The Problem with Carbon Removal

 


This is Orca, the world's largest carbon removal plant to date. It's expected to draw 4,000 tons of airborne CO2 per year. 

It has two drawbacks. It's expensive to build and expensive to operate. The real problem is that 4,000 tons of CO2 represents just three seconds of global emissions.

Carbon capture, that scrubs CO2 out of industrial exhausts is also costly but more effective. The drawback is that it does nothing about removing existing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Bill Gates is putting his money on a Canadian company, Carbon Engineering. Its technology could remove 25 times what Orca achieves. 25 times 3 seconds is what, 75 seconds? That's a solid 1:15 in terms of global emissions. At that ration, Carbon Engineering would need to construct something in the range of 420,000 to 450,000 plants worldwide.

Back to the drawing board.  Maybe not.

UPDATE:

The Guardian's environment editor, Damian Carrington, writes that the companies building these plants  want just that - to build millions of these plants. And, best of all, they figure it can be done at a modest cost of just $100 US per tonne.

“It is not super intuitive,” says Jan Wurzbacher at Climeworks, which just opened the world’s biggest Dac plant in Iceland and recently hosted a conference for the Dac industry. “But that doesn’t mean it is hard. There is no physical reason it can’t be done for $100/tonne in the next 10-20 years.”

Importantly, there is a huge overlap between the skill sets required to do Dac and traditional oil and gas, so it really supports the green transition,” she says. The company aims to bury 1m tonnes a year in the US in 2025, at about $300/tonne. The company also wants to use its technology to provide CO2 as a feedstock for producing low-CO2 jet fuel. “That’s the largest market we’re seeing at the moment,” Ruddock says.

Peter Reinhardt, CEO of Charm Industrial, has an even more striking pitch: “We put oil back underground.” The company takes agricultural and forestry waste that would otherwise rot – emitting CO2 – and heats it to create “bio-oil” that is then pumped back into empty oil reservoirs.

So there you have it, my lovelies. Problem solved. We might as well shut down the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. No need for more of those dreary climate summits. Happy days are here again.  We'll just suck all that nasty CO2 out of the air and Bob's your uncle. And imagine, guilt-free air travel with low-CO2 jet fuel produced out of bio-oil.

And who has the mega-bucks it will take to build these millions of CO2 removers? How about Exxon, Chevron, BP, Total, Gulf? How about every Sheik and Emir in the Persian Gulf? Hey, this'll put them right back in business.

At $100 per tonne, governments can easily collect that in carbon taxes to fund these operations. That should make it really cheap for the fossil fuel producers/carbon scrubbers.  And you - you can get that vintage gas guzzler out of the garage and tearing up the streets just like God intended.

One other thing.  This is a technology of rapidly declining efficiency and escalating costs. Extracting CO2 from air a few feet away is terrific. The air column, however, is thousands of feet high. Getting the CO2 out of the air column even hundreds of feet above the plant is going to be very, very difficult.

Even if you could get at mid- and high-altitude CO2, your success, i.e. efficiency, would decline as the concentration of airborne greenhouse gas declined. You would be using ever more energy at increasing cost to extract ever smaller volumes of CO2.  Eventually the viability of the idea collapses under its own weight.

Comments

  1. Northern PoVSeptember 26, 2021 at 8:03 AM

    Yes. Carbon Capture is the fantasy playground of billionaires.

    Why?
    1) They are deluded? (Ego driven from past success in the capitalist's game.)
    2) Just a show to keep hope alive while they build their enclaves?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Disaffected LibSeptember 28, 2021 at 3:32 PM

    I have no answers to your questions, NPoV. While pondering them, however, I wrote a couple of extra paragraphs on the rapidly declining efficiency and escalating costs inherent to this technology. It is a "low hanging fruit" option at best. Once you cleanse the air supply at ground level you have to move on to the more costly effort of less accessible CO2 higher in the air column. Then, if you're wildly successful, you have to expend the same effort at the same cost to chase diminishing returns of scouring air that has increasingly lower volumes of CO2. This is not to say that the technology is fool's gold. On a small scale it may be marginally viable. On the scale of the atmosphere it's unrealistic.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Up in Smoke. 300 Sq. Mi. of Amazon Rainforest Lost Every Day.

Image
  The Amazon rainforest is disappearing at what should be an alarming rate. 312 sq. mi. or 808 sq. kms. every day. Over the past 30 years humans have destroyed a patch of the Amazon equal in area to the states of Texas and New Mexico . The Amazon – historically a great carbon absorber, since trees take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen – now releases more carbon than it stores, which adds to, rather helps to reduce, our global climate crisis. Deforestation rates decreased slightly from 2004 to 2012. But since then, they’re back on the rise, especially in the past couple of years, since Jair Bolsonaro became president of Brazil. In 2018, as Bolsonaro campaigned as a patriotic man of the people, scientists predicted that once the Amazon lost more than 25% of its tree cover, it would become a drier ecosystem, all because deforestation changes weather patterns (due to how trees respire), which in turn reduces rainfall. Furthermore, as the forest becomes fragmented, areas surrounded...
Read more

The Cognoscenti Syndrome

  There is a group of people I think of as the Cognoscenti, people who are well educated, very informed and of rapidly diminishing relevance. Their ranks include writers such as Chris Hedges and Glen Greenwald. These are people who have honed an almost Puritanical value system, readily finding fault in any direction. They are scathing in their attacks on Republicans and Democrats alike to the point where they become nihilists. They don't endorse. They prescribe. This is where they fail. They're unable to advocate for anything that might resonate with the public whose interests they argue are being trammeled. Donald Trump was bad but Joe Biden is scarcely better. This is where their elitism comes in.  74 million may have voted for Trump but, hey, they didn't know any better. The mob that stormed the Capitol. They were just victims of the system venting their frustrations. All the racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, white nationalism - inevitable side effects of their oppr...
Read more

Who Asks "Why?"

Every time there's a conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, all we hear is 'why?'  Why, as in, whose fault is this? It's easier to affix blame if you can truncate the event. Pick a convenient start date, something recent. In this case we'll make it either the Israeli eviction of Arabs from Jerusalem or the scuffle that took place outside the mosque in response. If those don't work, let's go for Hamas launching unguided rockets into Israel. That's even better because it tags Hamas with the blame. The nice thing about this approach is you can just keep using it. It goes on and on, just as it has for the past half-century since the '67 war. You can even date this whole mess to the beginning of the occupation of the Palestinian territories. The Israelis are said to have called these periodic wars, "mowing the lawn." The idea is that, every now and then, you have to take these Arabs to the woodshed. And then you keep your powder dry unt...
Read more