Well, it's a "magic bullet" according to the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47799042/a-magic-bullet-to-capture-carbon-dioxide


sounds like an industrial version of the schoolboy experiment turning
limewater milky to me ...

How much energy does it take to bake all the limestone required?

On 03/04/2019 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:
Well, it's a "magic bullet" according to the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47799042/a-magic-bullet-to-capture-carbon-dioxide


sounds like an industrial version of the schoolboy experiment turning
limewater milky to me ...

It is easy to scrub CO2 out of air. What is hard is to do it in such a
fashion that it is worth while doing it. Lord knows how much energy it
takes to separate the CO2 from the calcium carbonate each time around.

How much energy does it take to bake all the limestone required?

It sounds like an April 1st joke that has run a little late to me.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 03/04/2019 17:02, Martin Brown wrote:
On 03/04/2019 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:
Well, it's a "magic bullet" according to the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47799042/a-magic-bullet-to-capture-carbon-dioxide


sounds like an industrial version of the schoolboy experiment turning
limewater milky to me ...

It is easy to scrub CO2 out of air. What is hard is to do it in such a
fashion that it is worth while doing it. Lord knows how much energy it
takes to separate the CO2 from the calcium carbonate each time around.

How much energy does it take to bake all the limestone required?

It sounds like an April 1st joke that has run a little late to me.


Very possibly. The only way it makes any sense is if the process uses a
lot of off-peak electricity (from nuclear for example) that's otherwise
difficult to store.

On 03/04/2019 17:56, GB wrote:
On 03/04/2019 17:02, Martin Brown wrote:
On 03/04/2019 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:
Well, it's a "magic bullet" according to the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47799042/a-magic-bullet-to-capture-carbon-dioxide


sounds like an industrial version of the schoolboy experiment turning
limewater milky to me ...

It is easy to scrub CO2 out of air. What is hard is to do it in such a
fashion that it is worth while doing it. Lord knows how much energy it
takes to separate the CO2 from the calcium carbonate each time around.

How much energy does it take to bake all the limestone required?

It sounds like an April 1st joke that has run a little late to me.


Very possibly. The only way it makes any sense is if the process uses a
lot of off-peak electricity (from nuclear for example) that's otherwise
difficult to store.

Why not justs use nuclear power instead?


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 03/04/2019 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:
Well, it's a "magic bullet" according to the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47799042/a-magic-bullet-to-capture-carbon-dioxide


sounds like an industrial version of the schoolboy experiment turning
limewater milky to me ...

How much energy does it take to bake all the limestone required?

There is an existing cycle used in at least one carbon capture and
recovery pilot, IIRC it involves amines. And it will certainly need
significant energy input for "regeneration", but I haven't seen the figures.

newshound wrote:

There is an existing cycle used in at least one carbon capture and
recovery pilot, IIRC it involves amines.

They talk about "hydroxide", since they claim scrubbing the CO2 results
in chalk, I had assumed calcium hydroxide, but it seems they use sodium
hydroxide, so how do they get to chalk?

https://carbonengineering.com/about-dac

And it will certainly need
significant energy input for "regeneration", but I haven't seen the
figures.

On 03/04/2019 18:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/04/2019 17:56, GB wrote:
On 03/04/2019 17:02, Martin Brown wrote:
On 03/04/2019 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:
Well, it's a "magic bullet" according to the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47799042/a-magic-bullet-to-capture-carbon-dioxide


sounds like an industrial version of the schoolboy experiment
turning limewater milky to me ...

It is easy to scrub CO2 out of air. What is hard is to do it in such
a fashion that it is worth while doing it. Lord knows how much energy
it takes to separate the CO2 from the calcium carbonate each time
around.

How much energy does it take to bake all the limestone required?

It sounds like an April 1st joke that has run a little late to me.


Very possibly. The only way it makes any sense is if the process uses
a lot of off-peak electricity (from nuclear for example) that's
otherwise difficult to store.

Why not justs use nuclear power instead?

I assume the full process under discussion is:
1. burn gas to make electricity
2. use the chemical process powered by nuclear power to mop up the CO2
created by stage 1

I think we can both see that some simplification is possible.

On 03/04/2019 18:35, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

There is an existing cycle used in at least one carbon capture and
recovery pilot, IIRC it involves amines.

They talk about "hydroxide", since they claim scrubbing the CO2 results
in chalk, I had assumed calcium hydroxide, but it seems they use sodium
hydroxide, so how do they get to chalk?

https://carbonengineering.com/about-dac

And it will certainly need significant energy input for
"regeneration", but I haven't seen the figures.

