It is currently January 18th, 2020, 9:50 am

All times are UTC-08:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
Unread postPosted: June 24th, 2019, 4:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13145
While it sounds like the makings of science fiction, one Canadian startup believes it’s figured out a way to suck carbon dioxide from the air and convert it into fuel for cars, trucks, buses, etc. – and to top it off, it’s all cost-effective.

It may sound too good to be true, but in a jointly-published study by Harvard University researchers and the Squamish, B.C.-based company Carbon Engineering, researchers claim that a method called direct air capture can do exactly that. However, Carbon Engineering claims to be able to get the job done at a third of the cost of competitors working on similar technology.

“Yes, we’re absolutely confident,” Steve Oldham, of Carbon Engineering, told Global News reporter Ted Chernecki. “I don’t just believe it, I know it. This is based upon an existing facility. This is not a PowerPoint calculation. It’s a real facility. We’ve done real testing. We’re using real equipment from real suppliers that we’ve talked to,” Oldham added.

The business model works by adding hydrogen to the captured CO2 to produce a liquid fuel, which is already being produced in small quantities.

“We’re going to make a completely clean gas. That gasoline or diesel of jet fuel will work with any existing vehicle,” Oldham said. He added that this method not only solves the problem of converting the transportation industry to clean fuels, but it does so using the cars, buses, jets, etc., that are already on the road.

“[The fuel is] drop-in compatible. You can fill up that vehicle, and now that vehicle is carbon neutral, so that solves the problem of de-carbonizing the transportation sector, but no change. No change to cars, no change to gas stations,” Oldham said.

At least seven companies around the world are working on similar technologies, including the Swiss-based Climeworks, who has already built a commercial-scale plant. However, none of Carbon Engineering’s competitors are able to deploy this technology at the same low price point of between US$94 and US$232.

In comparison, it costs Climeworks approximately US$600 a tonne to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Another estimate for the process, published in the Proceedings of the National Academies, estimated the cost to be more than US$1,000.

The reason Carbon Engineering is able to capture CO2 from the air at such a low cost, it claims, is because of the company’s use of technology and components that are well understood and commercially available. Oldham told Global News that an example of this can be found in the front end of the system – the component that actually pulls the CO2 out of the air – which uses membranes from the air cooler industry, often found in water coolers.

“Until now, research suggested it would cost US$600 per ton to remove CO2 from the atmosphere using DAC technology, making it too expensive to be a feasible solution to removing legacy carbon at scale. At CE, we’ve been working on direct air capture since 2009, running our pilot plant since 2015, and we now have the data and engineering to prove that DAC can achieve costs below US$100 per ton. No prior research in the peer-reviewed literature provides a design and engineering cost for a complete DAC system– and this paper fills that gap,” said Harvard applied physics professor and lead author on the study, David Keith.

Carbon Engineering currently pulls about one tonne of carbon a day from the air and produces two barrels of fuel. Oldham says that since its components are “off the rack,” it should be easy to scale up.

As a feature of the Paris climate agreements, leaders from around the world agreed to try to keep global warming within a two-degree limit, though fears have been raised that climate emissions won’t be cut fast enough.

One of the great benefits of making fuel from air is energy independence, Oldham told CKNW’s Jon McComb Show.

I think it’s a fantastic opportunity. It provides fuel independence. We only need water, and sunlight and air to produce fuel. And that means you can locate your fuel plant wherever you have those three things – lots of places,” he said.

Carbon Engineering’s plan isn’t foolproof though. Carbon Engineering’s fuel costs about 25 per cent more than gasoline made from oil. Oldham said work is being done to reduce that.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4264512/clim ... ut-of-sky/

Climate change is becoming like cancer research. A never ending sink hole for our money, but no cure is really wanted.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 24th, 2019, 4:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13145

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 24th, 2019, 4:42 pm 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41417
Very interesting Seoul...

And it allows to keep the vehicles we have on the road.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 24th, 2019, 4:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13145
Fashionista wrote:
Very interesting Seoul...

And it allows to keep the vehicles we have on the road.

And the beauty of it is they won't require subsidies to pay for it. They make their money from selling gasoline, and diesel.

Rather than demonizing C02. find a commercial use for it.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 24th, 2019, 5:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2015, 7:57 pm
Posts: 24642
This has no chance.

The Greens won't buy it.

It doesn't do anything to destroy capitalism.

_________________
Just because I don't agree with you, it does not mean I hate you


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 24th, 2019, 5:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13145
Bricktop wrote:
This has no chance.

The Greens won't buy it.

It doesn't do anything to destroy capitalism.

