The new project in Scotland will be carried out between the UK firm Storeega and the Canadian company Carbon Engineering. It’s at a very early stage of development, with a long way to go — but if all goes ahead, it will be one of the biggest CCS plants in the world. A site for the plant won’t be selected until next year.
“Even if all the other measures that we’re taking to avoid emissions, electric cars, renewable energy, those types of things, even if those succeed, you still need carbon removal,” Steve Oldham, CEO of Carbon Engineering, told the BBC. “A typical facility is about a million tonnes of CO2 removal per year. That’s the equivalent of 40 million trees.”
The CCS system that will be deployed involves a fan to suck in air, which is exposed to a liquid mixture that binds the carbon dioxide. The liquid is then turned into calcium carbonate pellets. When these are treated at a temperature of about 900ºC, the pellets decompose into a CO2 stream and calcium oxide. That stream of pure CO2 is cleaned up to remove water impurities. At that point, it can be pumped underground and buried permanently or sold for commercial use.
Scotland has significant advantages for this type of technology, as it has an abundant flow of renewable energy and a skilled workforce from the oil industry. But the technology has its fair number of critics. Researchers and campaigners have expressed concern that if CCS capture becomes economically viable, then governments might stop cutting emissions as they will rely on capturing CO2 — instead of the far more efficient strategy of not producing it in the first place.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday June 27 2021, @09:58AM (13 children)
So where is this to be sited? Just any random place, or next door to a coal fired power station? Probably most effective if they just send it to China - that's where all the manufacturing and most of the CO2 production takes place these days.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Frosty Piss on Sunday June 27 2021, @10:04AM
They plan to repurpose Trump International golf course.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @11:06AM (9 children)
Then you will spend more coal to capture back some of the CO2 that is produced, possibly resulting in a net increase of CO2. Than you can better not capture it in the first place. You also need to trust the country that it will do it just that way. To be hunest, I don't trust the Chinese government that they would do this.
The point is using zero emission renewable energy to do this. CO2 will move to the place where it is needed without any costs, so basically. It would be great if the legislators would allow such plant to create the carbon credits that CO2 producers need (instead of handing them out for free), that would hook into that market.
Another important thing is if this plant would be used to regulate the amount of electricy on the grids (some are running into imbalances on sunny/windy days due to too much energy produced).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 27 2021, @11:17AM (8 children)
Because, we really need to perpetuate that whole carbon credit hoax.
I have a better idea. Eliminate carbon credits, and just tax the shit out of major polluters. No credits required. When the taxes hurt enough, the polluters will find other ways to produce whatever it is they are selling.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @12:23PM
Don't get me wrong. That system was wrongly implemented from the start, but fact is that's here now. So, better improve this system than start again from the beginning. Fining through taxes would be easier, but governments would start outbidding themselves with the lowest taxes (or larger polluters would start lobbying for "discounts").
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @02:09PM (5 children)
What different outcome do you expect to accomplish with that? Either the government sends the polluter a bill after-the-fact, or the polluter must buy indulgences from the same government before-the-fact. I don't see why framing it as a tax makes any difference.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 27 2021, @03:25PM (4 children)
Listen to you, with your "indulgences". FFS, we're back to medieval days, with the Vatican selling permissions to be sinful.
Make it a tax, and make it hurt.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @08:09PM (3 children)
This is going to be SO AWESOME.
We're going to tax the pig-squealing buttfuck out of every single damn thing that made the green revolution possible with the dubious exception of the actual hybrids themselves. NPK? You betcha. Big, energy-hungry logistical chains that let turtle-necked Seattle intelligentsia drink coffee from Colombia, while beekeepers ship their hives all up and down the growing zones by season? Amen. Massive power injections for tilling, seeding, various forms of pesticide, and then of course cool storage and ripening facilities and grain drying and all the rest? Ho-lee-shee-bamba. And don't get us started on all those farting, belching cattle. When a burger costs $50 (current prices, none of that inflationalisationed crap), you'll know we're serious about climate change. And that's a quarter pounder.