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...re_and_storage

gives this link to the amine process

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...d_power_plants

newshound wrote:

gives this link to the amine process

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...d_power_plants

The BBC seems to have a 2nd page on the magic bullet, gives a bit more
detail, and comes up with a price of $100/tonne for CO2 removed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47638586

On 03/04/2019 21:27, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

gives this link to the amine process

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...d_power_plants


The BBC seems to have a 2nd page on the magic bullet, gives a bit more
detail, and comes up with a price of $100/tonne for CO2 removed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47638586

Back of envelope sum suggests coal thermal energy content is about 6
MWhr/tonne. So electrical content a little over 2 MWhr/tonne. With
wholesale electricity prices around £50 / MWhr this means turning coal
into electricity gives a revenue of around £100 per tonne, ignoring
plant costs. (ISTR from CEGB days that 90% of the cost of electricity
was the fuel).

So if you get your CC energy from coal you get little net benefit even
if their "cost" figure is right. I realise that gas gives you a bit more
thermal energy per tonne of carbon, and you get higher conversion
efficiency with CCGT.

But it still illustrates the point that carbon sequestration is going to
be *very* expensive. Thank goodness renewable energy is cheap.

On Wednesday, 3 April 2019 22:55:24 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 03/04/2019 21:27, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

gives this link to the amine process

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...d_power_plants


The BBC seems to have a 2nd page on the magic bullet, gives a bit more
detail, and comes up with a price of $100/tonne for CO2 removed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47638586

Back of envelope sum suggests coal thermal energy content is about 6
MWhr/tonne. So electrical content a little over 2 MWhr/tonne. With
wholesale electricity prices around £50 / MWhr this means turning coal
into electricity gives a revenue of around £100 per tonne, ignoring
plant costs. (ISTR from CEGB days that 90% of the cost of electricity
was the fuel).

So if you get your CC energy from coal you get little net benefit even
if their "cost" figure is right. I realise that gas gives you a bit more
thermal energy per tonne of carbon, and you get higher conversion
efficiency with CCGT.

But it still illustrates the point that carbon sequestration is going to
be *very* expensive.

odd that so many don't realise it's fundamentally pointless at best.

On 03/04/2019 22:49, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:35:52 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

newshound wrote:

There is an existing cycle used in at least one carbon capture and
recovery pilot, IIRC it involves amines.

They talk about "hydroxide", since they claim scrubbing the CO2 results
in chalk, I had assumed calcium hydroxide, but it seems they use sodium
hydroxide, so how do they get to chalk?


Try this:

2NaOH + CO2 -- Na2Co3 + H2O

Na3Co3 + Ca(OH)2 -- CaCO3 + 2NaOH

CaCO3 + heat -- CaO + CO2

CaO + H2O -- Ca(OH)2

Air containing the CO2 is scrubbed with sodium hydroxide solution, to
give a solution of sodium carbonate. The sodium carbonate solution is
then reacted with slaked lime in water to precipitate calcium
carbonate (chalk) and regenerate the sodium hydroxide solution, which
is used again. The calcium carbonate is then heated to about 900 -
1000°C to drive off the CO2, which is collected and used in other
industrial chemical processes, while the lime is rehydrated (slaked)
and used again.

Presumably some of the heat used to calcine the calcium carbonate can
be recovered from the slaking process.

Presumably it works on the pilot scale set-up they have. All you need
is energy to make up the difference between that used to calcine the
calcium carbonate and that recovered in the slaking process. How much
energy, and where it comes from, is another matter.

The heat from the slaking process might just about give you 150C, far
short of the calcining temperature. Second law rules.

I am pretty sure this is where the amine process scores. I did see a
description of the chemistry some time ago, but I couldn't find details
from a quick look. My vague recollection was that they released the
carbon dioxide at something like 250 C.


If it's so good, why hasn't this process been adopted for CCS of CO2
from coal-fired power stations, rather than pratting about with
amines? Possible answer - it isn't that good?

Drax has a system that can capture a ton of carbon a day from the
biomass burners. In the good old days the 2000 MW coal fired stations
were burning the best part of a ton of coal a second.

On 04/04/2019 07:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
Big Oil & Big Coal are to invest $68M in the process
https://tinyurl.com/y5lue2va

Virue signall;ing crap.

They know perfectly well that it will never be a practical solution.

