Видео

yes all these plants are run off renewable energy

​@@YusefNilson how?

yes it is essential to maximize the environmental benefit

stay brainwashed. lol

Secondary recovery of oil is not embarrassing. That oil would be recovered anyway using gas injection (water, methane or CO2), and once the oilfield is depleted it can be leveraged as permanent CO2 storage. Yes - only the net CO2 sequestered should be counted as 'removed' from the atmosphere. Right now this new tech is expensive (and unprofitable) to build, so it needs some way of paying for it - and secondary oil recovery can help here. Hopefully then with the learning curve and experience, costs can come down over the next decade.

This is bullshit technology! The amount of power necessary and capital far outweigh the slightest benefit! One volcanic eruption wipes out everything we are doing now.

​@@samclayton270 it's just another green scam.

My thoughts exactly. Be neat to run the plant on solar power or tidal generators or something, but for natural gas power plants (or god forbid coal), there's going to be plenty of carbon released from combustion. I wonder how this compares to cryodistilled CO2 processes (if you disregard their recovery of argon, hydrogen, oxygen, and whatever else they can sell on the market for gases)

Carbon capture (CCS) occurs at the site, so if it's a coal plant then... For Direct Air Capture (DAC) it's a problem. It requires a lot of energy and it would be sort of pointless to power it up with a coal plant. Coal plants and NG plants typically use a secondary source for power, usually through captured heat and steam turbines (energy that would otherwise be wasted).

@@ElSantoLuchador , what kind of cost are we looking at to erect a DAC facility? i'm guessing that prohibitive costs make this impossible to construct on smaller scales?

​@@mitchmorrison7791Blackrocks have just invested 550m . The overall new budget estimate looks at 1.5b$.

Ultimately They get power from the grid, but many such plants are purchasing renewable power from open markets.

There will be a solar farm next to the plant.

Guess 100 per ton will be more like it. But still…point taken

It won't. The amount of CO2 that will be captured is absolutely tiny. CCS is a far more effective and cost efficient option.

That what CCS is. It's captured at the source. CCS is not DAC.

@@ElSantoLuchador Yes, I know. I'm saying that it would be far better to prioritise capturing CO2 at its source rather than taking it from the air when the CO2 has already been massively diluted by diffusion.

@@ppuh6tfrz646 We probably have to do both. Even if you capture 100% of all newly emitted CO2 at source, we would likely want to lower CO2 in the atmosphere from where it is today, which means you need to have DAC at industrial scale. The reality is that we will still be emitting CO2 from sources like agriculture, cars, planes and other smaller point sources where it really hard (or impossible) to eliminate, so DAC is your method for offsetting those emissions that you couldn't avoid.

@@samclayton270 I just don't see how DAC can make a meaningful difference. Only 0.04% (1 in 2500) of the air contains carbon. That's such a tiny concentration that carbon capture and storage seems far more effective. Also DAC will not be able to remove carbon that is higher in the atmosphere because it would be 'out of reach'.

The atmosphere mixes - think wind. DAC is a form of carbon capture, and re-read my reply - I think we have to do both. Capturing at source might not be enough.