More green lies.

But if it can rake in subsidies...

rom CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It' s like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And si nce the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole proc ess ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than noth ing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's re quired to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course put ting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.

NT

They should just freeze it and launch it into the sun :-)

okay, I didn't read carefully enough.

Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere temporarily may even be worthwhile. Meanwhile plants continue to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and they use up energy to do so and somehow that doesn't make the whole process pointless. It doesn't matter if it consumes energy, there's plenty of that, what matters is that you don't get it from fossil fuels.

You of course sit in your armchair saying it'll never work, but you don't really know. Iron ships - they will never float because you can't make a ship leak proof, and flying! What an outlandish idea - god would have given us wings.

It's the old unimaginative conservative attitude - nothing will ever change, the poor will always be poor, people are selfish, money is the only thing worth caring about, we can't stop the world from burning blah blah...

TW

You mention ammonium bicarbonate. Is that because you read it somewhere in relation to this process? It can be used as a nitrogenous fertiliser, and the article does mention fertiliser as a use for the product from the CO2 scrubber. But it's twice as soluble as sodium bicarbonate, (~19g/100ml at 20C for NH4.HCO3 cf. 9.6g/100ml for NaHCO3,

The 'soup' in the separator will only contain ions: Na+, NH4+, HCO3- and Cl- all sloshing around together, but because the salt, sodium bicarbonate, NaHCO3, is less soluble than the salt, ammonium chloride, NH4Cl, then it will start to crystallise while ammonium chloride, being more soluble, remains in solution. This occurs either because the concentration of NaHCO3 reaches saturation due to a rising concentration of CO2 in the presence of excess sodium ions, or because the temperature is lowered by cooling. The sodium bicarbonate can then be filtered off. If necessary, the sodium bicarbonate can be converted to sodium carbonate by gentle heating, driving off some water and CO2, the latter being recycled, but the net effect is a decrease in CO2 in the waste gas emitted to the atmosphere.

l. But if it can rake in subsidies...

from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. I t's like 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 pr ocess ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out , and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.

thing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course p utting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.

Some carbon capture involves dissolving the CO2 in water. This is done under high pressure. The water is then pumped underground. The CO2 then stays dissolved because it is under high pressure (all the oth er water on top of it.) The problem is that it's hot down there.

How it works out as regards energy consumed toachieve this, have no idea.

There has been a few failed projects.

Sorry, don't read too much into my comment.

I'm very ignorant of the whole process, I was just trying to figure out if the process was to separate CO2 as a gas (for later burial) or to produce a carbonate salt. I read a bit around the subject, I saw ammonia going in and jumped to what was probably the wrong conclusion.

Plants get their energy for the process from the sun. You should know this.

You keep thinking this will work, because you can't do sums, even when the numbers are fed to you. Those who thought iron ships and flying were not feasible couldn't do sums either.

Inability to do sums produces infeasible ideas, both of the "it must work" and of the "it'll never work" variety.

l. But if it can rake in subsidies...

from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. I t's like 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 pr ocess ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out , and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.

nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what' s required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.

You've missed the point entirely.

No, that has nothing to do with our difference. The difference is an unders tanding of basic engineering.

NT

vel. But if it can rake in subsidies...

ng from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. An d 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 o ut, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.

nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what' s required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.

ther water on top of it.)

It takes energy to do it, and eenrgy to produce the equipment used to do it , transport the people involved etc etc. Energy comes from producing CO2, t hus doing it produces more CO2 - not less. Now, CO2 isn't going to stay und erground for ever, so what you've done is to add more CO2 to the atmosphere . Not just for no gain, but at significant cost.

It's the sort of thing that appeals to people with no grasp of basic engine ering. It's the fashionable non-sense of the day and curries votes.

NT

Into? And before it does that it is a worse greenhouse gas. You certainly wouldn't want much of it in the atmosphere. And rotting veg adds a continuous supply. It most definitely is worse, it just isn't significant compared to water.

Methane reacts with hydroxyl radicals in the troposphere (lowest layer of the atmosphere, where all the weather is), and lasts about ten years.

water and carbon dioxide.

for an hour or so.

you wont get much of it in the atmosphere, because it breaks down

which is almost immediately broken[ down.

It isnt worse, because there can never be much of it as long as there is oxygen to break it down.

I think you have missed the point, by saying (correctly) that it would cost energy to convert CO2 back to some less oxidised form. We aren't talking about making energy here, we are talking about reducing atmospheric CO2 so as long as the energy is not from a source which produces CO2 it isn't pointless.

I don't claim to have any detailed understanding of how carbon capture and storage might work. I somehow doubt that anyone here does, but just saying 'I don't see how you could put it underground so it will never work' is not demonstrating a knowledge of basic engineering, it's just being a naysayer.

TW

BAIUI not as much as farting cows

vel. But if it can rake in subsidies...

ng from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. An d 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 o ut, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.

n nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess wha t's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of cour se putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.

woosh

derstanding of basic engineering.

I don't think anyone has said that.

NT

OT: windporn

Still rotting veg, just rotting inside the farting cows.

And it isnt just farting cows either, quite a bit of it comes out the front of the cow, not the arse.

level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

oing from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the proces s. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whol e 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.

n nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess wha t's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of cour se putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.

other water on top of it.)

it, transport the people involved etc etc. Energy comes from producing CO2, thus doing it produces more CO2 - not less. Now, CO2 isn't going to stay u nderground for ever, so what you've done is to add more CO2 to the atmosphe re. Not just for no gain, but at significant cost.

neering. It's the fashionable non-sense of the day and curries votes.

CO2 remains dissolved in water for ever. The higher the pressure, the more can be disolved.

Natural gas remained underground for millions of years with no leakage. Why shouldn't CO2?

The questions revolve around the energy balance, not whether we can permane ntly "bury" it.

THIS IS WHY, YOU THICKO KIPPER.