It will reduce the net energy outpout of power strains to about zero


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

Yes a couple of years ago somebody was supposed to have made paving and road
material that absorbed co2 and major pollutants. However if it were that
good one might imagine it would be in use widely by now. I think the
drawback as with most of these ideas was that laying a new set of paving
every five years and then finding a way to dispose of the toxic waste of the
old ones might make it a bit of a non starter. Add to that apparently they
were only made in Yellow and turned a dirty grey when no longer doing their
job.

Its a bit like all those wonderful inventions we used to see in Tomorrows
World, like the spray which meant you could safely use power tools
underwater.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Well, it's a "magic bullet" according to the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47799042/a-magic-bullet-to-capture-carbon-dioxide

sounds like an industrial version of the schoolboy experiment turning
limewater milky to me ...

How much energy does it take to bake all the limestone required?

Yes indeed but one thing is for certain, it would be, I reckon possible to
engineer plants to produce a lot of growth and give out oxygen.
That would work, but then what do you do with all that plant growth. If you
uses it as fuel then its putting co2 back surely?
Been a lot of science fiction stories written about genetically engineered
plants that do this getting away and taking over from all our food crops.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 03/04/2019 16:46, Andy Burns wrote:
Well, it's a "magic bullet" according to the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47799042/a-magic-bullet-to-capture-carbon-dioxide
sounds like an industrial version of the schoolboy experiment turning
limewater milky to me ...

It is easy to scrub CO2 out of air. What is hard is to do it in such a
fashion that it is worth while doing it. Lord knows how much energy it
takes to separate the CO2 from the calcium carbonate each time around.

How much energy does it take to bake all the limestone required?

It sounds like an April 1st joke that has run a little late to me.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Chris Hogg wrote:

Big Oil & Big Coal are to invest $68M in the process
https://tinyurl.com/y5lue2va

Seems like that's about pumping the captured and driven-off CO2 into
nearly depleted oil wells to get the dregs out ...

On 04/04/2019 08:30, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes indeed but one thing is for certain, it would be, I reckon possible to
engineer plants to produce a lot of growth and give out oxygen.
That would work, but then what do you do with all that plant growth. If you
uses it as fuel then its putting co2 back surely?

One option is to put right the mistakes that nature made in classic
photosynthesis (which evolved in a reducing atmosphere) so that it goes
well beyond C4 efficiency. Laboratory specimens have already been done
where the biomass accumulation is way better ~40% than natural plants.

Another group independently have got a 15% improvement using a different
approach.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...od-production/

They did it on tobacco but are now targetting soya.

Been a lot of science fiction stories written about genetically engineered
plants that do this getting away and taking over from all our food crops.
Brian

The technology is most likely to get used in food crops or forestry.

If you could cycle the same carbon through biomass again and again using
sunlight and plants to make fuel then you would be onto a winner.

The article looks to me like a magic boulder of the sort that used to
fall on Captain Kirk on Star Trek. No substance and made of polystyrene.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 04/04/2019 08:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/04/2019 07:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
Big Oil & Big Coal are to invest $68M in the process
https://tinyurl.com/y5lue2va

Virtue signall;ing crap.

+1

And it is very unusual when we agree on matters relating to AGW.

They know perfectly well that it will never be a practical solution.

It will reduce the net energy outpout of power strains to about zero




--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 04/04/2019 09:15, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/04/2019 08:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/04/2019 07:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
Big Oil & Big Coal are to invest $68M in the process
https://tinyurl.com/y5lue2va

Virtue signall;ing crap.

+1

And it is very unusual when we agree on matters relating to AGW.

They know perfectly well that it will never be a practical solution.

It will reduce the net energy outpout of power strains to about zero




+ another one

On 04/04/2019 09:13, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/04/2019 08:30, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes indeed but one thing is for certain, it would be, I reckon
possible to
engineer plants to produce a lot of growth and give out oxygen.
That would work, but then what do you do with all that plant growth.
If you
uses it as fuel then its putting co2 back surely?

One option is to put right the mistakes that nature made in classic
photosynthesis (which evolved in a reducing atmosphere) so that it goes
well beyond C4 efficiency. Laboratory specimens have already been done
where the biomass accumulation is way better ~40% than natural plants.

Another group independently have got a 15% improvement using a different
approach.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...od-production/


They did it on tobacco but are now targetting soya.

Â* Been a lot of science fiction stories written about genetically
engineered
plants that do this getting away andÂ* taking over from all our food
crops.
Â* Brian

The technology is most likely to get used in food crops or forestry.

If you could cycle the same carbon through biomass again and again using
sunlight and plants to make fuel then you would be onto a winner.

The article looks to me like a magic boulder of the sort that used to
fall on Captain Kirk on Star Trek. No substance and made of polystyrene.

Well said!

On Thursday, 4 April 2019 09:15:51 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/04/2019 08:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/04/2019 07:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
Big Oil & Big Coal are to invest $68M in the process
https://tinyurl.com/y5lue2va

Virtue signall;ing crap.

+1

And it is very unusual when we agree on matters relating to AGW.

They know perfectly well that it will never be a practical solution.

It will reduce the net energy outpout of power strains to about zero

Energy is obtained from fuel precisely by oxidising it to CO2. Taking the reverse path merely means putting the energy back, and of course with added inefficiencies and costs. Thus CO2 capture can never be useful.


NT

On 04/04/2019 10:46, wrote:
On Thursday, 4 April 2019 09:15:51 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/04/2019 08:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/04/2019 07:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
Big Oil & Big Coal are to invest $68M in the process
https://tinyurl.com/y5lue2va

Virtue signall;ing crap.

+1

And it is very unusual when we agree on matters relating to AGW.

They know perfectly well that it will never be a practical
solution.

It will reduce the net energy outpout of power strains to about
zero

Energy is obtained from fuel precisely by oxidising it to CO2. Taking
the reverse path merely means putting the energy back, and of course
with added inefficiencies and costs. Thus CO2 capture can never be
useful.

Energy for hydrocarbons also comes from oxidising the hydrogen which in
the case of methane gives 2H2O for every CO2. So it might still be just
possible to still have a net energy output burning methane natural gas.

The only realistic way to do carbon capture is to genetically engineer
plants to be more efficient and cultivate them on an industrial scale.
That way you are harnessing solar energy to do the necessary work.

Huge amounts of nuclear power could be used to do it by brute force if
you were so inclined. Fractional distillation of air for example.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thursday, 4 April 2019 11:12:52 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/04/2019 10:46, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 4 April 2019 09:15:51 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/04/2019 08:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/04/2019 07:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
Big Oil & Big Coal are to invest $68M in the process
https://tinyurl.com/y5lue2va

Virtue signall;ing crap.

+1

And it is very unusual when we agree on matters relating to AGW.

They know perfectly well that it will never be a practical
solution.

It will reduce the net energy outpout of power strains to about
zero

Energy is obtained from fuel precisely by oxidising it to CO2. Taking
the reverse path merely means putting the energy back, and of course
with added inefficiencies and costs. Thus CO2 capture can never be
useful.

Energy for hydrocarbons also comes from oxidising the hydrogen which in
the case of methane gives 2H2O for every CO2. So it might still be just
possible to still have a net energy output burning methane natural gas.

possible if there's insignificant CO2 to capture

The only realistic way to do carbon capture is to genetically engineer
plants to be more efficient and cultivate them on an industrial scale.
That way you are harnessing solar energy to do the necessary work.

Huge amounts of nuclear power could be used to do it by brute force if
you were so inclined. Fractional distillation of air for example.

The yield would be silly, and nuclear plants produce a good bit of CO2 indirectly. Gain seems unlikely, where gain is defined as capturing CO2 for no useful purpose.


NT

On Wednesday, 3 April 2019 16:46:43 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Well, it's a "magic bullet" according to the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47799042/a-magic-bullet-to-capture-carbon-dioxide


sounds like an industrial version of the schoolboy experiment turning
limewater milky to me ...

How much energy does it take to bake all the limestone required?

It's bollix.
Law of conservation of energy.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 3 April 2019 16:46:43 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Well, it's a "magic bullet" according to the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47799042/a-magic-bullet-to-capture-carbon-dioxide


sounds like an industrial version of the schoolboy experiment turning
limewater milky to me ...

How much energy does it take to bake all the limestone required?

It's bollix.
Law of conservation of energy.

That doesnt apply in this situation, particularly with methane
because there is both the energy from the oxidation of C and H
and you only turn the CO2 back to C again, not the H2O back to H.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 04:02:13 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



That doesn¢t apply in this situation, particularly with methane
because there is both the energy from the oxidation of C and H
and you only turn the CO2 back to C again, not the H2O back to H.

Oh, no! And this thread was Rot-free so far!

--
pamela about Rot Speed:
"His off the cuff expertise demonstrates how little he knows..."
MID: