Oops! shouldn't post when I'm about to go to sleep on my phone. Sequestering has always made me nervous as I wondered how much energy was required to sequester and what happens to the products of sequestration. So I looked and found there are many methods. Many do not require energy supplied as chemical reactions are exothermic. But some require energy. Some may require as much as 25% of the power generated by a power plant reducing its output.
What happens to the products? First, they don't remove carbon. They remove carbon dioxide. Some processes create chemicals that can be used to make food stock and have other uses. Many are just burying the carbon dioxide. The problem is complex. There is more to this problem than just the cost to sequester. On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:52 PM Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: > Just out of curiosity, I suspect that sequestering carbon is exothermic, > not exothermic. So what is the net gain since the energy probably comes > from carbon based generating power plants? > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 5:29 PM Jose Mario Quintana < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> " >> Whether it does or not, a >> British Columbia-based firm called Carbon Engineering has built a plant to >> capture CO2 from the atmosphere, at a cost of <$100 per metric ton (100 >> USD/t). >> " >> >> The video at the link, >> >> Bill Gates and Big Oil back this company that’s trying to solve climate >> change by sucking CO2 out of the air >> >> >> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/carbon-engineering-co2-capture-backed-by-bill-gates-oil-companies.html >> >> using information from last year puts the cost at "$94-232 per ton of >> CO2." >> >> For what is worth, this is yet another alternative suggested by Gregory >> Benford: >> >> Put a Fresnel lens at the (Earth-Sun) Lagrangian point L1 to reduce the >> solar energy reaching the Earth by 0.5% to 1% with an estimated (more than >> a decade ago) cost of $10B. >> >> As a potential bonus, assuming that the positive feedback loop of CO2 and >> temperature which has been "confirmed" stands, more CO2 (in the >> atmosphere) >> -> higher (global) temperature -> more CO2 -> ... and presumably, lower >> temperature -> less CO2 -> lower temperature -> ... >> >> Interestingly, in his introduction to the mid-nineties FAR FUTURES >> anthology he wrote: >> >> "Current thinking holds that the big, long term problem we face is the >> loss >> of carbon dioxide from our air. This gas, the food of the plants, gets >> locked up in rocks. Photosynthetic organisms down at the very base of the >> food chain extract carbon from air, cutting the life change." >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:18 PM Ian Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > The addons math/tabula and its parent addons math/cal and math/uu have >> been >> > largely rewritten and are now far stabler than they were. >> > >> > The main way to get to grips with TABULA is via studying the built-in >> > t-tables ("TABULA-tables") SAMPLE0--SAMPLE9… >> > >> > https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/TABULA/samples >> > >> > The last one, SAMPLE9, is particularly noteworthy. See this page for >> > details… >> > >> > >> > >> https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/TABULA/samples/cost_to_capture_atmospheric_CO2 >> > >> > Atmospheric CO2 concentration has been rising steadily since 1960, when >> it >> > first began to be measured regularly at Mauna Loa, HI. At that time it >> > stood at <320 ppm (parts-per-million). Now it stands at >400 ppm, an >> > increase of over 80 ppm. >> > >> > This observed level of atmospheric carbon is gaining wider acceptance as >> > having a damaging effect on the world's climate. Whether it does or >> not, a >> > British Columbia-based firm called Carbon Engineering has built a plant >> to >> > capture CO2 from the atmosphere, at a cost of <$100 per metric ton (100 >> > USD/t). They have attracted $68 million investments from Chevron, >> > Occidental and coal giant BHP. >> > >> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47638586 >> > >> > I don't want to take sides over this. Nor to invite the taking of sides >> in >> > this thread. Rather it's my aim to develop tools to help the rest of us >> > explore the figures for ourselves, whatever side we're on. Relying on >> > specialists to do the calculations is simply to promote a new world >> > religion, with applied mathematicians as its priesthood. >> > >> > So I thought I'd take Carbon Engineering's current price and use TABULA >> to >> > calculate what it would cost to restore atmospheric concentration to >> 1960 >> > levels. >> > >> > The cost comes out rather high: around 57 times the projected USA budget >> > deficit for FY2020, would you believe? >> > >> > This raises vital questions for me: >> > >> > ++ are the input figures reliable? I used Google to track them down, but >> > have I copied them over correctly? >> > >> > ++ is TABULA doing it right? I'm terrified of orders-of-magnitude >> errors, >> > which can so easily arise with a misplaced prefix 'k' (kilo-) or 'G' >> > (giga-). >> > >> > Would anyone fancy checking my calculations? >> > >> > Ian Clark >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
