Carbon Capture News article 1

[JoshPlumSE]

This is a relatively short news article. But, I had not read much about Carbon Capture / DAC (Direct Air Capture) before. Therefore, I found it interesting and though you all might too.

https://news.yahoo.com/is-carbon-removal-a-realistic-climate-solution-150118699.html

 

[TugboatEng]

Looks like the largest example, Orca, uses 10.6GWh of energy to remove 4000 tons of CO2. Here in the USA, our electricity produces 0.85lbs per KWh. 10.6 GWh of electricity would produce 4500 tons of CO2.

Looks like another step in the wrong direction.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

That wasn't mentioned in the article, but it was one of the things that I thought about while reading..... where do they get the power they're using for the carbon capture.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

There are lots of things I think about related to carbon capture. Like, why we don't take a bunch of agricultural waste and try to "store" it in a way that will prevent it from decomposing and releasing it's CO2 released into the atmosphere..... Maybe even convert it into biofuels and such.

 

[btrueblood]

Along with what you said, Josh, I was thinking about our Seattle area's latest gambit - creating a no-cut forest as a "carbon sequestration". The problem is, those trees in the forest won't be static, they shed needles and cones, and some trees fall each year and decompose. So the net sequestration of an uncut forest is not going to be as great as a working forest, whose products (lumber) are sequestered in houses/buildings, and later possibly sequestered in landfills...

 

[TugboatEng]

Any discussion of using organic things such as trees to store CO2 conveniently neglects the methane emissions of such systems. Healthy forests rely on decomposition to support their ecosystems and that pumps out a lot of methane.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/scientists-probe-the-surprising-role-of-trees-in-methane-emissions

 

[SnTMan]

The Bent of Tau Beta Pi has a fairly interesting article about decarbonization. Part of the article discusses direct capture, including the Orca plant.

Quoting the article "That is, of course, minuscule compared to the magnitude of the need: 250,000 DAC facilities the size of Orca would be needed to remove just 1 GtCO2 per year."

Seems quire the challenge.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[LionelHutz]

Orca is using geothermal power, correct, so at least its not too bad.

What do they think will happen to the carbon sequestration forest when it burns?

 

[hokie66]

But that geothermal power could be used usefully elsewhere. As Tug said, there is no net advantage.

Similar to the entitled mob who say their electric cars save on energy. No net advantage.

 

[TugboatEng]

It's literally worse than no advantage.


I don't know about Iceland's geothermal situation but here in California we have some geothermal generation nearby. I have had the fortune of touring the plant as an engineering student vs. tourist. The operators of the plant didn't paint such a rosy picture. As it turns out, geothermal in this region is a sort of a finite resource. There is limited water in the ground to produce steam and after 20+ years of operation most of the wells have dwindled to a fraction of their original output. There are injection wells intended to restore output but injection is hit an miss as the injected water often cools the well and reduces output. Then again, our region is seriously short on water and maybe we shouldn't be wasting any on injection, even if it's wastewater. The fracking bans may also limit the utilization of injection.

 

[BrianPetersen]

If you have a source of energy that does not emit CO2 (doesn't matter what it is), it's better to use it to substitute for other CO2-emitting sources (e.g. a coal-fired generating station) than it is to try to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere - which is something better left to plants.

Disagree on electric cars. The efficiency of an internal combustion engine when operated under typical road-traffic conditions is very poor and often zero (idling). EVs use nothing (aside from HVAC) when stopped in traffic and their efficiency is typically best in city traffic, and they can make use of regenerative braking which a non-hybrid combustion-engine vehicle cannot. Even if all electrical generation is via fossil fuels ... The well-to-wheels efficiency of a natural-gas-fired combined-cycle generating station to electrical distribution to EV charger to battery to wheels, is higher than that of a normal combustion engine by a significant margin. And that's assuming all electrical generation is by fossil fuel. Locally, as of 2019, our grid supply is only about 8% fossil fuel, none of which is coal.

Hybrid cars do better than those with traditional powertrains, but still won't match the EV.

 

[TugboatEng]

Geothermal does emit CO2. While it's generally less than conventional power plants, depending on region can compare to coal plants for CO2 per KWh.

https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/IGAstandard/record_detail.php?id=27900

 

[LionelHutz]

hokie66, well ya that would apply pretty much anywhere else except Iceland.

 

[hokie66]

Brian,

8% fossil? Is this article wrong, or just out of date? I know your most important source is hydro, but thought fossil fuels were still important, as well as nuclear.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural...tricity-infrastructure/about-electricity/7359

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Hybrid cars do better than those with traditional powertrains, but still won't match the EV.

For California (where most of our energy / electricity is renewable) I agree. But, not sure EV's are that much better than Hybrids for locations where that's not the case. If your region gets most of it's electricity from coal power plants, then I don't think that would be the case.

Another way that hybrids may be better.... flexibility. You don't have to plan your work week or road trip around when you're going to find a charging station.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty committed to making my next vehicle a hybrid.

 

[BrianPetersen]

8% fossil? Is this article wrong, or just out of date?

Page on official government website gives information from 2014. LOL

Here's a more up to date (2019) page from a different government department which breaks it down by province.

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-a...cial-territorial-energy-profiles-ontario.html

See figure 2.

There are very substantial differences between provinces.

 

[hokie66]

I wouldn't care about differences between provinces. The 2019 page for Canada as a whole shows 60% hydro (lucky country), 18% fossil (11 gas, 7 coal and coke), 15% nuke, 7% other.

 

[LionelHutz]

Canada is a big country so a resident talking locally doesn't include all of it. Most times that doesn't even encompass a whole province.

 

[stevenal]

Do the electrons stop at the province borders?

 

[LionelHutz]

Does the generation in British Columbia or Alberta or Manitoba or Saskatchewan have any relevance on the supply make up in Ontario or Quebec? Pretending that Canada has a homogenized energy supply throughout the country is simply wrong. Neither does the USA. It's all very regional.

You can check here if you want actual relevant data about Ontario, but probably have to dig deeper to find out where any imported power comes from.

https://www.ieso.ca/