to buy in to scrubbing CO2 and using it as an adjunct to your gas supply. The article says there is no sulfur so those sulfur containing contaminants would not be produced as well. So if you can prevent a poor country from polluting itself and it benefits the whole planet... well, that just makes too much sense!

Think about it. CO2 is partially burnt fuel that is just vented to the atmosphere. If somebody finds a way to add value to a waste product, then at your CO2 production site wouldn't you spend a bit more effort to get 2 items to sell that the world wants/needs? I have read that that is what "upcycling" really is; it is not taking someone else's trash and turning into a dress or whatever but getting 2, or more, products out of what was once considered waste. Like doing a combined waste heat/electric turbine and selling the electricity from both out your front door.

Isn't there always some greedy bastid out there trying to prevent you from getting ahead in this world? When trash becomes business that is what you will find. Wait until plastic can be mass produced to hydrogen, or, mass reduced back to plastic, there will be people out there fishing the oceans for plastic like the California Gold Rush of 1849! And look at all the chaos that caused!

Wouldn't that be the day? "Here is your check for respiration last month! Keep up the good work!"




posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Won't reducing CO2 on a global scale harm the environment by reducing healthy vegetation? I believe there have been times when CO2 has been a much higher percentage in our atmosphere than right now and during all those times we have had an equivalent increase in vegetation.

I don't like the idea of thinking of CO2 as pollution and I don't think we should be artificially reducing the amount in our atmosphere.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
If carbon capture is popular right now with our governments, you can bet your sweet ass it has to be done.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

There is more going into the atmosphere right now than coming out. And trees and/or algae cannot absorb enough.

The actual figure is 405 PPM.

Life itself is struggling to exist, let alone people. The small increase in temperatures has put strains on forests causing them to heat up. The creatures living in the forest have fled to higher elevations to escape the heat. Some have reached the top of mountains and have nowhere to go but extinct!

If CO2 reduction helps to keep other processes in check too, at least from adding to the misery, I think it should be tried.

Did you not see that 31 billion tons were added last year. And that was to what was already there! I think that trees and microbes and humans have enough CO2 that 1 million tons will not be missed (maybe it was 100m tons the plant will suck out of the air. Anyway, there is still plenty to go around).

a reply to: InTheLight

There is not a single solution. The article kind of makes that
point by saying, "Magic bullet", several times. This will be one of many. My favorite is biochar. That way you get to get it out of the atmosphere and help convert it back into dirt that does not need chemicals dumped on it to be viable.

Reduction has to be part too. The idea here is they want to make syn gas to keep other pollutants out of the air too. And make it be of value that even poorer countries will want to do the same.

I haven't read it but the headline is shocking to say the least (it might be total bait-click)

IFLScience.com - Air Pollution Now Kills More People Than Smoking, Says New Study.

It is not CO2 but particulate matter but the idea is the same: cleaner air, everybody wins.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

reading your response, i have some hope for the future. we are like an infant race, still learning, still stumbling and scraping our knees.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

reading your response, i have some hope for the future. we are like an infant race, still learning, still stumbling and scraping our knees.


Truer words never spoken, but aren't we to blame too for not forcing our governments and our neighbours to act?



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

So it’s a derivative of EOR (been around quite some time) and it’s waste stream can be used like a Brita filter (activated charcoal is so...well, old-ass tech)? Wake me up when they fuse atoms (I know you’ve some ‘cutting-edge tech article claiming it so...).

Natural gas for a transition fuel...energy efficiency for tokenism...cold fusion for that pie in the sky.

Hydrocarbons FTW (unless you would like to wander aimlessly until the climate change apocalypse arrives...).



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

My issue... for those of us who believe there is no problem, why support taking action? Action is reserved for issues that need action, not appeasement of the noisy doomsayers and fear mongers, not busy work just because, and certainly not change just for the sake of change. There is no greenhouse gas related global warming that is impacted by man, so why in the blue hell should we do anything beyond telling the meddlesome masses to STFU and retake their seats in the peanut gallery to be seen and not heard?



