Discussion:
How Engineers Saved a World that Could Not Be Bothered to Save Itself
(too old to reply)
Quadibloc
2018-06-08 01:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?

But this news item:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/

is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-06-08 01:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:37:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>
>But this news item:
>
>https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>
>is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.

If it works it's pretty much got the problem solved--use solar power
to make hydrocarbon fuels and then burn the hydrocarbon fuels the same
way we always have.

But it doesn't involve taxing somebody or redistributing wealth into
the third world so it doesn't have a chance.
Robert Carnegie
2018-06-08 21:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 8 June 2018 02:48:29 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:37:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
> >
> >But this news item:
> >
> >https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
> >
> >is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>
> If it works it's pretty much got the problem solved--use solar power
> to make hydrocarbon fuels and then burn the hydrocarbon fuels the same
> way we always have.
>
> But it doesn't involve taxing somebody or redistributing wealth into
> the third world so it doesn't have a chance.

Plants do most of this already, yes? So it *works*.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-08 22:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> wrote in
news:e8b549f8-7de6-4635-9b53-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, 8 June 2018 02:48:29 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:37:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>> >
>> >But this news item:
>> >
>> >https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possibl
>> >e-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>> >
>> >is very good news... except for what it says about human
>> >nature.
>>
>> If it works it's pretty much got the problem solved--use solar
>> power to make hydrocarbon fuels and then burn the hydrocarbon
>> fuels the same way we always have.
>>
>> But it doesn't involve taxing somebody or redistributing wealth
>> into the third world so it doesn't have a chance.
>
> Plants do most of this already, yes? So it *works*.
>
If you're willing to wait tens of millennia to gas up for your
weekend trip, sure.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2018-06-08 22:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 14:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<***@excite.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 8 June 2018 02:48:29 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:37:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>> >
>> >But this news item:
>> >
>> >https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>> >
>> >is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>>
>> If it works it's pretty much got the problem solved--use solar power
>> to make hydrocarbon fuels and then burn the hydrocarbon fuels the same
>> way we always have.
>>
>> But it doesn't involve taxing somebody or redistributing wealth into
>> the third world so it doesn't have a chance.
>
>Plants do most of this already, yes? So it *works*.

Not on the necessary scale.
Lynn McGuire
2018-06-08 01:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/7/2018 8:37 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>
> But this news item:
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>
> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>
> John Savard

Dude, the numbers do not work. They are talking about producing
gasoline from air for less cost than the gasoline produced from the
ground. If that cost was less than $10/gallon, I would be incredibly
surprised. The chemical reactions mentioned in the article are complex
and the reaction catalysts are expensive.

Wait, is this the guys who used to sell the car engine carburetors that
ran on water ?

Lynn
J. Clarke
2018-06-08 03:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 20:49:28 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/7/2018 8:37 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>>
>> But this news item:
>>
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>>
>> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>>
>> John Savard
>
>Dude, the numbers do not work. They are talking about producing
>gasoline from air for less cost than the gasoline produced from the
>ground. If that cost was less than $10/gallon, I would be incredibly
>surprised. The chemical reactions mentioned in the article are complex
>and the reaction catalysts are expensive.

Are the catalysts consumed in the process?

>Wait, is this the guys who used to sell the car engine carburetors that
>ran on water ?
>
>Lynn
Moriarty
2018-06-08 03:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 1:47:09 PM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 20:49:28 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 6/7/2018 8:37 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
> >>
> >> But this news item:
> >>
> >> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
> >>
> >> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
> >>
> >> John Savard
> >
> >Dude, the numbers do not work. They are talking about producing
> >gasoline from air for less cost than the gasoline produced from the
> >ground. If that cost was less than $10/gallon, I would be incredibly
> >surprised. The chemical reactions mentioned in the article are complex
> >and the reaction catalysts are expensive.
>
> Are the catalysts consumed in the process?

If they are, they're not catalysts. But I suspect you were asking that question rhetorically.

-Moriarty
Lynn McGuire
2018-06-08 17:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/7/2018 10:47 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 20:49:28 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/7/2018 8:37 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> But this news item:
>>>
>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>>>
>>> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> Dude, the numbers do not work. They are talking about producing
>> gasoline from air for less cost than the gasoline produced from the
>> ground. If that cost was less than $10/gallon, I would be incredibly
>> surprised. The chemical reactions mentioned in the article are complex
>> and the reaction catalysts are expensive.
>
> Are the catalysts consumed in the process?
>
>> Wait, is this the guys who used to sell the car engine carburetors that
>> ran on water ?
>>
>> Lynn

Yes. Very slowly. The bigger problem is that the catalysts are
poisoned in the processes and must be reconditioned over time (melted
and separated again).