Modern farming is a creature of the oil industry, from the Haber process all the way through to the diesel smokestacks of the supermarket delivery truck, from the plastic wrap on the vacuum sealed hams through to the grease on the bearings of the disc implement.
But won't the revised version of the gospel save us, with vertical aquaponic mealworm cricket algae solar panel farming co-ops?
No, my child. Because none of this makes nitrogen magically appear, nor phosphorus, nor potassium. You still need to ship your nutrients from somewhere, the same way that you're shipping them out of the door in every dehydrated mealworm baggie. At best, you can hope that your magical rainbow nuclear plants will drive the mines that will supply the minerals for the solar panels that run the LEDs that provide your carefully-tuned light to your hyporganic kale/coffee genetic experiments. If you're not using nukes, the whole thing is as oil-soaked as ever, just with feel-good sprinkles all over the top. You'll still want those intensely energy-hungry pesticides (or did you think that fungi and insects and weeds and parasites didn't like greenhouses and other captive victim populations?) and those will oil you up and rub you down until carbon leaks from your pores.
But I, for one, welcome the looks of shock and disbelief on the faces of the greenfreaks who don't have the slightest clue what their policies would engender. It would be worth the trouble of growing my own food, not to mention hiding from the global starvation wars that would ensue.
I mean, fuck that weak-ass Hunger Games dystopia, we can do way better than that. Hold my beer and let me get my tax-writing pants on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @09:11PM (2 children)
Totally preferable that we destroy the planet and eventually collapse the entirety of modern civilization. But then you might live out your post-apocalyptuc fantasies which to you is preferable to doing the hard work of building better systems.
Keep it real muh man, reel dum.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday June 27 2021, @11:42PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28 2021, @12:10AM
If that's what you took away from the GPP, I would have to say that you walk the talk. "Keep it real muh man, reel dum." is your way of life.
How about instead: a tax that significantly punishes carbon production will affect the entire foodchain to the point that daily sustenance will become effectively unaffordable for the majority, and there is no prospect of correcting this without completely rewriting how we handle everything from extracting bulk fertilisers to storing produce.
Even if you have totally sustainable agriculture ( ... okay ...) that is productive enough to feed the whole world's population ( .... uh, okaaaay???) at current supply prices (Hah. Hahahahahah.) you still haven't solved anything about the logistics, and before you start spooging on about nuclearhydrothermalsolarmagic, even that isn't footprint-free in terms of things like the sheer concrete involved in all the dams and nuclear plants and so on that you'll need (check out the fate of those fancy windmill blades ...) just to be able to use it for everything from shipping to cooling - let alone retool all those freighters for electric.
But you know what, why'm I ignoring the work already put in by world-renowned sustainability, Reeldum over here? Fill us in! Lay down that wisdom!
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday June 28 2021, @03:08AM
Besides, what do these people have against plants? And for that matter, against breathing??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday June 27 2021, @06:29PM
Plants like these can be put anywhere, once the CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere it defuses pretty fast into the back ground.
That said your right about it also being a good strategy to have the CO2 capture tech located at large point source CO2 sources. That was the exhaust from the power plant could be feed directly into the capture plant and the CO2 would never even be release into the air in the first place.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Monday June 28 2021, @03:00PM
Put it in the rainforest, where the local trees can use its CO2 to grow faster.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @10:12AM (3 children)
This is great progress in our eternal war against all plant life! Cut their supply of needed nutrients, and soon they will wither! This planet will soon be ours!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @05:48PM (1 child)
Funny, but a serious point. Why not put some of that same effort into re-greening places and managing ecosystems better. Let's move on from high fructose mono-crops that deplete soils and produce vast areas of treeless, soilless, sterile landscape.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday June 28 2021, @03:10AM
Know the best way to regreen the Earth?
Release more carbon dioxide.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12222 [nasa.gov]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @07:10PM
Sad....
Incapable of considering that when the concentration is back to the 1850 level, that they will dial back the capture rate to keep the concentration in balance.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @11:35AM (1 child)
So their environmental creds aren't flawless.
(Score: 4, Funny) by driverless on Sunday June 27 2021, @01:12PM
Even worse, the haggis eventually produces methane once consumed, so it's even worse greenhouse-wise than CO2.
That and the Germans and Mexicans (sauerkraut, refried beans) have a lot to answer for.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 27 2021, @12:00PM (9 children)
Permanently store a gas underground? Sounds expensive, like energy intensive to build and maintain.
Oh, now I understand what's really going to happen. And those commercial uses will be zero discharge, I'm sure.
Planting 40 million trees and burying the resulting wood in a desert sounds more practical, if carbon capture is your goal.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @12:32PM (3 children)
Even storing trees underground is no guarantee that it does not release CO2. But there is a better way. You could fairly easy convert the wood into crude oil by hydrothermal upgrading. I think it even could become economical feasable to compete with the liquid dino stuff.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 27 2021, @12:54PM (1 child)
There are wood-fuel programs around here... not going all the way to oil first, but using chips and other byproducts as an industrial energy source.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @02:50PM
If you use eucalyptus trees you can easily extract the oil from the leaves and pretty much use it as diesel fuel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @07:36PM
You could even convert the CO2 captured into liquid fuel (most likely an alcohol as they tend to be easier to synthesize, yet still have the benefit of being liquid at STP).
Then you can power the things that need to be mobile and also need high energy storage (vehicles) with the synthesized fuel, allowing reuse of all the existing liquid fuel infrastructure for vehicles. The result is zero net new carbon, because the fuel being burned was atmospheric CO2 to start with, so the same carbon simply loops along a zero net increase loop, capture -> liquid fuel -> release when burned -> return to capture point.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday June 27 2021, @06:24PM (2 children)
The plan is to pump the CO2 back into depleted oil and natural gas fields or salt domes [wikipedia.org]. There are already operations that store Helium and Hydrogen in salt domes. They are fairly well sealed, as long as the old well heads are all capped. And yes, there would be some seepage, but its a negligible amount when compared to the amount stored. Oil and natural gas fields have been seeping methane and such since before the Dinosaurs died off and there is still plenty of pressure left in them.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 27 2021, @08:54PM (1 child)
That methane is continuously generated, I suspect.
The only thing keeping the CO2 down there long term is its higher density than Nitrogen gas. Seismic activity, and ground water intrusion will squeeze quite a bit out over time.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday June 27 2021, @09:56PM
Actually its not. The methane in oil wells is from the same source as the natural gas in the ground. Organic materials that converted into hydrocarbon compounds millions of years ago. The original organic matter is long gone. It really has been slowly seeping out all this time.
Nitrogen? whatever point your trying to make with that escapes me, sorry.
However as gaseous CO2 has a higher density than Methane/natural gas you could end up storing more carbon in an old natural gas well than the original natural gas contained in the first place.
Most oil and natgas deposits are still pretty well sealed, even after millions of years of seismic activity, though fracking used in some gas fields might end up an issue. And salt domes already handle Helium and Hydrogen quite well, both of with have very high permeability. Ground water seepage won't be an issue, the CO2 would just enter into solution with the water creating a deposit of soda water of which there are already many naturally.
Keep in mind plants like this would be able to sequester a lot of carbon quickly, this is what we need to be doing right now. Then we can look into methods of converting the CO2 into a more compact and inert form. An idea I had was to start planting fast growing high cellulose plants in seal green houses, spiking the air with CO2. Then convert that bio mass into charcoal using solar furnaces or other carbon neutral methods. Then dump the resulting charcoal bricks into a deep sea subduction zone trench somewhere. Since solid carbon is inert the only environmental impact would be on any sea life that couldn't get out of the way on the sea floor.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @09:07PM (1 child)
> Planting 40 million trees and burying the resulting wood...
Also commonly known as "soil". Imagine if we covered the land with this stuff!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 27 2021, @11:14PM
Don't stop there: plant *other trees in it!*
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by KritonK on Sunday June 27 2021, @12:15PM (4 children)
Why convert the pellets back into CO₂ and pump it underground, from where it is bound to leak back into the environment? Just bury the ^&@%&^#%@& pellets themselves! Calcium carbonate is essentially limestone, i.e., a common kind of rock, which is stable and can be easily buried. In fact, if the pellets aren't brittle, they could be sold as gravel! If someone needs CO₂ for commercial purposes, small batches could be prepared for them, if the pellet to CO₂ process has a smaller carbon footprint than existing methods of producing commercial CO₂.
I wonder where they'll be getting the calcium, to produce the pellets, though. I hope it's not by breaking down limestone, which will produce an equal amount of CO₂!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @12:28PM
Well, that's the reason why the CO2 has to get out again (and stored as a gas). The calcium works as a catalyst/filter. You take dilluted CO2 gas as input and get pure CO2 gas as output. The calcium stays in the system and is reused over and over again.
(Score: 4, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 27 2021, @12:56PM (1 child)
We pave our driveway with limestone gravel. It partially dissolves in the rain and gets hard like concrete after you spread it. The CO2 in our driveway limestone will be staying 90%+ captured for thousands if not millions of years, unless someone spills a bunch of acid on it.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @03:01PM
> unless someone spills a bunch of acid on it.
We had a crushed limestone driveway too from 1960-2010 (at which point another family member paved it). And we are downwind of the big coal burners in the midwest. The resulting acid rain made our driveway fizz, each time we had new limestone gravel (fresh crushed) added.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday June 27 2021, @06:09PM
If they buried the pellets they would need a constant source of new Calcium Oxide to run the place. by seperating the CO2 they can reuse the Calcium Oxide and keep the process resource neutral so all it needs is electrical and thermal power.
As to pumping the CO2 into the ground its actually a good idea. Yes there would be some seepage but when compared to the amount being sequestered the seepage is negligible. Oil and natural gas fields have constantly seeped methane/CO2 into the atmosphere for longer than Human history and it hasn't ever been a problem.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @12:55PM (2 children)
if we assume that all my poo doesn't turn into co2, that is, some of my poo acctually stays in the ground (is sequestrated) then it would prolly make more sense to pump the co2 into closed greenhouses for increased salad (and whatnot) yield instead of just dumping it back into the ground.
also, i can totally see the owners of co2 sequestering making a pretty penny to ... you know... buy a bently and a private jet.
also, we need to be sure that renewable energy is not wasted on co2 clean up.
so there needs to be a mechanism that declares first gen renewables and second gen renewables.
first gen renewables are machines and installations (pv and wind and such) which have been build with energy input from fossile fuels.
second gen renewables are the same but demonstratable made by using only energy input from renewables!
and thus ONLY second gen renewables are allowed to power co2 capture (or ofc build more second gen).
else we are just busy-working the renewable revolution without ever getting rid of co2 emitting energy sources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @01:48PM
addenum: we have to be 100% SURE that no money flows back to the co2 producers. else they (the co2 producers) will just off-set any co2 clean up still dependant on fossile fuels into the price of their co2 emitting energy. basically taking co2 clean-up hostage ...
that is why the energy required for co2 clean-up needs to be made from renewables itself, from craddle to grave (that includes every screw and copperwires, aluminium, cement etc. etc required to make the machine and installation that then makes real renewable energy).
(Score: 4, Interesting) by KritonK on Sunday June 27 2021, @04:34PM
Or, instead of increased salad yield, given that they plan to store the CO₂ in depleted oil fields, they could use the CO₂ to grow algae and store those. Less likely to leak than CO₂, and in a few years, geologically speaking, the oil fields will be full of oil again!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Socrastotle on Sunday June 27 2021, @05:47PM (3 children)
Global human CO2 emissions in 2019 were about 33 gigatons [iea.org]. This planet will be able to remove up to a megaton per year. In other words just 33,000 such plants could bring human emissions down to zero, assuming its operation is a success. This is very much within the domain of viability.
Carbon capture has not only long since been the only viable path to success, but it will open the door to some interesting conflicts if it validates the CO2 hypothesis. In particular of decreasing the amount of CO2 does result in measurable differences in the global temperature then suddenly the question of 'what should the global temperature be' may become fighting words. Global warming stands to greatly benefit a number of nations. It's already having major positive effects in the Arctic through the opening of new shipping lanes. It may also make certain lands far more arable. Of course for other nations, the status quo is vastly more preferable. Yet other nations my stand to benefit from an overall cooler world.
So when we can control this, who gets to pick what we set the global AC to?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @06:12PM
An interesting point, but I think the time scales involved in changing the temperature are so long that it doesn't allow that kind of fidelity. Plus that one temperature knob affects multiple things that might be important to a nation, so it isn't clear whether, say, opening new shipping lanes are worth other effects a higher temperature might bring.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @09:11PM
They could open the tubes in Summer so it's nice and warm then suck it all down again in Winter.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday June 27 2021, @11:22PM
Yeah, but we have to take out just the right amount [youtube.com]..
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday June 27 2021, @06:46PM
The article doesn't say how these capture plants will be powered.
The article does mention that at one point in the capture they need to heat the working fluid to 900C. That is going to take a lot of energy even with recycling the heat and Scotland isn't exactly a good spot for Solar, and Wind is going to be needed for supplying the main grid.
I'm going to open a can of worms and mention that 900C is actually in the normal operating temperature of MSRs [wikipedia.org]. Pairing these capture plants with MSRs, preferably Thoruim fueled, you would not only remove CO2 from the atmosphere but could also get electricity for the main grid.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27 2021, @11:20PM
with "carbon capture and sequestering" technology now becoming a reality we can now say that fossile fuel burners are not polluting the athmosphere anymore but rather they are tagging oxygen for burial.
it seems they will go down with the stinking ... errr... sinking ship and fossile fuel burning will stop when there is no more oxygen left ... muhahaha!
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday June 28 2021, @07:35AM
This is a great step to terraforming! We have loads of tech for putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, not so much for removing it (at least required for tuning on, say, Mars). Now we need to choose what should be earth's global climate.
(Score: 1) by venn on Monday June 28 2021, @09:02AM
The concerning thing about these? Governments might relax or even halt the transition away from clean energy sources, if they see that carbon capture is working. This might prolong mining and burning of oil and coal or even see it increase.
Then, imagine if one day we are hit with a Carrington Event (geomagnetic storm - it's only a matter of time). Suddenly, we won't be able to power our carbon capture machines, perhaps for several months or years. Now you're going to deal with "carbon shock": a sudden and dramatic increase of CO2 and jump in temperature we won't be able to adapt to.
(Score: 1) by js290 on Monday June 28 2021, @03:20PM
"grasslands bigger bang for carbon buck than trees" Allan R Savory, Soil4Climate [youtu.be]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29 2021, @11:17AM
Maybe plants created humans, long, long ago in the before time; because, they knew, one day, they'd strip the planet of available CO2 entirely, and thus die out. Their last ditch effort at survival was to create beastly, thinking apes, who would one day suck up all the stored carbon, deep below the surface of the earth, and ravenously burn it, in the vain desperate attempt and not being reminded they will one day die.
We experiment on mice to find out how to control one another. But plants, used us as, like a surgeon's knife, to carve out a small slice of time in Earth's history, when if we were not sacrificed to the plant gods, they would have gone extinct!