That is the problem. Practical people want practical solutions. Greenies are reds and they have an agenda.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 24th, 2019, 5:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13145
More commercial uses for C02.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 24th, 2019, 6:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2015, 7:57 pm
Posts: 24642
"Why does this Sharpie cost $800???"



"Ah, this one has pigment taken from a Rolls Royce, sir".

_________________
Just because I don't agree with you, it does not mean I hate you


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 24th, 2019, 6:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16976
seoulbro wrote:
While it sounds like the makings of science fiction, one Canadian startup believes it’s figured out a way to suck carbon dioxide from the air and convert it into fuel for cars, trucks, buses, etc. – and to top it off, it’s all cost-effective.

It may sound too good to be true, but in a jointly-published study by Harvard University researchers and the Squamish, B.C.-based company Carbon Engineering, researchers claim that a method called direct air capture can do exactly that. However, Carbon Engineering claims to be able to get the job done at a third of the cost of competitors working on similar technology.

“Yes, we’re absolutely confident,” Steve Oldham, of Carbon Engineering, told Global News reporter Ted Chernecki. “I don’t just believe it, I know it. This is based upon an existing facility. This is not a PowerPoint calculation. It’s a real facility. We’ve done real testing. We’re using real equipment from real suppliers that we’ve talked to,” Oldham added.

The business model works by adding hydrogen to the captured CO2 to produce a liquid fuel, which is already being produced in small quantities.

“We’re going to make a completely clean gas. That gasoline or diesel of jet fuel will work with any existing vehicle,” Oldham said. He added that this method not only solves the problem of converting the transportation industry to clean fuels, but it does so using the cars, buses, jets, etc., that are already on the road.

“[The fuel is] drop-in compatible. You can fill up that vehicle, and now that vehicle is carbon neutral, so that solves the problem of de-carbonizing the transportation sector, but no change. No change to cars, no change to gas stations,” Oldham said.

At least seven companies around the world are working on similar technologies, including the Swiss-based Climeworks, who has already built a commercial-scale plant. However, none of Carbon Engineering’s competitors are able to deploy this technology at the same low price point of between US$94 and US$232.

In comparison, it costs Climeworks approximately US$600 a tonne to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Another estimate for the process, published in the Proceedings of the National Academies, estimated the cost to be more than US$1,000.

The reason Carbon Engineering is able to capture CO2 from the air at such a low cost, it claims, is because of the company’s use of technology and components that are well understood and commercially available. Oldham told Global News that an example of this can be found in the front end of the system – the component that actually pulls the CO2 out of the air – which uses membranes from the air cooler industry, often found in water coolers.

“Until now, research suggested it would cost US$600 per ton to remove CO2 from the atmosphere using DAC technology, making it too expensive to be a feasible solution to removing legacy carbon at scale. At CE, we’ve been working on direct air capture since 2009, running our pilot plant since 2015, and we now have the data and engineering to prove that DAC can achieve costs below US$100 per ton. No prior research in the peer-reviewed literature provides a design and engineering cost for a complete DAC system– and this paper fills that gap,” said Harvard applied physics professor and lead author on the study, David Keith.

Carbon Engineering currently pulls about one tonne of carbon a day from the air and produces two barrels of fuel. Oldham says that since its components are “off the rack,” it should be easy to scale up.

As a feature of the Paris climate agreements, leaders from around the world agreed to try to keep global warming within a two-degree limit, though fears have been raised that climate emissions won’t be cut fast enough.

One of the great benefits of making fuel from air is energy independence, Oldham told CKNW’s Jon McComb Show.

I think it’s a fantastic opportunity. It provides fuel independence. We only need water, and sunlight and air to produce fuel. And that means you can locate your fuel plant wherever you have those three things – lots of places,” he said.

Carbon Engineering’s plan isn’t foolproof though. Carbon Engineering’s fuel costs about 25 per cent more than gasoline made from oil. Oldham said work is being done to reduce that.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4264512/clim ... ut-of-sky/

Climate change is becoming like cancer research. A never ending sink hole for our money, but no cure is really wanted.

CNRL, a Canadian oil company was behind this. Don't tell the alarmists that.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 25th, 2019, 3:12 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41417
Herman wrote:
seoulbro wrote:
While it sounds like the makings of science fiction, one Canadian startup believes it’s figured out a way to suck carbon dioxide from the air and convert it into fuel for cars, trucks, buses, etc. – and to top it off, it’s all cost-effective.

It may sound too good to be true, but in a jointly-published study by Harvard University researchers and the Squamish, B.C.-based company Carbon Engineering, researchers claim that a method called direct air capture can do exactly that. However, Carbon Engineering claims to be able to get the job done at a third of the cost of competitors working on similar technology.

