Direct Air Capture of CO2 from the Atmosphere | Carbon Engineering
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- Get in touch with Carbon Engineering: hubs.li/H0WNT4v0
About Carbon Engineering
Founded in 2009, Carbon Engineering (CE) is a Canadian-based clean energy company. CE is focused on the global deployment of megaton-scale Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology that captures carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere so it can be permanently stored deep underground or used to produce clean, affordable transportation fuels. From a pilot plant in British Columbia, CE has been capturing CO2 from the atmosphere since 2015 and converting it into fuels since 2017.
Today, with its partner, 1PointFive, CE is engineering a large-scale, commercial DAC facility in the US that will capture one million tonnes of CO2 per year, equivalent to the work of 40 million trees. In the UK, with UK partner Storegga, it has also begun engineering and design of a facility that will permanently remove between 500,000 and one million tonnes of CO2 each year. More information can be found at carbonengineering.com.
Connect With Us:
Twitter: / carbonengineer
Facebook: / carbonengineeringltd .
Instagram: / carbonengineer
LinkedIn: / 5737560
Sign up for our newsletter: carbonengineer...
Get in touch: hubs.li/H0WNT4v0
![[Watch Party] RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | with Moowan ( Bacon Time Vs Talon )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CCEDhu6dPN8/mqdefault.jpg)
3 years ago, I did this as my project for our school's science exhibition, but the judges ridiculed the idea and told me to get realistic ideas, not fantasies.
Happy to see that a "fantasy" is changing "reality" and the future.
Yeah, I remember people on other videos ridiculing this technology and saying just plant more trees. Yeah ok, how's that going with all the forest fires around the world? Nothing wrong with planting trees, but does not do much good if the planet is warming up and fires are burning those trees. Thing about this technology, is we can put it back into the ground and not have to worry about it being released back into the atmosphere, trees are a carbon sink just waiting for the carbon to be released.
Kudos to you! The judges were incredibly stupid then! Where you able to make this on a small scale?
Remember, people LOVE to be negative! Don't ask me why. Optimism and not giving up is what keeps us going
They were denying the carbon capture idea because either profits is more important than clean air and inhabitable planet or they want to be part of the problem instead of the solution
still a fantasy..
Cost and scale needed.
I like the sound of this concept. This makes the most sense for renewable energy. If this becomes a large scale operation there's no need to ban internal combustion engines, like what California and Washington state are trying to do. This is a very awesome idea.
They should reuse hydroelectric plants to power stations like these, while moving the grid towards Nuclear energy. Also, to those in the comments section berating carbon capture technology, I would point out that no amount of trees is going to capture all the carbon we burned from deposits in which it was stored safely for millennia. One plant over a short period of time won’t fix the problem, but it’s a start.
I agree, but nuclear power is expensive and nobody in the private sector is going to invest in a project that takes 50 years until it breaks even. That means government investment at the very least. Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) show a lot of promise and don't require the capital investments. The choices for base plants are coal, natural gas, and nuclear, and not much hydro. I'm blessed to be in the PNW, but all that hydro is getting sucked up by bitcoin miners because its so cheap and they aren't going to build anymore dams. NG and nuclear turbines look the most promising. You can't run a grid on renewable energy alone.
@@ElSantoLuchador in Europe governments invest and own unclear power plants for the reasons you stated. The federal government in the US did the same thing on a regional multi state scale with the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has both hydroelectric and Nuclear power generating capacity
Steve Oldham is my type of business leader 👍🙏👏
Caring and empathetic 🌎 World needs more like him!
Woops. I replied to the wrong comment. I deleted it if you get the notification.
The laws of thermodynamics make it more efficient to use the electricity to offset current carbon power plants, than to good through capture. Plus you don't have to build a plant to do that.
As long as there are fossil plants in operation, use the electricity to not run those plants, rather than building capture plants.
Once we're all renewable, capture can get us too the next step.
This technology has my support.
This really _is_ the way to go forward. But I would try and take it to the public too; if _I_ pay you $300.- will you capture a ton of carbon out of the atmosphere for _me?_
Like crowdsourcing carbon capture facilities. I am _sure_ people will invest. So if you keep it transparent from the start, you show which parts of the construction facility were paid for with that donation
This is a good solution to the climate problem. Planting trees is good and should be done but we need to be carful they don't burn in our warming world.
Sure, but finding places to store all that CO2 is nothing less than problematic. It's not like it just goes away. You have to put it somewhere and hold it there for a very, very long time.
