/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11594258

171KiB, 1280x720, 63F28C93-F275-4CCA-82D0-28CAC4B0EABB.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Carbon capture

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 08:27:52 2020 No.11594258 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11594433 >>11594439 >>11594481 >>11594483 >>11594500 >>11594883 >>11594929 >>11594947 >>11594998 >>11595115 >>11595261 >>11597325 >>11597472

Will carbon capture and storage ever be profitable, /sci/?

I’m seriously thinking about doing a master’s degree (mech eng) with a focus on direct air capture (mostly thermodynamics based, improving its efficiency and process engineering stuff). What do you think?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 08:32:39 No.11594268 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 08:34:26 No.11594271 Report

Quoted By: >>11599593

Depends how panicked people get about climate change I guess

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 08:43:13 No.11594282 Report

Quoted By: >>11597757

Albedo modification seems more realistic to me but IDK.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 08:55:40 No.11594300 Report

Quoted By: >>11594314 >>11594434

I think it will be very necessary one day, if we don't want to climate change ourselves into the ground. We will never get rid of burning hydrocarbons entirely, there are some applications for which it has no replacement. That means that if we want to keep atmospheric CO2 at a constant level, we will need large-scale carbon capture infrastructure, one way or the other. Working on making this possible would do humanity a great deal of good, anon.

I can only hope it will become profitable as well. But that's harder for me to predict.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 09:01:52 No.11594314 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594300
That’s what came to mind - it’d be great to have contributed to it if it were ever deployed on a large scale. Either way, I’d like to improve my skills in thermo/thermal efficiency optimization because I figure it would still be useful for various applications

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1480631624.jpg, 37KiB, 720x534

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 09:15:15 No.11594329 Report

Quoted By: >>11594387 >>11594434

Trying to capture carbon out in the open doesn't sound very effective.
Why not focus on making better filters or system for exhaust, capturing it directly from the polluting source?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 09:29:11 No.11594346 Report

Quoted By: >>11594347 >>11594387

tldr; no

Concentration too low.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 09:31:07 No.11594347 Report

Quoted By: >>11594434 >>11594530 >>11595415

>>11594346
>outside levels soon reaching 500 ppm
>most world governments don't recommend CO2 levels over 1000 ppm indoors
yeah let's wait a couple more decade before it gets really serious

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 09:31:57 No.11594349 Report

Quoted By: >>11594387

Is that even a mech eng idea? Where are you going to put it? Space?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 10:02:32 No.11594387 Report

Quoted By: >>11595287

>>11594349
They’re essentially big air purifiers that take in air streams and scrub them of CO2, then compress the CO2 and ship it for industrial uses (or pump it into the ground for permanent storage).

>>11594329
Capturing at the source is also done, aka source-based capture. The problem is it reduces a fossil fuel power plant’s efficiency (leeches power to run the capture/compression system), though it’s definitely more efficient to do it this way because it’s so much more concentrated like anon >>11594346 is alluding to. The big question is whether massive-scale direct air capture would be more effective overall than millions of individual source-based capture points

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 10:15:37 No.11594403 Report

Quoted By:

name of the game is to reduce high oxidation state carbon (CO2), to a reduced state using a catalytic cycle. reduction down to methane (CH4) is a challenge, namely for transportation purposes. Methane forms a solidus ice slush not a low viscosity liquid. If the reduction is halted prematurely at methanol (CH3OH), then the whole system becomes handy. Take gas from the atmosphere, and turn it into liquid. What do we do with the methanol from there? Burn it, process it further into chemical feed stocks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 10:44:35 No.11594433 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594258
>Carbon capture
Absolute cringe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 10:45:37 No.11594434 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594300
>>11594329
>>11594347
Holy fucking cringe... The absolute state of /sci/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 10:48:48 No.11594439 Report

Quoted By: >>11595046

>>11594258
Only when fusion gives us free energy

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 11:14:33 No.11594481 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594258
Do it, I intend to start accumulating pure carbonas soon as I have the money so you are garaunteed at least 1 customer

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 11:17:13 No.11594483 Report

Quoted By: >>11595087 >>11595269

>>11594258
Climate change isn’t a big concern for most people who’ve looked into it, so no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 11:28:34 No.11594500 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594258
>masters degree to focus on capturing carbon
>ie planting trees
kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 11:41:19 No.11594530 Report

