[HN Gopher] A New Carbon Capture Plant Will Pull 36,000 Tons of ... ___________________________________________________________________ A New Carbon Capture Plant Will Pull 36,000 Tons of CO2 from the Air Each Year Author : cheinyeanlim Score : 56 points Date : 2022-06-29 21:51 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (singularityhub.com) (TXT) w3m dump (singularityhub.com) | yread wrote: | 650M$ in funding and they will remove emissions from about 10 000 | cars! You could just spend 32 500$ per each car to replace it | with an EV and the second 32 500 on renewable energy and storage. | We would need 100 000 of these plants to get back to equilibrium. | tito wrote: | $650M in funding and they are developing first of its kind | technology that will inspire better, more efficient systems and | planetary change. | | I offer that anyone looking at a DAC machine today could see | the equivalent of the first transistor sitting on a bench in | Bell Labs [0]. Gooey, weird, and packed with potential. | | [0] | https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/10261887... | missedthecue wrote: | Early lightbulbs had a lifespan of 14 hours and weren't much | brighter than a set of candles. I'm glad they didn't quit and | invest the money into candle factories! | | The analogy isn't perfect, but the point is clear. Refining and | developing imperfect Co2 extraction technology today can pay | _massive_ dividends in the future. | tito wrote: | I like the analogy! I think it's clearer than the one about | transistors I offered above. | rob_c wrote: | Fantastic, how long until it scales up I wonder and can the tech | be adapted to other gases? | tito wrote: | Re: adapting to other gases, this is something I'm curious | about as well. As someone mentioned here, removing one ton of | carbon dioxide means cycling through many more times the amount | of air. At what point does removing other pollutants at the | same time become effective. Carbon dioxide is just the most | prevalent and a good place to start. | qeternity wrote: | As nice as DAC projects sound, I really cannot wrap my head | around them. 36kt is not much. We'd need around 1.5m of these | plants to reach carbon neutrality (without any other changes). | conductr wrote: | > Climeworks was launched by Jan Wurzbacher and Christoph | Gebald in 2009 out of ETH Zurich, the main technical university | in Switzerland. Since then, Wurzbacher told CNBC, DAC | technology has improved by leaps and bounds. "We started with | milligrams of carbon dioxide captured from the air," he said. | "Then we went from milligrams to grams, from grams to kilograms | to tons to 1,000 tons." That sort of leveling up over the | course of 13 years is no small feat. | | > To meet its future goals, though, the company will have its | work cut out for it; they're aiming to remove millions of tons | of CO2 per year by 2030 and a billion per year by 2050. | | It's a startup and growth is the name of the game | mattashii wrote: | Yes, but the point is that you need to start somewhere. | | And 36kt CO2 captured /year means over 2 million euros in | tradable emissions each year, at current ETS prices of 60+ | euros per metric ton CO2 emissions. | jeffbee wrote: | Sounds like a lot? How many oil wells do you think the world | has built? There are 2 million operating oil and gas wells in | the U.S. alone. Building carbon infrastructure at scale is | something humans are good at. We just need to reverse the sign. | tito wrote: | Yes, reverse the sign. Carbon emissions are not tracked in | our existing accounting systems. Integrating carbon tracking | and emissions into our society is inevitable, but it's only | going to get more expensive the longer we wait. | binarymax wrote: | Yeah but the oil wells were built as part of an energy | providing supply chain - it has actual use. This carbon is | going to be injected into the ground, so there's no economic | incentive to building and operating these plants. If the | subsidies are enough, and therefore the incentive great | enough, then they will be built - but the incentive for | reversing climate change has been a difficult area to break | through. | lovemenot wrote: | >> We just need to reverse the sign. | | Economics looks a lot like entropy. We know of no way to do | economically valuable work by burying carbon. | jeffbee wrote: | The economic benefits of controlling the climate should be | fairly obvious. What you really meant is that we don't know | how to make carbon capture enrich the specific person of | Charles Koch, yet. | sylvinus wrote: | I'm surprised by all the negativity here. Usually HN commenters | are good at understanding exponential growth. Maybe it's easier | when talking about Active Users? | | Climeworks (and others) are just a couple orders of magnitude | away from having real impact, with a clear roadmap lying ahead. | Let's support them, along with all other potential solutions? | We're going to need more than one. | gfaster wrote: | The pessimism here is because there is no real money to be made | in carbon capture without significant and expensive policy | change. Put simply, carbon capture is a public good, which will | require significant public expense even in the most optimistic | of cases. If we're willing to go that far, we're better off | just implementing a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme for | emissions. | | Our problem is that this is a technological solution for a | problem that needs a policy solution. | laweijfmvo wrote: | > The company broke ground on its Mammoth plant this week. With | a CO2 capture capacity of 36,000 tons per year, Mammoth will be | almost 10 times larger than Orca. | | > While Orca has 8 collector containers each about the size and | shape of a standard shipping container, Mammoth will have 80. | | This doesn't seems practical to scale. To capture 36,000,000 | tons (1/1000 of the current global output) they'd need 80,000 | shipping containers? | | > Meanwhile, global emissions topped 36 billion tons last year. | | > "We started with milligrams of carbon dioxide captured from | the air," he said. "Then we went from milligrams to grams, from | grams to kilograms to tons to 1,000 tons." That sort of | leveling up over the course of 13 years is no small feat. | | If it took 13 years to reach the current scale, how many more | orders of magnitude are left to squeeze out? | tito wrote: | Carbon removal is a brand new industry that lacks decades of | industry and academic development, and potentially has few | viable business models without a price on carbon. That's equal | parts terrifying and exciting. We need a thousand shots on goal | for carbon removal solutions to succeed. For anyone who wants | to dig in to carbon removal, links in my bio. | | I wrote an article specifically on this balance of | impossibility and necessity here: | https://tito.co/posts/necessary---impossible.html | datadata wrote: | > DAC's energy usage, particularly when it's considered in | conjunction with the (relatively minuscule) amount of CO2 it's | capturing, is its biggest drawback. Sourcing the energy from | renewable sources helps, but it's still not unlimited nor free. | | What are the actual downsides of energy usage here given that the | enterprise is strongly carbon negative? Given that it is | consuming geothermal energy in Iceland, 1) wouldn't the energy | become waste heat in the environment regardless, 2) Is there a | consumer of the energy that would be "better"? | [deleted] | tito wrote: | (edit: oops was wrong here, updating my comment) | | This is addressed in the article: "Or would the geothermally- | generated electricity go to better use powering electric cars?" | | There's no such thing as waste heat really. In the short term | you can argue that limited units of energy are better used | towards carbon neutrality, things like powering electric cars. | Ultimately, we need removal tech, and we need to make it energy | efficient, fast. Putting money and energy into carbon removal | systems needs to be looked at as an investment for it to make | sense. Powering an electric car gets you to go a mile, powering | a DAC system lets you remove a little carbon and is an | investment in developing more efficient systems too. | icegreentea2 wrote: | On the scale that Climeworks is operating at? Probably not | really. | | You can read that "downside" more generally as DAC (and carbon | sequestration in general) is expensive, and no one really knows | how efficiently we can do it, especially at the scales we'd | probably want. | | It's also an expression that current low/no carbon energy | sources are globally sufficiently constrained that we're in no | real position for large scale (aka meaningful) DAC (and many | other forms of carbon sequestration - perhaps not all) | deployment. | | Climeworks is clearly out to iterate and gain experience to be | well positioned for a presumed DAC (and sequestration) market | that may form as all of the easy to decarbonize sources and | processes are converted. We're... a ways off here. | Alupis wrote: | > The containers are blocks of fans and filters that suck in air | and extract its CO2, which Carbfix mixes with water and injects | underground, where a chemical reaction converts it to rock. | | I'm really worried we have no idea what we're doing, and will | find out down the road things like this only made things worse, | or caused other unforeseen problems. | | I do not subscribe to the philosophy that "doing something is | better than nothing", particularly when we likely don't fully | understand what it is we're doing or actually trying to achieve. | Doing the wrong thing can be, and often is, worse than doing | nothing. | | > Orca can capture about 4,000 tons of carbon per year (for | scale, that's equal to the annual emissions of 790 cars). | | That's some hand-wavy numbers there. 790 of what type of car? | 1970 muscle car without a catalytic converter and modern fuel | injection system? Or a 2022 Prius? One outputs a huge amount of | CO2 and other gases, and the other hardly any at all. | | Car emissions are really good on average. As technology | progresses, it might be fathomable that 7,900 cars, or eventually | 79,000 cars produce the same amount of emissions as today. This | "metric" sounds impressive, but it's useless. | | > DAC's energy usage, particularly when it's considered in | conjunction with the (relatively minuscule) amount of CO2 it's | capturing, is its biggest drawback. Sourcing the energy from | renewable sources helps, but it's still not unlimited nor free. | | So why are we not just using the geothermal energy powering this | thing to charge electric vehicles or power homes? | | > Meanwhile, global emissions topped 36 billion tons last year. | 36,000 tons (the quantity of CO2 that will be captured by the | Mammoth facility) is a negligible fraction of that total. Is it | even worth the energy usage, construction and maintenance costs, | and frankly, the effort? Or would the geothermally-generated | electricity go to better use powering electric cars? | | Ah, they even mention this in the article. Of course the CEO hand | waves this away... | | I'm not convinced this is the future - seems more like a get rich | quick scheme if anything. Sort of like those companies you can | pay to "offload" your emission burden and supposedly they plant | trees or something and you get to claim your carbon neutral. | Scams... all of them. | tito wrote: | I hear you! What do you propose is the future instead? Curious | to hear about what you're working on, we need people working | across all areas of planetary solutions. | datadata wrote: | > Car emissions are really good on average. As technology | progresses, it might be fathomable that 7,900 cars, or | eventually 79,000 cars produce the same amount of emissions as | today. This "metric" sounds impressive, but it's useless. | | Thankfully that's why the article first gave the metric in tons | of carbon, which has no such ambiguity. | | > So why are we not just using the geothermal energy powering | this thing to charge electric vehicles or power homes? | | My understanding is that there is generally an over supply of | renewable energy in Iceland. Historically it attracted location | agnostic consumers like aluminum smelting and bitcoin mining as | consumers of this energy, because there wasn't any other demand | for the renewable energy in Iceland. | 6d6b73 wrote: | How many years before this plant becomes carbon neutral itself? I | can bet that this is another waste of money and natural resources | that will not help the environment. | pengaru wrote: | TFA makes it pretty clear that the energy source is geothermal. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > TFA makes it pretty clear that the energy source is | geothermal. | | Is it more likely that when this plant switches on, other | people will just make do with that much less electricity, or | that when this plant switches on, electricity production will | go up? | cinntaile wrote: | It shouldn't take that long, probably not even a year. It's | basically 80 shipping containers filled with fans. | nharada wrote: | DAC is nowhere near the scale needed to make even a tiny dent in | our carbon emissions, and it's easy to be cynical looking at this | (this plant can capture about 2000 American's carbon emissions). | | One thing I do like about this is that we get an actual, | concrete, and correct "cost of carbon" from it. Sure, there are | caveats (i.e. you can't just build 5MM of these in Iceland), but | having a real number that doesn't include hand-waving around | whether the Brazilian farmer would have cut down those trees or | not is a good thing for offsets, future planning, markets, etc. | tito wrote: | "Cost of carbon" -- yes, one scenario is that society dumps a | few billion dollars into carbon removal technologies only to | learn "oh shit this stuff is realllllllly expensive to pull out | later...let's decarbonize overnight". Pretty sure all of us air | miners would take that as a win. | | edit: I've also seen a similar argument made for developing | geoengineering solutions. Being willing to dump chemicals into | the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight makes a lot of people | think "oh shit they're really serious about this climate change | stuff arent' they", and then the outcome of "we should take | this more seriously". | brundolf wrote: | Does it also serve as a test-bed for improving the technology? | Like with fusion reactors that will never themselves be energy- | positive | kec wrote: | CO2 makes up roughly 0.04% of the atmosphere. Handwaving, | that means for every ton of carbon you remove you'd need to | process at least 250 tons of air. To capture humanities | current yearly output, you'd need to process over 7 Trillion | tons of air per year... the scales just don't make sense. | tito wrote: | Yes the scales are hard to fathom. And we've been doing | that for about 100 years. It's not pretty, but there's a | trillion tons of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. | We need to stop emitting as fast as possible and remove the | rest. Every gallon of gasoline burned adds 20 pounds of | carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. | rootusrootus wrote: | I imagine we're going to need a number of different technologies | in order to make a real dent? What about biochar? That seems like | an obvious choice, too. Easy, can make syngas, makes its own | energy, enriches soil, etc. No panaceas, but we're going to need | a lot more than one magic bullet. | tito wrote: | Indeed, we need a thousand shots on goal for carbon removal | solutions. Anyone up for the task is welcome to come join our | community at AirMiners: http://airminers.org/ | jseliger wrote: | Direct release from Climeworks: | https://climeworks.com/news/climeworks-announces-groundbreak... | dominic_cocch wrote: | "Orca can capture about 4,000 tons of carbon per year (for scale, | that's equal to the annual emissions of 790 cars). | | Now Climeworks is building another facility that makes Orca seem | tiny by comparison. The company broke ground on its Mammoth plant | this week. With a CO2 capture capacity of 36,000 tons per year, | Mammoth will be almost 10 times larger than Orca." | | A lot of negativity in this thread, oddly. This is a 10X | improvement over a previous version. Another magnitude or two and | this becomes incredible for the environment. Other solutions | should also happen, but a problem as big as climate change should | have many parallel solutions. We don't have time to put all our | eggs in one basket. | bamboozled wrote: | I've been sponsoring these guys for a while now. Saw it on my | credit card bill last night and wondered what they were up too! | gumby wrote: | I have no faith in machines that suck the atmosphere through a | straw. The thermodynamics and fluid dynamics just don't pencil | out. We need to remove something like 3.5 Tt of CO2, so 3.5 Kt is | nothing. Our only hope in this regard is solar/uv-powered | systems, mainly biological, for example algaes in pelagic waters | (that grow and then die and sink to the bottom of the ocean). | These systems aren't trivial to build either. | | For other GHG and pollutants there are uv-powered systems like | TiO2, olivine etc, though there are also limits to how much they | can do. | | Basically we have to "mash our hand on the keyboard", i.e. try to | do them all, but I can't see machines like these making any | meaningful contribution. | | Note: I'm working on methane destruction straight in the | atmosphere, so I'm putting my money (and my time) where my | commenting is. | jay_kyburz wrote: | I agree that we need to do be exploring all options, but we | need to make sure not to destroy other parts of our environment | in the process. | | Massive algal blooms in the ocean gives me nightmares. | 0des wrote: | algae blooms in my reef tank give me nightmares, thank you | for compounding that. | ParksNet wrote: | What's the cheapest Carbon Capture system we can imagine - $100 | per tonne? Most are running at about $500/tonne right now. | | At just $15/tonne of Carbon Tax, we halve CO2 output, mainly by | destroying the economics of coal: | | https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/what-is-a-carbon-tax-how-... | | All the effort and funding currently spent on carbon capture | should instead go towards lobbying for carbon taxes. The impact | will be significantly greater. | | The best use of Carbon Capture technology would be in building | ventilation systems. If we can capture and exhaust CO2 from | inside air, we can reduce ventilation requirements, and | potentially reach lower-than-atmospheric CO2 levels (which | could have extraordinary benefits for cognition and sleep | quality). | toomuchtodo wrote: | > At just $15/tonne of Carbon Tax, we halve CO2 output, | mainly by destroying the economics of coal | | Here is page 122 of NextEra's investor deck. They are closing | all coal plants by 2028 as they are no longer profitable to | run. Even without a carbon adder per MWh, coal is dead ("near | firm" solar and wind are renewables with battery backing to | make them dispatchable when called on by the grid operator). | Even existing combined cycle natural gas is under pressure! | | https://cleantechnica.com/files/2022/06/lcoe- | small.jpg?mrf-s... | | Japan is opting out of financing coal plants further in | Indonesia and Bangladesh, cancelling ~3GW worth of coal plant | projects. | | https://news.mongabay.com/2022/06/planned-coal-plants- | fizzle... | | So we're seeing some progress in avoiding electrical thermal | emissions, which is the cheapest emissions offset. | | (Oahu, Hawaii's last coal fired plant turns down in September | after the Tesla Megapacks replacing their frequency response | capability are installed, another 200MW of coal taken | offline) | landemva wrote: | Rather than a broad tax that hurts the poor, maybe your | effort could go toward taxing specific indoor growers who | burn gas to generate CO2 to get more growth from their MJ | plants. | pessimizer wrote: | Or instead of going after pot growers, maybe your effort | could go towards making my neighbor stop BBQing every | weekend? | dijonman2 wrote: | Your neighbor has the right to BBQ, there's a point where | we need to live our lives and stop advocating for denial | of comfort. | Gigachad wrote: | Use the tax to offset the other taxes at lower income | levels. It should be profit neutral for the government. | NortySpock wrote: | It would be simpler to write broad legislation to (a) tax | all CO2 sources and then (b) give the tax revenue back to | the people, similar to the child tax credit. | | Call it the "American Carbon Dividend" or the "Advancing | America Dividend". | henryfjordan wrote: | We need to reduce the amount of Carbon we take from the earth | and put into the atmosphere, yes. | | We have already taken so much carbon out of the ground that | we need to put some back. Just slowing down, even to 0, will | not be enough. The climate has already changed and will | continue to change because we've already knocked it out of | whack. | | We need to fund carbon capture at scale. | keithnz wrote: | so, in the article it says "they're aiming to remove millions | of tons of CO2 per year by 2030 and a billion per year by | 2050." | | So, this is just a step on the path....but, those numbers do | seem pretty aspirational at this stage. | malthuswaswrong wrote: | Everything is going to be okay. | OtomotO wrote: | and in the case it doesn't: no worries, the end was always | the same, the heat death of the universe :) | | so try your best and if it doesn't play out: memento mori! | [deleted] | Gigachad wrote: | Honestly I can't see how it will be. I think we will get | incredible technologies that cut resource usage. But we have | already done this several times now and every time we make | something more efficient we just consume more. We have made | car engines massively more efficient but the gains were | entirely lost to bigger cars and driving longer distances. | | There are billions of people living almost primitive lives | just waiting to consume as much as we do driving everywhere | and buying new iphones every year. We are about to make | things cheaper and more efficient and give them access to | this consumption. | | Despite all of this advancement, resource usage and emissions | has never once gone backwards or even slowed down its | increase. | FredPret wrote: | Malthus was wrong, hopefully Gretha as well | softcactus wrote: | Any tips for getting into the "climate industry"? What are the | most promising technologies that aren't just greenwashing? | tito wrote: | The book Project Drawdown is a good primer, with pictures! | [1] | | After that, the My Climate Journey [2] and Work on Climate | [3] communities are excellent entry points. | | Climate is a big buffet full of all sorts of cool problems to | help solve. I'm focused on carbon removal as an example, but | we need millions of people working across all aspects of the | planetary system. | | [1] https://www.amazon.com/Drawdown-Comprehensive-Proposed- | Rever... | | [2] https://www.mcjcollective.com | | [3] https://workonclimate.org | tito wrote: | What's the methane destruction project you're working on? Enjoy | those 24x carbon credits, that's good stuff. | | Regarding the main part of your comment, what is it you think | people should be working on instead? | asah wrote: | 35 Kt... per year... but yeah it's daunting and we need more | scale. | tito wrote: | Agreed. In case you or others you connect with are looking to | help create more scale for carbon removal solutions, here's | an online educational course I helped develop called | AirMiners Boot Up -- https://bootup.airminers.org/ | Gigachad wrote: | Carbon capture feels a lot like having a public pool which | has raw sewerage pumping in to it and the proposals all focus | on installing more powerful filters which can clean up some | of the sewerage rather than focusing on stopping the sewerage | from dumping in to the pool which is a much cheaper and more | realistic solution. | jjtheblunt wrote: | How do you destroy methane straight in the atmosphere? | slowmovintarget wrote: | I'd worry they make things worse and suffocate plant life near | them. | theodric wrote: | 7.5 tons/household/year. This is good for 4800 households. Nice, | but nothing, ultimately. | jay_kyburz wrote: | Sounds pretty good to me, every 5k households just need to | build one of their own. | akomtu wrote: | Imo, the solution to co2 and plastic pollution won't be a piece | of high tech, it will be a form of fungi. | jay_kyburz wrote: | There will be no one solution. The population will shrink, | we'll switch to electric cars, we'll eat less beef, we'll | replant some forests, we'll capture some carbon from the air, | we'll grow some algae in tanks, we'll scoop up the plastic in | the sea and bury it. | | Then hopefully, with a little wishful thinking, future | generations appreciate our environment a little more. | | Hopefully nobody will go to war, or starve, or go bankrupt in | the process. | malthuswaswrong wrote: | There are already self replicating carbon drawing machines. They | are called trees. | roamerz wrote: | Those are not a viable solution as they don't give politicians | any power. Imagine what good it would bring to society if we | were able to have a grow / harvest cycle that would give us an | abundance of inexpensive lumber to build housing. | 542458 wrote: | Trees eventually rot or burn, which releases most of the carbon | again. Once a forest is mature carbon sequestration is minimal | to zero: | https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325150055.h... | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | trees don't draw carbon in the long term. after a few hundred | years they decay. also the earth is already near maximum tree | capacity. | jvm___ wrote: | Can AI improve on evolution? Tree DNA and cells must be super | complicated, but they're evolved things so they must be | inefficient. Can we figure out how to do the same things they | do, just faster? Bamboo can grow inches per day, can we make a | petri dish that grows centimeters per day of carbon capture? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-29 23:00 UTC)