A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and makes baking powder.
So what do they do with the baking powder..
they bake with it releasing the CO2.
Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!
Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.
Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.
It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead of burning it reduces CO2.
Exactly, "displace"="no difference", you want people to stop eating bread for green reasons?
It does. However some of the carbon ends up as methane. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.
More probably they want you to stop drinking alcohol. You need CO2 to make baking soda and the easiest source is from brewers.
Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...
How could it not make sense? I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no? TW
Greenhouse gases are not bad. Stop believing the s**te the treehuggers throw at you.
No. CO2 is good for plants. Leave it alone.
ut if it can rake in subsidies...
Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's li ke taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.
NT
No, it isn't.
It breaks down very quickly.
I've read a few articles now from the peer reviewed scientific press on the environmental impact of insulation materials.
While useful and doubtless scholarly (on my lay reading) in the sense of seeing which materials work, in what quantity and why, reported wider environmental benefits are misleading.
Not a single one even mentions the 'CO2 cost' of production, only effects post-fit - they seem to throw about notions of CO2 savings with impunity. Not even in the introduction, where any focus should be made plain. Therefore, they can significantly overstate the environmental impact. Not sure about the conclusion (or the data!), but this is a good summary of the sorts of things that should be considered:
That said, I've only read half a dozen or so articles. And I have no reason to doubt that even after taking into account pre- and post-installation costs of properly designed insulation, over time net benefits by most measures follow.
We have carbon capture technology. Called trees.
Yes, I saw that and wondered about the actual chemistry. Although the text doesn't give much of a clue, the diagram shows a combination of salt and ammonia being used as the CO2-getter, so presumably a form of the Solvay process: NaCl + NH3 + CO2 + H2O -> NaHCO3 + NH4Cl , followed by 2NaHCO3 -> Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2, with the CO2 from that stage being recycled, but resulting in an overall reduction in CO2. It all works because of the different solubilities of sodium bicarbonate and ammonium chloride, allowing the bicarbonate to be separated out.
I share your scepticism as to whether it will actually act as a permanent sink for CO2, but a lot of sodium bicarbonate is mined, so it could replace that, which would result in an overall reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, in that not digging it up is the equivalent of burying it.
This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture' should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon. It would be an idiocy, but I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in which you hoped it would stay put.
I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter, and besides it is good sense for many reasons.
Tim W
[...]
I dare say some people say stupid things sometimes, and what you do with wood makes no difference to the amount of fossil fuel we consume which is the main driver of the greenhouse thing by a long way.
There is some truth in there somewhere though. Rotting organic matter is Carbon not in the atmosphere, and some hydrocarbons will hang around a long time in the soil or in landfill. I have heard that changes in agricultural practice to increase the organic matter in soils could have an impact. I haven't checked the maths and don't intend to.
TW
The oil industry pumps gas (nitrogen? CO2? Not sure) into oil bearing rocks to force more oil out. But they don't need to care, for their purposes, whether it stays there or not. For carbon capture by that means, it's crucial.
The atmosphere contains 3 x 10^12 tonnes of CO2. Assuming 400ppm CO2 now, and a target of 300ppm (1960 levels), i.e. a reduction of 25%, would need 750 x 10^9 tonnes of CO2 to be removed. Removing the CO2 from a large volume such as an aircraft hangar or the Albert Hall, is practical; attempting to remove it from the atmosphere is a fool's errand.
Forgot the link:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.