"However, capturing CO2 is not the same as avoiding its climate impacts. If that CO2 is then used to directly produce more oil, or if CCS “abatement” is used to suggest that additional oil and gas production is climate-friendly — or in some cases both — then those CCS projects are invariably acting as a net harm to the climate, by actually increasing overall CO2 pollution. From: DeSmog"
I'm having trouble with this. It would be one thing if CO2 were produced specifically for this purpose. But it's CO2 that was headed to the atmosphere anyway, and petroleum will be pumped, one way or another. Some of the CO2 will remain in the ground, making for a net minus in atmospheric CO2, as relates to this process.
It's not unlike turning on the heater in your ICE car. That heat costs nothing EXTRA. The fuel has already been burned. Now, you can send the heat out the radiator, and send some of it into the car.
I have no doubt that the green energy movement is 110% a scam. But that's a topic for another day.
Excellent Article! The one thing not covered is CO2 extraction from seawater. Which is ultimately from the atmosphere. Supposed to be much less expensive than DAC as it is dissolved in seawater as carbonic acid. It then can be precipitated out as carbonates or limestone which has low water solubility. And then the ocean extracts that amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, maintaining the CO2 equilibrium.
Even better is to convert the captured CO2, combined with nuclear H2, into Methanol which is chemical feedstock, usually made from NG, and thus replaces fossil carbon directly.
Ideally the methanol would be burned in gas turbines (electricity generation) or as a direct replacement for gasoline in ICE vehicles or converted into DME, a direct replacement of diesel fuel for heavy trucking. Our diesel fuel supply being precarious, while being supercritical for a functioning economy.
Another alternative is of course tree planting. And desert reforestation using nuclear desalinated water. And flooding land depressions that are below sea level with seawater, which causes a lot of increased rainfall in desert regions and consequently reforestation. The best example is the Qattara Depression in Egypt:
Qattara Depression: Can We Fill It? Alex Westerlund:
An even better way is to build floating Nuclear Power plants that are placed in the open ocean, which are pretty much deserted of life due to the lack of nutrients in the water. Using the NPP to pump up nutrients from the seafloor, which is nutrient rich in the deep ocean, causes phytoplankton & algae to bloom, which in turn feed the aquatic food web of zooplankton, small fish & crustaceans. Consumed by larger fish, coral and even whales. Best way to alleviate seriously depleted fish stocks. And this entire food chain is ultimately built out of atmospheric carbon.
All that would make a great part 3 article on Carbon Capture. Entitled - Rational Methods of Carbon Capture. Which as anyone with half a brain knows by now are exactly the methods that won't be financed by our corrupted governments. Our centralized Bankster/UN led governments only like pretend solutions that can be milked by ultra-rich grifters for easy money, government guaranteed wealth transfer from the middle class to the aristocracy. Mining subsidies is much easier than mining minerals.
Thanks for the explanation. I never knew all the moving pieces, but simply based on the excitement that some showed over CCS it was very clear there is a lot of money to be gained by industry here.
On a different note, your GIF showing the CO2 in the air as red molecules is terrific. I often think that a model like that showing 350ppm vs 400ppm would highlight just how limited the difference is and perhaps get some to understand that this arbitrary limit is just that, arbitrary and likely irrelevant.
Carbon capture plants are idiotic. A total grift. If climate freaks really wanted efficient carbon capture they would plant forests. Trees are the best carbon capture mechanisms. And, well, they produce oxygen. Science is real.
Carbon Capture is paraded as a climate solution to solve two problems for the oil companies-which I don't blame them. First is water resources, I won't get into the number here but it show be common knowledge that resource extraction using a lot of water, now the industry has influence government policy to pay for a "waste" product to replace water usage. 2) CCS will help the industry deal with associated gas. Associate gas-basically free energy-is abandoned because of the lack of infrastructure. Now we will see gathering infrastructure build out to gather and treat CH4 for CO2 removal-as technology to treat CH4 is well-no pun intended-developed and easier giving that it's a gas. So we can envision a step up where the more drilling is done the getter the yield, carbon credits are issued & are either used are sold, and natural gas infrastructure cost will be subsided. The only way that for CCS really reduce emission would be a national long term strategy of using CCS produce more oil and natural gas, replacing domestic coal consumption with natural gas, export our higher quality coal to countries that burn lower quality coal-like Germany, export our LNG, and build out light water reactors over as ten year period for electrical generation and industrial heating. Over time CCS then will be able to claim it's net negative.
Thanks for stopping by Pablo and sharing a detailed and insightful comment. Your points regarding water usage and associated methane gas I will include in the article, thank you.
The longer term national strategy you suggest is logical and implies increased efficiencies, and is well within our reach vs. "renewables" pipedream. As you know, strickly speaking, the Laws teach that there is no such thing as renewable or sustainable, but rather increases or decreases in efficiencies for these irreversible processes.
I am fascinated by supercritical CO2 and it's myriad of uses in chemical synthesis and extraction and as a working fluid.
Re nuclear and SC-CO2:
Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Cycles for Generation IV Nuclear Reactors
Thank you for stopping by and the thoughtful comment.
Welcome to the Bermuda Triangle 📐 of Carbon Capture.
"However, capturing CO2 is not the same as avoiding its climate impacts. If that CO2 is then used to directly produce more oil, or if CCS “abatement” is used to suggest that additional oil and gas production is climate-friendly — or in some cases both — then those CCS projects are invariably acting as a net harm to the climate, by actually increasing overall CO2 pollution. From: DeSmog"
I'm having trouble with this. It would be one thing if CO2 were produced specifically for this purpose. But it's CO2 that was headed to the atmosphere anyway, and petroleum will be pumped, one way or another. Some of the CO2 will remain in the ground, making for a net minus in atmospheric CO2, as relates to this process.