“Yes, we’re absolutely confident,” Steve Oldham, of Carbon Engineering, told Global News reporter Ted Chernecki. “I don’t just believe it, I know it. This is based upon an existing facility. This is not a PowerPoint calculation. It’s a real facility. We’ve done real testing. We’re using real equipment from real suppliers that we’ve talked to,” Oldham added.

The business model works by adding hydrogen to the captured CO2 to produce a liquid fuel, which is already being produced in small quantities.

“We’re going to make a completely clean gas. That gasoline or diesel of jet fuel will work with any existing vehicle,” Oldham said. He added that this method not only solves the problem of converting the transportation industry to clean fuels, but it does so using the cars, buses, jets, etc., that are already on the road.

“[The fuel is] drop-in compatible. You can fill up that vehicle, and now that vehicle is carbon neutral, so that solves the problem of de-carbonizing the transportation sector, but no change. No change to cars, no change to gas stations,” Oldham said.

At least seven companies around the world are working on similar technologies, including the Swiss-based Climeworks, who has already built a commercial-scale plant. However, none of Carbon Engineering’s competitors are able to deploy this technology at the same low price point of between US$94 and US$232.

In comparison, it costs Climeworks approximately US$600 a tonne to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Another estimate for the process, published in the Proceedings of the National Academies, estimated the cost to be more than US$1,000.

The reason Carbon Engineering is able to capture CO2 from the air at such a low cost, it claims, is because of the company’s use of technology and components that are well understood and commercially available. Oldham told Global News that an example of this can be found in the front end of the system – the component that actually pulls the CO2 out of the air – which uses membranes from the air cooler industry, often found in water coolers.

“Until now, research suggested it would cost US$600 per ton to remove CO2 from the atmosphere using DAC technology, making it too expensive to be a feasible solution to removing legacy carbon at scale. At CE, we’ve been working on direct air capture since 2009, running our pilot plant since 2015, and we now have the data and engineering to prove that DAC can achieve costs below US$100 per ton. No prior research in the peer-reviewed literature provides a design and engineering cost for a complete DAC system– and this paper fills that gap,” said Harvard applied physics professor and lead author on the study, David Keith.

Carbon Engineering currently pulls about one tonne of carbon a day from the air and produces two barrels of fuel. Oldham says that since its components are “off the rack,” it should be easy to scale up.

As a feature of the Paris climate agreements, leaders from around the world agreed to try to keep global warming within a two-degree limit, though fears have been raised that climate emissions won’t be cut fast enough.

One of the great benefits of making fuel from air is energy independence, Oldham told CKNW’s Jon McComb Show.

I think it’s a fantastic opportunity. It provides fuel independence. We only need water, and sunlight and air to produce fuel. And that means you can locate your fuel plant wherever you have those three things – lots of places,” he said.

Carbon Engineering’s plan isn’t foolproof though. Carbon Engineering’s fuel costs about 25 per cent more than gasoline made from oil. Oldham said work is being done to reduce that.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4264512/clim ... ut-of-sky/

Climate change is becoming like cancer research. A never ending sink hole for our money, but no cure is really wanted.

CNRL, a Canadian oil company was behind this. Don't tell the alarmists that.

Bill Gates too.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 25th, 2019, 5:51 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13145
CO2ube filters out carbon dioxide from your tailpipe

The CO2ube Kickstarter project filters out carbon dioxide at the scene of the crime: your car's tailpipe.


The CO2ube attaches onto the end of your tailpipe using hose clamps. A combination of algae and sodium hydroxide filters out the carbon dioxide as it exits from car.

A single CO2ube is going for a pledge price of $45. The company behind the product, Ecoviate, has created working prototypes and is looking to produce the device in quantity. A smartphone app is also intended to accompany the CO2ube. The app would let you track your emissions over time.
https://www.cnet.com/news/co2ube-filter ... -tailpipe/

A $45 dollar device developed six years ago or an ever increasing carbon tax and subsidies for billionaires.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 25th, 2019, 5:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13145
The kickstarter for this product was unsuccessful. The alarmists don't want a simple, and cheap solution to carbon emissions. Apparently the same technology can be applied to home heating.

This technology should be mandatory and tax deductible. This will work a lot better than the Green Party's job killing fantasies.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 25th, 2019, 6:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16976
seoulbro wrote:
The kickstarter for this product was unsuccessful. The alarmists don't want a simple, and cheap solution to carbon emissions. Apparently the same technology can be applied to home heating.

This technology should be mandatory and tax deductible. This will work a lot better than the Green Party's job killing fantasies.