Quoted By: >>11594538 >>11594886 >>11595076 >>11595087

>>11594347
is nothing compared to previous periods where life was flourishing

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 11:43:45 No.11594538 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594530
Yeah, if you ignore that the rate of change is greater than in previous periods when there were massive extinction events.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Cruel Intentions animated kiss.gif, 960KiB, 400x225

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 14:26:35 No.11594883 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594258
>Will carbon capture and storage ever be profitable
storage is a meme, capturing from air is a meme
but capturing carbondioxide from industry and turn it into methane with hydrogen might actually become a thing

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gorn_05.jpg, 112KiB, 1046x827

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 14:28:36 No.11594886 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594530
reptiles, but not human life

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 14:36:12 No.11594911 Report

Quoted By: >>11595233

Capture carbon in trees
chop down trees and plant new trees
use wood to make furniture
sell furniture at profit
repeat

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 14:43:02 No.11594929 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594258
If low cost fusion power becomes a thing, sure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 14:50:05 No.11594947 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594258
>Will carbon capture and storage ever be profitable, /sci/?
yes, when asteroid mining crashes the heavy metals markets and platinum becomes cheap global climate control will be immediately solved

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 15:09:50 No.11594998 Report

Quoted By: >>11596044 >>11596048

>>11594258
Yes, first with subsidies and laws and at some point as a regular commercial activity. There is a very simple mathematical breakpoint between the price of electricity and price of oil when it starts to make sense to capture carbon and turn it into oil based products. Right now it's pretty much by definition not profitable since electricity largely comes from fossil fuels. But it's only a matter of time when oil price rises (even if cars become largely ellectric oil still has many other uses that won't go away) as reserves run dry and world transitions into renewables making electricity relatively cheaper. The start of the industry will probably come with subsidies or laws that mandate it as part of polluting operations, which if you leave it to americans means you will see a day when a gas/oil based power plant will burn the material to generate electricity to capture carbon that is then prompty sent into the same power plant and politicians be like "job well done"

The first true commercial uses will come utilizing renwable overcapacity (bit like how pumped hydro works) and at some point it becomes a 24/7 operation in the creation of all sorts of carbohydrate products. Laws might also come into play like say forbidding gasoline cars or powerplants/home heating but giving an exemption to bio fuels first and then direct capture fuels since gas power itself is still useful to lot of applications beating out electic engines in several metrics like say operational range and cargo capacity for trucks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 15:34:36 No.11595039 Report

Quoted By: >>11600417

Yes, they're called trees.

Develop faster growing trees, you'll make buttloads of money

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 15:37:02 No.11595046 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594439
So never

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 15:43:39 No.11595076 Report

Quoted By: >>11597687

>>11594530
are you a dinosaur?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 15:46:54 No.11595087 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594483
>>11594530
help me /sci/ is it possible to be this ignorant, yet so confident? or is this just a shill?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 15:56:27 No.11595115 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594258
Would be good for mars. Something passive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 15:58:49 No.11595121 Report

Quoted By: >>11595126

Carbon capture as a climate change mitigation strategy is a dead end, I think - the technology isnt mature enough yet and we need solutions Now. I think it could have a place someday though. We will get it cheap enough eventually to run at industrial scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 16:01:56 No.11595126 Report

Quoted By: >>11597292 >>11597416

>>11595121
Aerosol spray in atmosphere will fix it, but geoengineering is another sacred ground science must not walk upon, lest God/"muh beautiful nature"'s wrath falls upon man.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 16:41:48 No.11595233 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594911
Yeah retards. I'm not buying your fancy shit, I plant veggies and eat them, plus they give me fresh air. I'll never buy your shit OP.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 16:50:10 No.11595261 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594258
No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 16:50:11 No.11595262 Report

Quoted By:

Short answer is "yes, but you're doing it wrong". The trick is to produce a carbon rich product from atmospheric carbon that is inert and valuable without being consumed. Charcoal is the only thing that springs to my mind, but maybe you can think of something else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 16:52:02 No.11595269 Report

Quoted By: >>11596650

>>11594483
listen to this braindead retard. he must be right

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 16:56:29 No.11595287 Report