It's not unlike turning on the heater in your ICE car. That heat costs nothing EXTRA. The fuel has already been burned. Now, you can send the heat out the radiator, and send some of it into the car.
I have no doubt that the green energy movement is 110% a scam. But that's a topic for another day.
Glad you posted that comment. I had the exact same thought.
Some folks are talking about "carbon negative" oil. I know this study looks into it some. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it! https://lignite.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/How_Green_is_my_Oil.pdf
Another feed at the trough DOE funded study to justify the CO2 false flag and carbon capture scheme.
Great stuff, TC!
Appreciated compliment from an expert such as yourself.
My best,
TC
Excellent Article! The one thing not covered is CO2 extraction from seawater. Which is ultimately from the atmosphere. Supposed to be much less expensive than DAC as it is dissolved in seawater as carbonic acid. It then can be precipitated out as carbonates or limestone which has low water solubility. And then the ocean extracts that amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, maintaining the CO2 equilibrium.
Even better is to convert the captured CO2, combined with nuclear H2, into Methanol which is chemical feedstock, usually made from NG, and thus replaces fossil carbon directly.
Ideally the methanol would be burned in gas turbines (electricity generation) or as a direct replacement for gasoline in ICE vehicles or converted into DME, a direct replacement of diesel fuel for heavy trucking. Our diesel fuel supply being precarious, while being supercritical for a functioning economy.
Another alternative is of course tree planting. And desert reforestation using nuclear desalinated water. And flooding land depressions that are below sea level with seawater, which causes a lot of increased rainfall in desert regions and consequently reforestation. The best example is the Qattara Depression in Egypt:
Qattara Depression: Can We Fill It? Alex Westerlund:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig7qiqpCRHQ
An even better way is to build floating Nuclear Power plants that are placed in the open ocean, which are pretty much deserted of life due to the lack of nutrients in the water. Using the NPP to pump up nutrients from the seafloor, which is nutrient rich in the deep ocean, causes phytoplankton & algae to bloom, which in turn feed the aquatic food web of zooplankton, small fish & crustaceans. Consumed by larger fish, coral and even whales. Best way to alleviate seriously depleted fish stocks. And this entire food chain is ultimately built out of atmospheric carbon.
All that would make a great part 3 article on Carbon Capture. Entitled - Rational Methods of Carbon Capture. Which as anyone with half a brain knows by now are exactly the methods that won't be financed by our corrupted governments. Our centralized Bankster/UN led governments only like pretend solutions that can be milked by ultra-rich grifters for easy money, government guaranteed wealth transfer from the middle class to the aristocracy. Mining subsidies is much easier than mining minerals.
SmithFS, Thank you for stopping by and for your intro teachings on the potential uses of seaborne carbon.
I also saved the Sahara aquifer video to my watch later.
May I propose we co-author a part 3 as you suggest?
My Best,
TC
Thanks for the explanation. I never knew all the moving pieces, but simply based on the excitement that some showed over CCS it was very clear there is a lot of money to be gained by industry here.
On a different note, your GIF showing the CO2 in the air as red molecules is terrific. I often think that a model like that showing 350ppm vs 400ppm would highlight just how limited the difference is and perhaps get some to understand that this arbitrary limit is just that, arbitrary and likely irrelevant.
Thanks for stopping by Andy, I appreciate your comments.
With regards to ppm, I try to remind myself that this corresponds to milligrams per kilogram.
If you have ever seen what a milligram looks like (2 fleas), and that a kilogram is 1 million miligrams, you are looking a big dilution factor.
400 ppm CO2 = 400 milligrams of CO2 diluted in 1 million milligrams
Exactly. That’s my point. There is no difference to speak of
Carbon capture plants are idiotic. A total grift. If climate freaks really wanted efficient carbon capture they would plant forests. Trees are the best carbon capture mechanisms. And, well, they produce oxygen. Science is real.
Thanks for stopping by and the excellent back to basics 101 comment!
Carbon Capture is paraded as a climate solution to solve two problems for the oil companies-which I don't blame them. First is water resources, I won't get into the number here but it show be common knowledge that resource extraction using a lot of water, now the industry has influence government policy to pay for a "waste" product to replace water usage. 2) CCS will help the industry deal with associated gas. Associate gas-basically free energy-is abandoned because of the lack of infrastructure. Now we will see gathering infrastructure build out to gather and treat CH4 for CO2 removal-as technology to treat CH4 is well-no pun intended-developed and easier giving that it's a gas. So we can envision a step up where the more drilling is done the getter the yield, carbon credits are issued & are either used are sold, and natural gas infrastructure cost will be subsided. The only way that for CCS really reduce emission would be a national long term strategy of using CCS produce more oil and natural gas, replacing domestic coal consumption with natural gas, export our higher quality coal to countries that burn lower quality coal-like Germany, export our LNG, and build out light water reactors over as ten year period for electrical generation and industrial heating. Over time CCS then will be able to claim it's net negative.
Thanks for stopping by Pablo and sharing a detailed and insightful comment. Your points regarding water usage and associated methane gas I will include in the article, thank you.
The longer term national strategy you suggest is logical and implies increased efficiencies, and is well within our reach vs. "renewables" pipedream. As you know, strickly speaking, the Laws teach that there is no such thing as renewable or sustainable, but rather increases or decreases in efficiencies for these irreversible processes.
I am fascinated by supercritical CO2 and it's myriad of uses in chemical synthesis and extraction and as a working fluid.
Re nuclear and SC-CO2:
Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Cycles for Generation IV Nuclear Reactors
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/dunham1/
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/dunham1/images/f1big.png
My Best
TC
Thanks for an interesting overview of carbon capture!
Great article! Thanks for your efforts -
Stop by anytime, appreciated!
TC