The dirty bastards.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 25th, 2019, 8:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16976
Just as I thought, a government subsidized wind and solar company called Cleantechnica says it won't work. And the pick pocketing of taxpayers continues.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 25th, 2019, 6:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13145
New materials remove CO2 from smokestacks, tailpipes and even the air

Scientists are reporting discovery of an improved way to remove carbon dioxide — the major greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming — from smokestacks and other sources, including the atmosphere. Their report on the process, which achieves some of the highest carbon dioxide removal capacity ever reported for real-world conditions where the air contains moisture, appears in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Their tests showed that these inexpensive materials achieved some of the highest carbon dioxide removal rates ever reported for humid air, under conditions that stymie other related materials. After capturing carbon dioxide, the materials give it up easily so that the CO2 can be used in making other substances, or permanently isolated from the environment. The capture material then can be recycled and reused many times over without losing efficiency. The researchers suggest the materials may be useful on submarines, in smokestacks or out in the open atmosphere, where they could clean up carbon dioxide pollution that comes from small point sources like cars or home heaters, representing about half of the total CO2 emissions related to human activity.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pres ... e-air.html

This was seven years ago. Money for wind and solar, but governments aren't interested in achievable solutions to C02 emissions that don't break the bank.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 25th, 2019, 6:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13145
Companies like Opus-12, Mitsui Chemicals, Carbon Recycling International, Dioxide Materials, and Carbon Electrocatalytic Recycling Toronto are all making good progress toward commercialization of captured C02. We could drastically reduce C02 emissions and wasting hundreds of billions of dollar on new transportation and building infrastructure.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: June 25th, 2019, 6:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16976
Catalytic converters have been around for a few decades. I find it hard to believe something to capture or scrub C02 can't be on everu vehicle.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 7th, 2019, 10:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 13145
Carbon dioxide catcher

Bill Gates is keeping a close eye on the field of carbon dioxide capture as well. Like next generation nuclear power and cow-free burgers, this emerging technology is likely to be one of our most effective weapons in the battle against climate change. Technologies that literally suck the greenhouse gas out of the air could make a real difference.

A number of carbon dioxide-catching plants are already open or slated to launch in the near future. They include Swiss firm Climeworks' facility, the first of its kind to extract the gas from the air and store it underground. Other facilities in Switzerland and the US will sell on the captured commodity to the drinks industry.

Gates predicts this to be widespread by 2024. I say Western countries will still milk taxpayers with carbon taxes and cash giveraways to useless wind and solar schemes.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 7th, 2019, 12:25 pm 

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Posts: 989
Herman wrote:
Catalytic converters have been around for a few decades. I find it hard to believe something to capture or scrub C02 can't be on everu vehicle.

We want to do things the hard way.

_________________
gay, conservative and proud


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 7th, 2019, 6:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 15th, 2018, 11:04 am
Posts: 2200
Best way to fight climate change? Plant a trillion trees

This is by far — by thousands of times — the cheapest climate change solution, study co-author says

The most effective way to fight global warming is to plant lots of trees, a trillion of them, maybe more, according to a new study.

Swiss scientists also say that even with existing cities and farmland, there's enough space for new trees to cover nine million square kilometres, roughly the size of the United States.

The study calculated that over the decades, those new trees could suck up nearly 750 billion tonnes of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere — about as much carbon pollution as humans have spewed in the past 25 years.

Much of that benefit will come quickly because trees remove more carbon from the air when they are younger, the study authors said. The potential for removing the most carbon is in the tropics.

Canada has lots of room for trees
"This is by far — by thousands of times — the cheapest climate change solution" and the most effective, said study co-author Thomas Crowther, a climate change ecologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.

Russia, the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil and China have the most room for new trees, the report said.

Before his research, Crowther figured there were other more effective ways to fight climate change besides cutting emissions, such as people switching from eating meat to vegetarianism. But, he said, tree planting is far more effective because trees take so much carbon dioxide out of the air.

Thomas Lovejoy, a conservation biologist at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., who wasn't part of the study, called it "a good news story" because planting trees would also help stem the loss of biodiversity.

The researchers used Google Earth to see what areas could support more trees, while leaving room for people and crops. Lead author Jean-François Bastin estimated there's space for at least one trillion more trees, but it could be 1.5 trillion. That's on top of the three trillion trees now on Earth, according to earlier Crowther research.

The study's calculations make sense, said Chris Field, an environmental scientist at Stanford University in California who also wasn't part of the study.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree ... -1.5201102

This makes more sense than taxing essentials.

_________________
The Russian Rock It


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC-08:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
phpBB SEO
[ GZIP: On ]