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Cravens

Fusion has already happened. The problem is it takes more power than it produces (called, “break even ”). That is what is being pursued. Progress leveled off in the 80s because magnets had not kept pace. That has/is changing right now.

EOR doesn’t “filter” anything. Read lumenaria’s response how the mixture all comes back out and is not being pursued in the real world (I thought SCO2 displaced residual oil and pushed it out... which is what the article nay-sayers were complaining about).

Nothing was said about natural gas being replaced let alone any mention of cold fusion (now called LENR, btw).

The whole point was about taking action not arguing minutiae about opinions or beliefs.

Cool thing is, nobody has to do anything but sit back and then argue their political viewpoints about results after the plant is built and runs for a while.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I think cars and trucks burning fossil fuels might be the problem. When fishing off the New Jersey coast, there's a giant plume of black soot all the way down the Turnpike and Parkway. The air pollution is really thick and dark.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Won't reducing CO2 on a global scale harm the environment by reducing healthy vegetation? I believe there have been times when CO2 has been a much higher percentage in our atmosphere than right now and during all those times we have had an equivalent increase in vegetation.

I don't like the idea of thinking of CO2 as pollution and I don't think we should be artificially reducing the amount in our atmosphere.


Deforestation hurts vegetation. Reducing CO2 to level it was one hundred years ago would give us vegetation growth close to what it was one hundred years ago minus the deforestation. Artificially reducing co2 to the levels they were 100 years ago before we artificially raised them to what they are today is pretty safe.

As to your question of there being times when co2 higher than now which was millions of years ago there are pluses and minuses. Ocean temps at the equator were like that of a hot tub coral reefs were near non-existent as well as shellfish. On the plus, there was vegetation everywhere so it sort of a brawndo moment.

Here is a vid explaining the last time co2 was higher.



posted on Apr, 3 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I never questioned about previous levels!

Please understand that complex atmospheric reactions take place and when you take one pollutant out your Jenga Tower of reactions probably will change.

I want to see if the whole thing is predicte on CO2 levels.

Metallicus nailed it. CO2 is part of life. It keeps your blood vessels inflated as O2 and CO2 are kept at equilibrium (I seem to remember that too much CO2 actually causes you to inhale when at rest... but that was in the way back days). The CO2, O2 redox is a vital part of life.

And sucking excess out of the atmosphere will not hurt any life.

The complex interaction of atmospheric chemistry has to be looked at before any conclusion can be made.

My whole point is that we have to at least try.

It should be easy to see that it doesn’t work and the planet can self correct. So what is the harm in trying??



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 02:05 AM
link   
The climate isn't changing fast enough. There are still billions of people. I'm calling this climate disaster an overblown inconvenience.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Not a very useful technology IMO. It's very expensive compared to drilling for oil. Plus, even 1,000 such factories costing billions of USD each, plus 1,000 additional power plants to run them, isn't even going to remove 10% as much CO2 as what China puts into the air.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Won't reducing CO2 on a global scale harm the environment by reducing healthy vegetation? I believe there have been times when CO2 has been a much higher percentage in our atmosphere than right now and during all those times we have had an equivalent increase in vegetation.

I don't like the idea of thinking of CO2 as pollution and I don't think we should be artificially reducing the amount in our atmosphere.


Deforestation hurts vegetation. Reducing CO2 to level it was one hundred years ago would give us vegetation growth close to what it was one hundred years ago minus the deforestation. Artificially reducing co2 to the levels they were 100 years ago before we artificially raised them to what they are today is pretty safe.

As to your question of there being times when co2 higher than now which was millions of years ago there are pluses and minuses. Ocean temps at the equator were like that of a hot tub coral reefs were near non-existent as well as shellfish. On the plus, there was vegetation everywhere so it sort of a brawndo moment.

Here is a vid explaining the last time co2 was higher.




CO2 measurement began in 1959. No one knows how much CO2 there was 100 years ago.




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join