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2018-06-08 14:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>On 6/7/2018 8:37 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>>
>> But this news item:
>>
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>>
>> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>>
>> John Savard
>
>Dude, the numbers do not work. They are talking about producing
>gasoline from air for less cost than the gasoline produced from the
>ground. If that cost was less than $10/gallon, I would be incredibly
>surprised. The chemical reactions mentioned in the article are complex
>and the reaction catalysts are expensive.

The actual paper is available on-line. You'd do well to read it
before commenting.
Joe Bernstein
2018-06-08 02:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:98df67b1-59f3-4f14-9b08-***@googlegroups.com:

> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>
> But this news item:
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>
> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.

Eh. Human nature is what it is, and whether you choose to be
depressed about it is the main thing you can control.

I'm wondering, though: are there any *other* weak acids that hang
out in the atmosphere?

-- JLB
puppetsock
2018-06-08 14:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>
> But this news item:
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>
> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>
> John Savard

They quote $1 to $2.50 per gallon of gas produced.

I'm guessing that the usual method of producing the various
chemicals involved in their process is to consume fossil fuels.
Maybe coal, maybe petroleum. Therefore, they are cheap. But
we want to get them without producing CO2.

Assume that energy comes from some non-carbon producing energy
source. For example, a hydro dam or nuclear.

One US gallon of gas is 120 million Joules.

Pegging 1 MW hour at $50, this is about $1.67 per gallon, just for
the energy costs. And most places, that $50 is pretty low.

So the energy costs alone are likely to be more than the low
end of their price range of $1 to $2.50.

I'm skeptical.
Scott Lurndal
2018-06-08 15:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
puppetsock <***@hotmail.com> writes:
>On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>>
>> But this news item:
>>
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>>
>> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>>
>> John Savard
>
>They quote $1 to $2.50 per gallon of gas produced.
>
>I'm guessing that the usual method of producing the various
>chemicals involved in their process is to consume fossil fuels.
>Maybe coal, maybe petroleum. Therefore, they are cheap. But
>we want to get them without producing CO2.

How about instead of guessing, you read the actual paper first?
It's quite detailed on the process, the engineering and scale-up.

Note that there is a pilot plant used to validate the assumptions
in production.
Lynn McGuire
2018-06-08 17:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/8/2018 10:58 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> puppetsock <***@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> But this news item:
>>>
>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>>>
>>> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> They quote $1 to $2.50 per gallon of gas produced.
>>
>> I'm guessing that the usual method of producing the various
>> chemicals involved in their process is to consume fossil fuels.
>> Maybe coal, maybe petroleum. Therefore, they are cheap. But
>> we want to get them without producing CO2.
>
> How about instead of guessing, you read the actual paper first?
> It's quite detailed on the process, the engineering and scale-up.
>
> Note that there is a pilot plant used to validate the assumptions
> in production.

They would not be the first "scientists" to fudge their numbers.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2018-06-08 20:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>On 6/8/2018 10:58 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> puppetsock <***@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>>>>
>>>> But this news item:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>>>>
>>>> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>>
>>> They quote $1 to $2.50 per gallon of gas produced.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that the usual method of producing the various
>>> chemicals involved in their process is to consume fossil fuels.
>>> Maybe coal, maybe petroleum. Therefore, they are cheap. But
>>> we want to get them without producing CO2.
>>
>> How about instead of guessing, you read the actual paper first?
>> It's quite detailed on the process, the engineering and scale-up.
>>
>> Note that there is a pilot plant used to validate the assumptions
>> in production.
>
>They would not be the first "scientists" to fudge their numbers.

So you haven't, and won't read the actual paper?
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-08 21:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:IuBSC.175574$***@fx15.iad:

> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 6/8/2018 10:58 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> puppetsock <***@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't
>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>> But this news item:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possi
>>>>> ble-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289
>>>>> /
>>>>>
>>>>> is very good news... except for what it says about human
>>>>> nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Savard
>>>>
>>>> They quote $1 to $2.50 per gallon of gas produced.
>>>>
>>>> I'm guessing that the usual method of producing the various
>>>> chemicals involved in their process is to consume fossil
>>>> fuels. Maybe coal, maybe petroleum. Therefore, they are
>>>> cheap. But we want to get them without producing CO2.
>>>
>>> How about instead of guessing, you read the actual paper
>>> first? It's quite detailed on the process, the engineering and
>>> scale-up.
>>>
>>> Note that there is a pilot plant used to validate the
>>> assumptions in production.
>>
>>They would not be the first "scientists" to fudge their numbers.
>
> So you haven't, and won't read the actual paper?
>
I didn't need to read Pons and Fleischmann's paper to find it less
than credible, either.

People have been promising the moon where cars are concerned for a
century and more. 300 mpg mileage, cars that run on gas, and so on.

Synthetic gasoline isn't a new idea. It's been done for decades. It's
always been a matter of cost and scale.

I'll wait until his plant is in production, and then I'll care. Until
then, it's just another outrageous claim that somebody wants
investment dollars for.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2018-06-08 22:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 20:16:40 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 6/8/2018 10:58 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> puppetsock <***@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> But this news item:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>>>>>
>>>>> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Savard
>>>>
>>>> They quote $1 to $2.50 per gallon of gas produced.
>>>>
>>>> I'm guessing that the usual method of producing the various
>>>> chemicals involved in their process is to consume fossil fuels.
>>>> Maybe coal, maybe petroleum. Therefore, they are cheap. But
>>>> we want to get them without producing CO2.
>>>
>>> How about instead of guessing, you read the actual paper first?
>>> It's quite detailed on the process, the engineering and scale-up.
>>>
>>> Note that there is a pilot plant used to validate the assumptions
>>> in production.
>>
>>They would not be the first "scientists" to fudge their numbers.
>
>So you haven't, and won't read the actual paper?

Lynn's a believer, not someone to be swayed by facts or other
experimental results. There's really no point.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future"
- Niels Bohr
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-08 23:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jaimie Vandenbergh <***@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 20:16:40 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott
> Lurndal) wrote:
>
>>Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On 6/8/2018 10:58 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> puppetsock <***@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't
>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this news item:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-poss
>>>>>> ible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/5622
>>>>>> 89/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is very good news... except for what it says about human
>>>>>> nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>
>>>>> They quote $1 to $2.50 per gallon of gas produced.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing that the usual method of producing the various
>>>>> chemicals involved in their process is to consume fossil
>>>>> fuels. Maybe coal, maybe petroleum. Therefore, they are
>>>>> cheap. But we want to get them without producing CO2.
>>>>
>>>> How about instead of guessing, you read the actual paper
>>>> first? It's quite detailed on the process, the engineering
>>>> and scale-up.
>>>>
>>>> Note that there is a pilot plant used to validate the
>>>> assumptions in production.
>>>
>>>They would not be the first "scientists" to fudge their
>>>numbers.
>>
>>So you haven't, and won't read the actual paper?
>
> Lynn's a believer, not someone to be swayed by facts or other
> experimental results. There's really no point.
>
And the guy defending snake oil isn't?

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2018-06-08 23:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/8/2018 5:37 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 20:16:40 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 6/8/2018 10:58 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> puppetsock <***@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this news item:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>
>>>>> They quote $1 to $2.50 per gallon of gas produced.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing that the usual method of producing the various
>>>>> chemicals involved in their process is to consume fossil fuels.
>>>>> Maybe coal, maybe petroleum. Therefore, they are cheap. But
>>>>> we want to get them without producing CO2.
>>>>
>>>> How about instead of guessing, you read the actual paper first?
>>>> It's quite detailed on the process, the engineering and scale-up.
>>>>
>>>> Note that there is a pilot plant used to validate the assumptions
>>>> in production.
>>>
>>> They would not be the first "scientists" to fudge their numbers.
>>
>> So you haven't, and won't read the actual paper?
>
> Lynn's a believer, not someone to be swayed by facts or other
> experimental results. There's really no point.
>
> Cheers - Jaimie

I read the paper and pointed out the handwavium several hours ago. The
paper is all about extracting CO2 from the air into an aqueous CO2
mixture. And then the paper stops. The article makes the following addon:

"Finally, the carbon dioxide is combined with hydrogen and converted
into liquid fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. This is in
some ways the most conventional aspect of the process: Oil companies
convert hydrocarbon gases into liquid fuels every day, using a set of
chemical reactions called the Fischer-Tropsch process. But it’s key to
Carbon Engineering’s business: It means the company can produce
carbon-neutral hydrocarbons."

Converting aqueous CO2 to liquid hydrocarbons is nontrivial and very
energy intensive. The paper authors dedicated one line to that
conversion. Sure, it can be done but not for $2.00/gallon of gasoline.

Lynn
puppetsock
2018-06-08 17:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 11:58:56 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> puppetsock <***@hotmail.com> writes:
> >On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
> >>
> >> But this news item:
> >>
> >> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
> >>
> >> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
> >>
> >> John Savard
> >
> >They quote $1 to $2.50 per gallon of gas produced.
> >
> >I'm guessing that the usual method of producing the various
> >chemicals involved in their process is to consume fossil fuels.
> >Maybe coal, maybe petroleum. Therefore, they are cheap. But
> >we want to get them without producing CO2.
>
> How about instead of guessing, you read the actual paper first?
> It's quite detailed on the process, the engineering and scale-up.
>
> Note that there is a pilot plant used to validate the assumptions
> in production.

Well... Conservation of energy is a guess now. Very well.

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3

> The power island consists of a natural gas turbine,
> followed by a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG).

Yes. I guessed correctly. Methane. So, as it stands,
their entire process probably only releases about
3 times as much CO2 as it captures. If they move to
a non-carbon releasing power source, they will need
some such thing as a hydro dam or nuclear plant, and
the $50/MW hour is ballpark. If they try to do it with
wind or solar the number is vastly higher.
Lynn McGuire
2018-06-08 18:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/8/2018 10:58 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> puppetsock <***@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> But this news item:
>>>
>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>>>
>>> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> They quote $1 to $2.50 per gallon of gas produced.
>>
>> I'm guessing that the usual method of producing the various
>> chemicals involved in their process is to consume fossil fuels.
>> Maybe coal, maybe petroleum. Therefore, they are cheap. But
>> we want to get them without producing CO2.
>
> How about instead of guessing, you read the actual paper first?
> It's quite detailed on the process, the engineering and scale-up.
>
> Note that there is a pilot plant used to validate the assumptions
> in production.

I scanned the paper. All it talks about is the extraction of CO2 from
the atmosphere, which is no mean feat at 400 ppm. Then they throw some
handwavium out there and say that they can convert CO2 to liquid
hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsch process.

The Fischer-Tropsch process is a means of converting CO (carbon
monoxide) to liquid hydrocarbons. Not CO2. It is a very difficult
process to run and to scale up (ask Qatar and Exxon why their F-T
reactors cannot run at more than 35,000 barrels per day). Converting
CO2 to CO is a very energy intensive and expensive process which is my
primary objection to their stated low pricing.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process

Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2018-06-08 19:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/8/2018 1:08 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/8/2018 10:58 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> puppetsock <***@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:37:25 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> Sounds like a premise for a science-fiction story, doesn't it?
>>>>
>>>> But this news item:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> is very good news... except for what it says about human nature.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>>
>>> They quote $1 to $2.50 per gallon of gas produced.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that the usual method of producing the various
>>> chemicals involved in their process is to consume fossil fuels.
>>> Maybe coal, maybe petroleum. Therefore, they are cheap. But
>>> we want to get them without producing CO2.
>>
>> How about instead of guessing, you read the actual paper first?
>> It's quite detailed on the process, the engineering and scale-up.
>>
>> Note that there is a pilot plant used to validate the assumptions
>> in production.
>
> I scanned the paper.  All it talks about is the extraction of CO2 from
> the atmosphere, which is no mean feat at 400 ppm.  Then they throw some
> handwavium out there and say that they can convert CO2 to liquid
> hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsch process.
>
> The Fischer-Tropsch process is a means of converting CO (carbon
> monoxide) to liquid hydrocarbons.  Not CO2.  It is a very difficult
> process to run and to scale up (ask Qatar and Exxon why their F-T
> reactors cannot run at more than 35,000 barrels per day).  Converting
> CO2 to CO is a very energy intensive and expensive process which is my
> primary objection to their stated low pricing.
>    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process
>
> Lynn

BTW, the process will work to produce gasoline and diesel. It just is
going to be horribly expensive. So, should we ever run out of crude oil
(200 years of non-proven reserves in the USA now at ten million barrels
per day) and natural gas (1,000 years of non-proven reserves in the USA
at thirty trillion standard ft3/year), we have a backup way of getting
liquid fuels for the USA. Of course, this ignores conversion of coal
into gasoline and diesel which is a much cheaper process (Sasol makes
about a quarter million barrels per day of gasoline and diesel in South
Africa from coal). And the USA has a lot of coal still in the ground.

Lynn
Loading...