Quoted By: >>11595376 >>11597375 >>11598167

>>11594387
Source capture is inefficient because the power plant has to power it, capturing from the open air is more efficient because the power has to travel through more cables before it is used.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 17:16:24 No.11595376 Report

Quoted By: >>11597400

>>11595287
Not all power is made in a carbon based power plant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 17:28:51 No.11595415 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594347
You can wait centuries it'll still be too low to sequester from the atmosphere in productive manner.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 20:14:39 No.11596044 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594998
From your first paragraph, that’s the direction carbon engineering’s going. They got big funding from the O&G industry for synthetic methane/fuel production, ie. extract the fossil fuel, burn it, capture the CO2 and combine it with hydrogen, then sell it back for use as a fuel. So the same carbon gets recycled, then store the surplus/sell it for other industrial purposes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 20:17:23 No.11596048 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594998
From your first paragraph, that’s the direction Carbon Engineering’s going (they’re a DAC company). They got big funding from the O&G industry for synthetic methane/fuel production, ie. extract the fossil fuel, burn it, capture the CO2 and combine it with hydrogen, then sell it back for use as a fuel. So the same carbon gets recycled, then store the surplus/sell it for other industrial purposes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 00:32:08 No.11596650 Report

Quoted By: >>11598237 >>11600424

>>11595269
What are you scared of m8? Name one potential consequence of the climate scare that couldn’t be easily averted IF it actually materializes.

>flooding
Build levies, relocate to higher ground
>crop issues
Use new land opened up in Canada and Russia, elsewhere, use genetically engineered crops, use climate controlled buildings, we already produce way more food than we need and waste quadrillions of calories every year
>muh precious species
Put them in a zoo or reservation, document their genome and resurrect them once we can do that, also no one cares

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 04:33:29 No.11597292 Report

Quoted By: >>11597396

>>11595126
This could cause way more problems down the line than just sucking it out of the air

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 04:45:32 No.11597325 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594258
If we introduce a carbon tax and fund it through government subsidies. Basically take the money we put into the petroleum industry now and give it to companies sequestering carbon. It'll never be profitable in its own right though, as pure carbon isn't very valuable.
If you're talking actual carbon sequestration though, it's still possible to profit off of agriculture. Grow perennial crops, coppice every few years, and make biochar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:04:16 No.11597375 Report

Quoted By:

>>11595287
kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:09:59 No.11597396 Report

Quoted By: >>11597404

>>11597292
That's a difficult statement to asses, considering that carbon capture from thin air will never be economically viable.
Besides, we know exactly what happens when a volcano dumps a bunch of sulfur dioxide in the high atmosphere: temperatures drop by a few degrees.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:10:52 No.11597400 Report

Quoted By:

>>11595376
Good point maybe we should just stop using carbon based power plants.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:11:54 No.11597404 Report

Quoted By: >>11597413

>>11597396
Doesn't that also cause acid rain?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:12:10 No.11597405 Report

Quoted By: >>11597440

At best possible efficiency how would hydrocarbons compare to other technologies for storing energy?

Let's say that you cracked fusion and you have your own personal near unlimited source of energy but for '''reasons''' you can't share it with anyone so only you have it. You can share things you make with it though.
Would sequestering atmospheric carbon into hydrocarbons be at all competitive with generating hydrogen or straight up refilling batteries (LiPo, salt water etc)?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:16:17 No.11597413 Report

Quoted By:

>>11597404
Well when it's concentrated and not that high up, sure, but as far as I know when it gets high enough and spreads around the planet you don't get world wide cases of acid rain, it lingers up there for quite a while. What might come down would be pretty dilute.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO playing god.jpg, 634KiB, 960x1299

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:16:56 No.11597416 Report

Quoted By: >>11597436

>>11595126
That only slows down some aspects. Higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is also bad for humans (and other living things) on a health level. We'd need other processes combined with it. Ideally we'd reduce carbon emissions, improve carbon sequestration and use something like that to cut down the temperature increases we're already seeing.
I do agree with you about the attitude towards geoengineering though. Pic related.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:25:51 No.11597436 Report

Quoted By: >>11597440

>>11597416
>Ideally we'd reduce carbon emissions
Not happening though. There will be more half ass attempts by western countries to lower their emissions that will either fail or just effectively offshore their their big polluters somewhere else where they don't give a shit. China, India, Africa etc will just keep increasing their emissions for decades. Then the real bad effects of global warming will start to show up and either some countries decide to say fuck it and go full geoengineering (and maybe succeed more or less) or the whole world economy irreversibly collapses through war/ressource scarcity, partially worsened by global warming. Unless we discover some magic cure all technology. That's my guess anyways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:26:49 No.11597440 Report

Quoted By: >>11597444

>>11597436
We need Anon to give us access to his fusion device.
>>11597405

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:28:08 No.11597444 Report

Quoted By:

>>11597440
Yeah essentially lol. Or some really awesome batteries.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO eedf540081ce9f963385db10535ad555.jpg, 31KiB, 377x264

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:36:35 No.11597472 Report

Quoted By: >>11597497 >>11597616

>>11594258
>profitable?
Never. This is tragedy of the commons 101, and is only being quarter-assed funded by government mandates and moral autistics with mediocre success. Best bet is achieving subsidized break-even payout. That being said, you could potentially find a career in this path if you are said moral autistic, and score a decent salary. If you enjoy this, I encourage you to do it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 05:46:35 No.11597497 Report

Quoted By:

>>11597472
>This is tragedy of the commons 101
Even when you teach them what it is, their take away is still to single out one or two goat herders for their excessive abuse of the commons.
It was brought up in a philosophy-ish elective course I took and when it what brought up by the prof that was basically their reaction "well it's just because they're selfish and CHOOSE to abuse the commons/overrfish (when over fishing was brought up as an other example), they just have to stop being selfish!". And that's what happens in practice, they ll single an offender, some corporation x, their country or community, something like that. They're too fucking stupid to actually understand, or just don't care.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 06:30:23 No.11597569 Report

Quoted By:

>muh carbon tax
When will people learn that markets fucking suck? The answer to climate change will never be "tweak the markets and magically we emit less carbon". That is a childish fantasy. We need strong, enforceable government programs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 06:57:33 No.11597616 Report

Quoted By:

>>11597472
>Process engineering and thermodynamics can only be applied to carbon capture tech

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 07:57:07 No.11597687 Report

Quoted By:

>>11595076
yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 08:53:24 No.11597757 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594282
How would we do that? Cloud seeding?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 13:17:22 No.11598167 Report

Quoted By:

>>11595287
Capturing carbon/exhaust in power plant, also means capturing hot exhaust which you can utilise to re-heat, for example, cold water in the system, thus increasing efficiency. I'm not sure of the numbers right now though. But there's a considerable amount of energy in the exhaust and I'm pretty sure most if not all power plants does it since forever ago. Capturing process otherwise is rather a mechanical one, which by product should be heat, which you can again utilise very conveniently, if your power plant is heating water.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 13:51:56 No.11598237 Report

Quoted By: >>11599763

>>11596650
>Imagine being this ignorant
Crops need more than land and water. Have fun hand pollinating enough food for everyone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 15:27:29 No.11598450 Report

Quoted By:

C2CNT

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 21:01:41 No.11599593 Report

Quoted By:

>>11594271
I hear what you're saying but our psychology predisposes us towards short sighted goals on the whole.
And by that I mean climate change won't be the reason we would ever have carbon capture done profitably. It'd only be something like... we live in an enclosed dome or an enclosed dome on mars something. People won't give a shit about carbon levels making the earth more arid. At least, not in a way that causes them to spend tax dollars for it for more than a decade tops.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 22:00:47 No.11599763 Report

Quoted By: >>11599891

>>11598237
Oh so there weren’t any insects alive during the warm periods now? Interesting

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 22:33:21 No.11599891 Report

Quoted By:

>>11599763
Oh, so insects will just magically adapt to harsher conditions? Interesting

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Apr 2020 01:45:10 No.11600417 Report

Quoted By:

>>11595039
you ever seen a tree on steroids, man? Fuckin' shredded, blowin' through 4 trees worth of CO2 a day.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO levels.gif, 981KiB, 400x283

Anonymous Sat 25 Apr 2020 01:46:59 No.11600424 Report

Quoted By:

>>11596650
>>flooding
>Build levies, relocate to higher ground

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches