My apologies for being so late to this party. Excellent essay, thank you. As a pragmatic engineer, I looked with glee upon your DAC schematic, and identified five major materials inputs, along with two energy inputs. The energy inputs question was covered nicely by your link to the Leigh Collins story; thanks.
The material inputs included steel, concrete, land, calcium, and filter material. Are you aware of any investigations into the intensity of these uses? For example, for every 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide removed or sequestered, how much land is required for the facility? How much steel? and so forth.
If you look at the amount of land needed to replace fossil fuels with wind power or solar power, you'll find numbers floating around 4,000,000 square kilometers, give or take 50 percent (I've done that math). That's half the continental US1! It would take up about 25 percent of our annual steel production. GND junkies say "but it will make new jobs." BS! It can't make any jobs if the materials aren't available at the construction site.
What are the material costs to the US economy if "net-zero emissions" were achieved using CCS? How many plants would be needed. It would be nice to have an upper limit on these numbers, for no other reason than to point out the sheer magnitudes of land, materials, energy, and expenditures. I found the NET guy's comments about "depending on subsidies" very revealing. Another corporate clown looking for a freeride at the taxpayer's expense.
Keep up the good work, gentlemen! Thank you. (And I will try to be more timely in the future)
Thank you for another in-depth look at climate hysteria and the grifters of all things government. (And they think we have a democracy in this country! Now THAT'S a joke!)
Regarding saving energy and reducing CO2 emissions: For those who are persuaded that CO2, constituting 0.03% of Earth's atmosphere, is a significant factor in anything, energy-saving systems should not only save energy but also give the operator/user some level of control when choices arise between reducing CO2 and providing adequate power for power needs which they can also control.
If you 4,000 ft deep bore hole and they dumped CO2 into it, the CO2 would displace all of the air and you would end up with pressure at the bottom which could disrupt geologic formations. Is it worth the risk?
I foresee that these Carbon Capture Scams, CCS, which are being heavily subsidized, much more than Nuclear Power, will become just more Carbon Credit, Net Zero, Carbon Trading Scams used by the ultra-rich & big corporations for greenwashing and virtue signalling. i.e. John Kerry: sure I fly my personal jet all around the World releasing vast amounts of CO2 but I buy carbon credits to offset it so its all good.
Soon your compulsory phone app, part of your digital ID, will calculate your carbon footprint, and if it is too high, you will be forbidden to buy (with your CBDC) fuel for your car, or meat from the grocery or use your air conditioner or fly somewhere unless you buy carbon credits from wind, solar, hydrogen, CCS resellers. Even though, in actual fact, most of them are just compulsory wealth transfer scams for the ultra-rich. Kleptocracy at its finest.
Amazing that the climate/insane think they should be able to dictate and prevent aquisitions in the oil patch, but also be able to direct oil companies to buy useless renewables companies.
Such ridiculous people with such idiotic pretensions.
What an awesome article Mental. You fellas certainly do not disappoint.
A couple of random questions/statements:
1. The energy to produce resins for CO2 capture, liquify the gas, convert it to a solid form, or transport it by pipeline to be safely stored all has an entropic penalty which needs to be paid enthalpically. I would presume the only way to truly make carbon capture net zero is if the energy required for the aforementioned tasks came from a zero carbon emission source, e.g. nuclear, hydro, or geothermal.
2. Listening to a lecture by Dr. Harper, he made the claim that the carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere was at a saturation point (I believe the equation for his claim was derived by Max Plank) e.g. one unit of additional CO2 does not equal one additional unit of heat storage. Is there any legitimacy to this claim?
3. at 400 ppm, CO2 represent 0.04% of atmospheric gases. I find it very hard to believe that the Earth is so fragile that a move from 0.04% to 0.05 or 0.06% means armageddon. Has anyone ever proposed the correct level of CO2, or is it as simple as "lower?"
4. Whenever I hear 'carbon capture,' I think "lower crop yields' and 'less global greening.'
5. I would have assumed the gas most responsible for warming would be water vapor. It is 100 - 1000 times more abundant in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide and its specific heat is four times greater.
Sorry to ramble. Keep up the great work and never pull you punches.
Both DAC and CCS are an unnecessary and expensive boondoggle. To date, no one has presented "hard evidence" (that is, scientific evidence) that reducing or even limiting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have even a modicum effect on changing the climate or reducing the global temperature, much less "save the planet" from "global boiling". They (DAC and CCS) will, however, make some people very rich with my tax dollars. I just wish I could figure out a way to cash in on some of that government largess! I'm open to ideas!
Carbon capture/abatement technology is a hammer searching for a nail that doesn't exist. Since CO2 poses zero threat to humans (and indeed, we need more of it!) I would caution people against investing in these technologies - unless you are an insider like Warren Buffett, who can time the regulatory wave perfectly.
More CO2 is created and a tremendous amount of entropy from burning fossil to capture CO2.
None of this adds up -
My apologies for being so late to this party. Excellent essay, thank you. As a pragmatic engineer, I looked with glee upon your DAC schematic, and identified five major materials inputs, along with two energy inputs. The energy inputs question was covered nicely by your link to the Leigh Collins story; thanks.
The material inputs included steel, concrete, land, calcium, and filter material. Are you aware of any investigations into the intensity of these uses? For example, for every 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide removed or sequestered, how much land is required for the facility? How much steel? and so forth.
If you look at the amount of land needed to replace fossil fuels with wind power or solar power, you'll find numbers floating around 4,000,000 square kilometers, give or take 50 percent (I've done that math). That's half the continental US1! It would take up about 25 percent of our annual steel production. GND junkies say "but it will make new jobs." BS! It can't make any jobs if the materials aren't available at the construction site.
What are the material costs to the US economy if "net-zero emissions" were achieved using CCS? How many plants would be needed. It would be nice to have an upper limit on these numbers, for no other reason than to point out the sheer magnitudes of land, materials, energy, and expenditures. I found the NET guy's comments about "depending on subsidies" very revealing. Another corporate clown looking for a freeride at the taxpayer's expense.
Keep up the good work, gentlemen! Thank you. (And I will try to be more timely in the future)
Perfect title!
Thank you for another in-depth look at climate hysteria and the grifters of all things government. (And they think we have a democracy in this country! Now THAT'S a joke!)
Regarding saving energy and reducing CO2 emissions: For those who are persuaded that CO2, constituting 0.03% of Earth's atmosphere, is a significant factor in anything, energy-saving systems should not only save energy but also give the operator/user some level of control when choices arise between reducing CO2 and providing adequate power for power needs which they can also control.
If you 4,000 ft deep bore hole and they dumped CO2 into it, the CO2 would displace all of the air and you would end up with pressure at the bottom which could disrupt geologic formations. Is it worth the risk?
I foresee that these Carbon Capture Scams, CCS, which are being heavily subsidized, much more than Nuclear Power, will become just more Carbon Credit, Net Zero, Carbon Trading Scams used by the ultra-rich & big corporations for greenwashing and virtue signalling. i.e. John Kerry: sure I fly my personal jet all around the World releasing vast amounts of CO2 but I buy carbon credits to offset it so its all good.
Soon your compulsory phone app, part of your digital ID, will calculate your carbon footprint, and if it is too high, you will be forbidden to buy (with your CBDC) fuel for your car, or meat from the grocery or use your air conditioner or fly somewhere unless you buy carbon credits from wind, solar, hydrogen, CCS resellers. Even though, in actual fact, most of them are just compulsory wealth transfer scams for the ultra-rich. Kleptocracy at its finest.
EOR is great. the CO2 "acid gas" acts as a lubricant to free more oil, its not a pressure thing.
Amazing that the climate/insane think they should be able to dictate and prevent aquisitions in the oil patch, but also be able to direct oil companies to buy useless renewables companies.
Such ridiculous people with such idiotic pretensions.
What an awesome article Mental. You fellas certainly do not disappoint.
A couple of random questions/statements:
1. The energy to produce resins for CO2 capture, liquify the gas, convert it to a solid form, or transport it by pipeline to be safely stored all has an entropic penalty which needs to be paid enthalpically. I would presume the only way to truly make carbon capture net zero is if the energy required for the aforementioned tasks came from a zero carbon emission source, e.g. nuclear, hydro, or geothermal.
2. Listening to a lecture by Dr. Harper, he made the claim that the carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere was at a saturation point (I believe the equation for his claim was derived by Max Plank) e.g. one unit of additional CO2 does not equal one additional unit of heat storage. Is there any legitimacy to this claim?
3. at 400 ppm, CO2 represent 0.04% of atmospheric gases. I find it very hard to believe that the Earth is so fragile that a move from 0.04% to 0.05 or 0.06% means armageddon. Has anyone ever proposed the correct level of CO2, or is it as simple as "lower?"
4. Whenever I hear 'carbon capture,' I think "lower crop yields' and 'less global greening.'
5. I would have assumed the gas most responsible for warming would be water vapor. It is 100 - 1000 times more abundant in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide and its specific heat is four times greater.
Sorry to ramble. Keep up the great work and never pull you punches.
Just picked this up:
World’s Largest Carbon Capture Plant Quietly Sold For A Pittance Of What It Cost
https://follow.it/climate-change-dispatch/temp/ODUxMDA2Njk4
It cracks me up how one group wants to save the World, but when a solution is at hand, they say, 'No, not that way.'
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/worlds-biggest-carbon-capture-plant-quietly-sold-fraction-what-it-cost-build?utm_source=energy&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Just saw this...the plot thickens... 🤣
Both DAC and CCS are an unnecessary and expensive boondoggle. To date, no one has presented "hard evidence" (that is, scientific evidence) that reducing or even limiting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have even a modicum effect on changing the climate or reducing the global temperature, much less "save the planet" from "global boiling". They (DAC and CCS) will, however, make some people very rich with my tax dollars. I just wish I could figure out a way to cash in on some of that government largess! I'm open to ideas!
The CO2 captured by the DACs, how many jetsetting greenscold COP attendees is that equivalent to?
Carbon capture/abatement technology is a hammer searching for a nail that doesn't exist. Since CO2 poses zero threat to humans (and indeed, we need more of it!) I would caution people against investing in these technologies - unless you are an insider like Warren Buffett, who can time the regulatory wave perfectly.
Has any research been done on what conditions would need to occur at the same time for CO2 that had been sequestered to come back up again?