Definitely excited to see the future getting better... Statistics say that China, US and India are the LARGEST emitters of CO2... These should be run extensively in these countries for better test runs and effectiveness... once these parts of the globe approve of these technologies, i think we would be able to sort the problem and be in accordance with the Paris Agreement...
Good luck getting China to do anything environmentally sound
Does it matter where these facilities are placed? Does it need to be near places with high CO2 emissions or can it be in a field?
From videos I've seen in the past they've said they can be place anywhere. That CO2 has mixed in air so much that it doesn't matter where they go. th-cam.com/video/Mb_8DJF6Hp0/w-d-xo.html
How many kilowatts of electricity is needed to pull one ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere?
The rule of thumb I came across is 1200 kWh per ton of C02. Of course there are a million variables, including the possibility of more efficient CCS going forward. Some of the fossil fuel generators can also use otherwise wasted energy through secondary means (thermal, for example) to power their own cleanup.
Green transition ain't green at all... It's all about money that power 🤭🤭
How does this compare with, say, good old tree planting technology?
The machine can do the same amount of CO2 removal as 40,000 trees. Plus, carbon can be used to make fuels
@@kylep3514 the energy density of fuel is great, i think it's the greatest technology. As cars and trucks get more fuel efficient and use carbon engineering's fuel we can help our planet and still and reduce the amount of fuel we use.
This could also help with homes on home heating oil too!
Trees end up releasing back their captured carbon when there is a forest fire.
Tree planting is cheaper but more volatile because of fires. DAC is about 5-10 times the cost of tree planting per ton of CO2. But once the emissions are captured, that’s that. There’s no chance they go back up.
It's much better, but trees are more realistic. Once you capture the carbon, you still have to store it. That means pipelines and underground storage facilities like abandoned oil wells. Trees capture and store carbon, but they can only hold so much carbon and they eventually release it back into the atmosphere. One dead tree equals the amount stored re-released into the atmosphere. CCS can theoretically capture and store it forever, but the same is true for nuclear waste. But where do you store it? There are only so many options.
expectation to work with Tesla Megapack for the power saving
How much energy does it take to remove carbon using this process? If that energy is coming from fossil fuels, what is the resulting net reduction of CO2? I'm also wondering how much CO2 is produced (from all sources) in creating these carbon capture facilities, and how long it would take them to recover that amount of carbon?
Geothermal (Volcanos), Solar panels, Wind Turbines, Nuclear Fusion, Nuclear Fission are great alternatives to provide energy using this process.
If the electricity comes from fossil plants, this capture can't remove all of the carbon -- thermodynamics forbid it. And if you want to run the capture with renewable electricity, then just send that electricity to the users and shut off the fossil plants; that's more efficient.
What is the business model? How does it earn money
I still don’t understand why this hasn’t been championed 🤷🏻♂️
There's a lot of money in energy. The oil industry doesn't want to be devalued and special interest groups (including politicians) are more invested in solar and wind companies. Especially since politicians (at least in the US) are allowed to do insider trading.
I think of it like the pharmaceutical industry... you don't want to cure the customer because then they stop giving you money. So you produce a less effective product that does just enough to keep them alive and functional, but dependant on your product. Such as with diabetes. Treatments have been discovered and proven to CURE type 1 diabetes, but may never go public because insulin is such an industry cash cow.
That's my reasoning anyway. I'm kind of a pessimist.
Everyone is championing it as part of the solution. The problem is cost and lack of carbon storage facilities as well as pipelines to get the carbon from the source to the storage facility. There's a lot of good ideas but reality is a bitch.
@@TheArtymuse The oil industry can make as much money cleaning up the problem as they did when they were making it. Many of the DAC operations are financed by big oil.
I have one question, the air consists of many particles in it other than carbon dioxide, like sulphur nitrogen etc, so wouldn't the chemical solution react with the other chemicals in it.
This is from their website...
The process starts with an air contactor - a large structure modelled off industrial cooling towers. A giant fan pulls air into this structure, where it passes over thin plastic surfaces that have potassium hydroxide solution flowing over them. This non-toxic solution chemically binds with the CO2 molecules, removing them from the air and trapping them in the liquid solution as a carbonate salt.
I can only assume they went with potassium hydroxide because it safely extracts the CO2 particles without negative side effects or byproducts. But I'm no chemist.
I want to be able to get there fuel
It would be so good to actually work for such a cause.
Could you use a waste to energy setup using biofuel generators that not only removes CO2 from the atmosphere but also mitigates landfill waste? Cryptocurrency mining could also be included to supplement operational costs.
Awesome news....