Direct Air Capture 9

[1503-44]

Direct Air Capture

 

[rb1957]

I wonder how many nuke power plants they'll build ?

none ??

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[1503-44]

I would imagine 0 nukes. Coal power is the way to go with this option. They provide the coal plant with a nice 24/7 base load and capture their CO2 before it floats off. Everybody wins.

 

[SnTMan]

...pull carbon from the air and magnetically attach it to calcium or potassium molecules...

Huh. Magnetically.

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

 

[SuperSalad]

The article leaves a lot to be desired; such as any technical details whatsoever as to how this idea would feasibly work.

Somehow have an unlimited and economical supply of calcium and potassium to bond it to? Yeah, ok.....

Just keep pumping that material into the ground for permanent storage? Yeah, ok.....

I said the same thing in another, similar thread some time ago. Unless whoever is doing the "capturing" has a ready use for the captured carbon, it isn't sustainable or feasible. It has to go somewhere and into the ground moves the needle of my BS meter past the redline.

Andrew H.

http://www.MotoTribology.com

 

[1503-44]

Think "magically", if it helps.

SuperSalad,
Supposedy the world would have been determined to not be sustainable if they have to start this plant up and you're worried about what, the plant???

 

[rb1957]

wouldn't it be better to leave to coal in the ground and use cleaner fuels ?

like nukes ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[1503-44]

Let's think about that for a ms or two. Times up. No.

But maybe OK, if you volunteer to bury the spent fuel in your backyard.
Spent fuel; the dirty little secret about nukes.

 

[EdStainless]

If someone suggests DAC before going after concentrated sources then they full of $hit.
The catalytic capture approach works well with concentrated sources since there is much lower energy input requirement. Putting this on a NatGas power plant makes sense, there is no S poisoning of the catalyst to worry about.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

 

[1503-44]

Will it work on atmospheric CO2 concentration levels, or you trying to say it costs too much?
I worked for a company that captured nitrogen, oxygen and argon from the atmosphere, put it in bottles and sold all of it for a profit. We scrubbed out the CO2 first with NaOH so it didn't freeze up in the pipes. I'm sure if we wanted CO2 for something, we could have got our hands on that too. Can you explain why this won't work?

 

[EdStainless]

Costs too much.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

 

[1503-44]

Costs more than burning up the Earth.
How is that possible.
Given the alternative, seems to be cheap at twice the price.

 

[EdStainless]

I am working on a project where we are taking an old manufacturing plant that uses NatGas furnaces for process heating. We will duct all of them to a CC unit. That is a feed that is a few thousand ppm CO2 and the operating costs are low (capital is a bit high).
So as long as there are CO2 rick streams out there that should be the target.
Though our set up will allow free air capture when the plant is not operating.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

 

[1503-44]

Great. Now that is interesting.
Is there an end use for the CO2; something other than underground injection and storage?
CO2 is being pipelined to some oil fields to be used for injection enhanced production.
Can you estimate something like the capital costs per MMCFD capacity and CO2 extracted?

 

[SuperSalad]

Supposedy the world would have been determined to not be sustainable if they have to start this plant up and you're worried about what, the plant???

I'm going to guess at what your saying here because I can't tell for sure, and please feel free to clarify if I am incorrect.

No, the world is highly sustainable, continued and unchecked human expansion is the unsustainable part of the equation. The solution is not to do more and sweep the dirt under the rug, it is to do less and bring in less dirt.

Spent fuel; the dirty little secret about nukes.

Maybe in 1960 that statement would be accurate . It is no secret.

Demonization of nuclear energy has got to be one of the most successful crowning achievements of the fossil fuel industry.

Andrew H.

http://www.MotoTribology.com

 

[EdStainless]

Today there isn't much else to do with CO2 unless you are a chemical plant and you can blend it into your feedstock. There are proposals for making various fuels or carbonates but as of today these require too much energy input (they need to find better catalysts).
Cost, well we will find out if this gets off of the ground. The estimates are all over the place. But the richer the stream the less house power required to drive the system.
We are doing this as a step to start cleaning up and old existing facility.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

 

[rb1957]

"But maybe OK, if you volunteer to bury the spent fuel in your backyard.
Spent fuel; the dirty little secret about nukes."

1) actually I have a reactor close to my backyard (I can see it from my backyard).

2) Only an IDIOT would bury nuclear waste in his backyard.

3) No, nuclear waste is not a "dirty little secret" it is a very well understood issue with nukes, certainly nukes using Uranium. Yes, waste is a huge problem but one that can be solved ... we have short term solutions now, and could develop long term solutions if the need was there. We could develop other nuclear reactor designs that produced less waste.

Coal fired power stations work 'cause the fuel is cheap and plentiful. If you add this complexity to them, they'll probably become uneconomic (I see these plants as making CO2 from coal, then recovering this CO2, with a very small net power. Better to leave the coal where it is, or to liquify or gasify it.


another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[hendersdc]

I found this approach to be interesting for long term carbon capture/storage. Their plan is to grow kelp and allow it to sink in the ocean:

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.npr.org/2021/03/01/970670565/run-the-oil-industry-in-reverse-fighting-climate-change-by-farming-kelp[/url]

 

[rb1957]

why not use the bio-capture as a fuel stock ? The issue with FFs is that we're using Carbon that was removed from the atmosphere eons ago (and over eons) and dumping it back into the atmosphere today (and at much quicker rates). Bio-fuels take from the atmosphere yesterday and put back tomorrow ... a more tidal component than a tsunami.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[EdStainless]

rb, once someone has a good method for making a fuel or alcohol from algae or similar biomass then feeding the CO2 into growth ponds would make sense. In the Netherland they pump the CO2 into greenhouses to increase growth rates.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed