The video fails to mention that the Allam Cycle requires purified oxygen, instead of air, for combustion. This means that on the front end of the process there is an air separation plant to extract oxygen from air to feed the process. This air separation plant, while not technologically challenging, is costly to install and energy intensive to operate. This reduces the plant efficiency and leads to higher cost of production in just the same way as other processes do as mentioned at 1:40. This requirement is among the key pieces which drive the economics of electricity generation from the Allam Cycle. It is doubtful that an honest evaluation of the process would show that that the cost of electricity produced this way is comparable to the cost of electricity produced from conventional means....which is what Allam appears to suggest he achieved (his stated ‘objective’ at 1:59). It is bush league reporting to not address how this requirement for purified oxygen is met in the Net Power process without severely impacting the cost of electricity generation.
Not to mention the gas well. Not exactly environmentally sound, especially where fracking is involved. But MSM isn't interested in facts, just emotions.
Natural gas is not renewable in the first instance, so even the dodgy "zero emissions" claim is irrelevant. Glad D Dawg dug a well described hole much deeper on this BS.
Vlaid65 renewables can have harmful emissions and fossil fuels can be emissions sequestered like this. You get NG out of the ground extract heat energy and pump the harmful stuff back where it came from.
Sorry, but 1. Gas is not usually used to just heat seatm. Gas is better used for gas turbines, the exhaust gas of which can be used for steam turbines. 2. Regardless of that, all they showed was a system collecting exhaust gas after the turbine, and that, they might as well do in what they called 'traditional plants' at the exhaust of the burner. The hard part is purifying the exhaust gas because it's by far not only CO2 that is produced by burning natural gas. 3. What they showed here as anything but a closed cycle. A closed cycle is not even possible on a chemical level when it comes to combustion (well at least not if your goal is to get any useful energy out of the system.
I think they're intentionally not showing how it exactly works to protect intellectual property. And it's not closed cycle as the collected CO2 gas is planned to be sold.
I think it can work if you keep heating the gas, recycling the CO2 produced by the combustion to move the turbines and discarding the byproduct. Which they mentioned btw...they don't say it's a closed chemical system, they say they don't emit...
What do you expect from mainstream media doing a scientific piece? Also that first system, it can't possibly remain a closed loop for long, what do they do what the constantly generated CO2? The pressure buildup of co2 would stop the whole process if not released.
The CO2 getting stored is "no waste", nuclear spent fuel getting stored is "waste". How much CO2 will have to be stored in a couple of years, and for how long ? A million years?
@@tylerl6942 most nuclear waste is not recycled. They have huge bunkers dug deep underground with multiple layers of shielding so it doesn't get into water. They have to transport it away in special trucks and those trucks are only allowed to travel on specific routes. The U.S. has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. 80,000 if that from power plants. About 6-12billion of the 30billion allocated to energy is spent on nuclear waste. About .5billion is paid to power companies just to keep it at the power stations.
The difference being that this basalt storage seems to be safe, as it's bound to rock and won't be released back in the atmosphere. We already have a lot of CO2 safely bound in limestone deposits around the world. For nuclear waste, on the other hand, there is no known safe storage method and if the radioactive material leaks out of it's storage medium it could have devastating effects over tens of thousands of years.
I can't believe all the people essentially nitpicking this. This is a realistic step forward. If the developing world used technology like this the overall carbon output would be much lower than using conventional means. Sometimes you have to compromise, you don't get to live in Neverland and expect the whole world to be 100% renewable with zero emissions overnight. That will happen as our technology continues to evolve and economic incentives align with that evolution.
This is brilliant! I'm from WA state, we have a goal of 100% electrical generation by 2045. As we have access to a lot of hydropower we are ahead of the game but still, there will need to be a lot of money spent on solar and wind power to get that technology even close to financial viability with burning hydrocarbons. Using the new and patented Allum system to capture carbon while burning cheap and abundant natural gas will be key to buying time to develop wind and solar. NetPower is simply brilliant!! I have been trying to get all the WA state politicians to listen up, that there is a new way of reaching zero carbon footprint other than using hydro, solar and wind and that's using cheap and reliable natural gas with the Allum process.
@@tgdhsuk3589 The efficiencies are competitive (62% vs 59%). The Allam Cycle uses heated CO2 to turn the turbines. This allows Allam cycle plants to avoid the energy wasteful process of condensing steam back into water.
The Allam combustion process, burning methane, produces both hot CO2 and water. Usually it would produce hot N2 and NOx as well, but not with this approach.
This title seems like false clickbait. They even say in the video the emissions are just a different form. This is not to mention all the emissions use to mine and transport the gas.
@@Noah-fx4cm I might be missing something, but it seemed to me that they still produced the same emissions, just in solid form vs gas. Carbon sequestration on any meaningful scale hasn't really been tested yet, and I know it can potentially cause huge environmental risks like ocean acidification. I think it's dangerous to trump up technologies like this because they detract from real solutions like reducing emissions etc.
Mining is the biggest problem with every industry. Yes, that includes our precious solar panels and wind turbines. There is an ecological cost with EVERYTHING. Nothing is ideal. Fracking is bad, yes. So is the process in extracting rare earth metals for renewable power.
@WILLIAM ZHANG Renewables have some emissions, but they are much lower overall than natural gas, coal etc. All mining is bad for the environment in the short term, but long term I think CO2 emissions are the biggest threat. Solar panels themselves are pretty light weight, so I'm not sure if they require intensive mining. Wind turbines are mostly a composite of glass (sand) and petroleum products. Either way I can't see this carbon capture technology being financially viable since solar is much cheaper already.
@Arwyn You don't really count what it takes to build a plant. But the operation of the plant. As for a real answer, the emissions is CO2. All they have done was to be able to capture the emissions for resale. Which the video states it can be used for more oil drilling. So it will be dispersed in the environment anyways by attributing to more gas emissions. But it is better than going directly to the environment, no one is denying that.
so are they capturing co2 from regular power stations and reusing it or are they making a whole power station just for this? in which case if they are burning gas just for the co2 then why not use the heat to boil water for a regular turbine as well?
Just from watching this I'm super skeptical about injecting CO2 into the ground and accelerating rock formation. Are they able to control the rate of rock formation, and are they fully aware of all the potential implications of speeding up a natural process? Just don't wanna see earthquakes and stuff
That's all you're skeptical about? The entire thing is loaded with BS. They don't mention that the net zero plant requires a massively energy intensive oxygen generator. They don't stop to mention that the guy claiming the temp will rise 7 to 9 degrees by the end of century is citing 100% BS, widely discredited data. They don''t stop to warn about how natural-gas powered electrical generation will cause the price of heating American houses to skyrocket out of control.
CO2 capture is a questionable technology as indications are that the reserves they are pumped into leak the CO2 back to the atmosphere through microfractures that can't be mapped by active seismic.
@@jonathankr and for the future. Well designed and efficient nuclear fission power plants can provide huge amounts of energy. 100% of the waste can be completely contained and with scale it can be stored easily in a safe way. Every other form of energy production either expelles the harmful waste into the atmosphere or doesn't meet our energy requirements.
Max Harrison It is better to have many kinds of energy generation. I think Nuclear Fission is okay, as it produces a lot of power, but the production of nuclear waste pushes the idea over the edge more often then not. Why would we use nuclear if we can just line a huge surface with solar and wind? The most natural way of producing energy is, by not producing it, but by harvesting it. We should harvest the energy given to us by Earth (aka wind, solar and geo-thermal).
@@diggleda2952 solar and wind have numerous problems apart from the cost and ill-timed energy production. If done properly, nuclear waste can be fully contained. There have been times where it hasn't been but even then, damage caused has been negligble compared to fossil fuel waste. Geothermal energy would be perfect if there were more places where it could be done. Uranium-235 is energy given to us from the earth.
Nice! So this process is more efficient for electricity production but can waste heat be recovered for heating purposes and would it be any better than standard cogeneration plant for Norden climate?
The problem of injecting CO2 into the ground is that you need WATER to accomplish the process, and water is a scarce resource that I think should not be "wasted" in a process like this one.
You are thinking freshwater. Can this be accomplished with ocean saltwater? According to the work of a planetary physicist contacted by Kotaku by taking official LORE measurements about diameter and other stats the volume of a Halo is ~224 million cubic kilometers. There is 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers of water on earth. That is enough volume to fill ~6.18 Halo Rings right to the ceiling with water.
you prolly dont care at all but does anyone know a tool to get back into an instagram account?? I was dumb lost my login password. I would love any help you can give me!
@Arturo Skylar Thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and im waiting for the hacking stuff now. I see it takes a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
This video is hopium. The Icelandic lady stating "If we take all the basalt available on earth, theoretically we could use it to permanently store much more than all co2 that we would emit from burning all fossil fuel available globally".. what a ridiculous statement. "If we take all the basalt on earth".. well, no, that is never going to be possible, so don't try and paint a rosy picture based on an impossibility.
This is a brilliant way to re-design the traditional power plant into one that fully captures CO2. Meanwhile C02 is a marketable product, so they can generate money for their byproduct. *Yes it would be interesting to know how energy intensive the O2 capture is, however I assume they factored that into the whole efficiency equation when they stated that it is just as efficient as a traditional natural gas plant that has no CO2 capture.*Yes there is proven CO2 capture and sequestration. There is a shell refinery in Alberta that has hit the 4 million ton CO2 capture mark this year. They sequester the CO2 from and pump it deep underground for permanent storage.
zero emissions? did you research by reading their marketing brochures?!? it's only 0 emissions if you cool, compress and capture the CO2 - as in any other power plant. the only real difference here: less gas to capture because nitrogen is separated before the process (at significant cost)...misleading marketing clip.
How many times do Michael Mann's scientific theories have to be overturned by actual empirical data, in order for people to stop citing him as an authority ?
Euh, i don’t understand. What does it matter that u change the medium but still store the newly created co2? Does this cycle increase the co2 concentration of the flue gas somehow? Is that what makes the capture cheaper?
How far down did you pull the oil/gas, and how far down are you pumping the CO2? Realistically how long do you think it’ll take for it to resurface? Not long at all if you’re thinking long term. There are better energy sources
It's a bit dishonest to say the plant has achieved zero emissions. The goal would be either to sequester the CO2 or find a market for it. I don't think the CO2 market is large enough to handle the supply from large plants using this cycle. Maybe sequestration is a viable option. That would increase costs though.
Even if the emissions of CO2 are zero, please explain how the chromium and other regulated leachate metals are removed from the combustion process? What other byproducts are created? Incomplete information.
I applaud the technology but I will also advise that you cannot get 7 degree warming b/c co2 saturates. If co2 volumes were to double, triple etc it fills up the air parcel such that the photon reradiation rises to an ever shorter depth in the air column aka can't get off the surface to warm the air. This is termed the law of diminishing returns. Temp then levels off.
amateurs complaining in the comments as if they were chemical engineers or something. Oil and gas has a long way to go until it finishes up. If you really don't wanna use it, don't use the oven, don't use a regular car, and live with no electricity because it's the main source of power. Or just switch to solar, and wind energy, OH WAIT they also use fuels to function and are too expensive
This solves only one problem of burning dinosaur juice. BUT, gas/oil will still run out and still requires Oxygen from the air to burn... This is major BS in my opinion.
burn gas in a gas turbine, use the exhaust heat to produce steam for a steam turbine. for the exhaust gas, capture the co2 and use it in a sCO2 turbine... excess CO2 can be used for eor
I don't think this video clearly explains exactly how this process works. They gloss over the process and proclaim it as the best thing ever but without any real explanation.
it uses methane pipelines that leak 20%, methane is 24 times more potent than co2 and is invisible unlike the smoke from natural gas, they're just doing some make-up.
Where's proof that co2 is harmful? Experiments with two identical greenhouses were done to prove this. One greenhouse had co2 % doubled. The plants grew faster and required less water. Why is this ignored?
Can we buy natural gas on dips as winter is cold in entire euro and consumption should go up...pl advise 🙏 Natural gas buy support folded hands 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 and touching feet but pl support
The pure O2 Allam cycle is a lovely idea. Yet it doesn’t solve the hard problem which is reinserting carbon underground, all 30B tons of it every year. It’s not accurate to throw “zero emissions” on this video when this La Porte plant burns nothing and instead sells off its CO2. No, Iceland doesn’t have a practical scheme to sequester 30B tons/yr of anything.
So they use CO2 as a working gas to power the turbine, so it's not really 0 emission until you figure out a way to ensure the carbo doesn't enter the atmosphere.
As much as I can see these companies are working hard to avoid CO2 gas emissions, in the long run like Michael Mann said they ( The climate worshipers )want to get rid of anything fossil fuel / petro chemical involved which will really pose some challenges.. While I am not a big supporter of fossil fuels/petro chemicals because of pollution it will be hard to do do with out some of the things we are use to like plastics. And again while I am very anti plastic waste, plastic provides practical solutions in today's society, it just needs more controls and balance on how it is used. There is a feel that society pressured from Greenpeace etc will toss out the baby with the bath water. The message however is clear from the climate clerics anything fossil fuel is bad. I think the long term prospect is that these companies will be eventually forced to close. The same goes for the efficient new coal power plants. The main fanboys are solar and wind which are still waiting for a breakthrough in storage of power. We will just have to hope that happens soon. The only truly valid 24/7 clean reliable cheap energy left is Hydro, Geo-thermal, and Nuclear . But again they get less attention especially nuclear from the climate evangelists .
Most of your fossil fuel cheerleading is debunked by your own rebuttals. The solutions are viable and available. The stranglehold of oil lobbying is keeping the renewable technologies at bay through political power plays. The market, hopefully, is showing signs of moving the needle slowly, but power and greed will always be in the way of what is right, just and correct.
@@jimmyf9545 Maybe you should preach that to Europe now that Russia's fossil fuels are being turned off and all the money Germany has spent on Wind and Solar has not really had much of bonus and now makes them look like a joke and an easy country to defeat. Now they will need to crank up their coal powered station to stop them becoming third world. The price for stupidity /idealism and following the draconian carbon zero UN protocols. China/India will gain to wealth/victory as they get an easy pass under developing country status by the UN. You have to look at the big picture and the manipulations that are taking place. Winners and Losers
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
The video fails to mention that the Allam Cycle requires purified oxygen, instead of air, for combustion. This means that on the front end of the process there is an air separation plant to extract oxygen from air to feed the process.
This air separation plant, while not technologically challenging, is costly to install and energy intensive to operate. This reduces the plant efficiency and leads to higher cost of production in just the same way as other processes do as mentioned at 1:40. This requirement is among the key pieces which drive the economics of electricity generation from the Allam Cycle.
It is doubtful that an honest evaluation of the process would show that that the cost of electricity produced this way is comparable to the cost of electricity produced from conventional means....which is what Allam appears to suggest he achieved (his stated ‘objective’ at 1:59).
It is bush league reporting to not address how this requirement for purified oxygen is met in the Net Power process without severely impacting the cost of electricity generation.
Not to mention the gas well. Not exactly environmentally sound, especially where fracking is involved.
But MSM isn't interested in facts, just emotions.
Thank you. I knew something technical was missing. Also NG generation is usually combined cycle and not a boiler like this illustration shows.
Renewables could generate electricity for harvesting oxygen.
Natural gas is not renewable in the first instance, so even the dodgy "zero emissions" claim is irrelevant. Glad D Dawg dug a well described hole much deeper on this BS.
Vlaid65 renewables can have harmful emissions and fossil fuels can be emissions sequestered like this. You get NG out of the ground extract heat energy and pump the harmful stuff back where it came from.
Sorry, but
1. Gas is not usually used to just heat seatm. Gas is better used for gas turbines, the exhaust gas of which can be used for steam turbines.
2. Regardless of that, all they showed was a system collecting exhaust gas after the turbine, and that, they might as well do in what they called 'traditional plants' at the exhaust of the burner. The hard part is purifying the exhaust gas because it's by far not only CO2 that is produced by burning natural gas.
3. What they showed here as anything but a closed cycle. A closed cycle is not even possible on a chemical level when it comes to combustion (well at least not if your goal is to get any useful energy out of the system.
Yeye
I think they're intentionally not showing how it exactly works to protect intellectual property. And it's not closed cycle as the collected CO2 gas is planned to be sold.
I think it can work if you keep heating the gas, recycling the CO2 produced by the combustion to move the turbines and discarding the byproduct. Which they mentioned btw...they don't say it's a closed chemical system, they say they don't emit...
Bloomberg just propagandizing for their buddies. Glad you broke this down. 👍🏼
What do you expect from mainstream media doing a scientific piece?
Also that first system, it can't possibly remain a closed loop for long, what do they do what the constantly generated CO2? The pressure buildup of co2 would stop the whole process if not released.
Some basis of costing involved in setting up the plant (on a per MW basis) will be very helpful for comparison and further analysis
The CO2 getting stored is "no waste", nuclear spent fuel getting stored is "waste". How much CO2 will have to be stored in a couple of years, and for how long ? A million years?
It's probably easier to store something that doesn't have a half life.
@@TheBestNameEverMade the waste of a nuclear power plant is like nothing lol. And even then, it could be cycled through again
@@tylerl6942 most nuclear waste is not recycled. They have huge bunkers dug deep underground with multiple layers of shielding so it doesn't get into water. They have to transport it away in special trucks and those trucks are only allowed to travel on specific routes.
The U.S. has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. 80,000 if that from power plants.
About 6-12billion of the 30billion allocated to energy is spent on nuclear waste.
About .5billion is paid to power companies just to keep it at the power stations.
The difference being that this basalt storage seems to be safe, as it's bound to rock and won't be released back in the atmosphere. We already have a lot of CO2 safely bound in limestone deposits around the world.
For nuclear waste, on the other hand, there is no known safe storage method and if the radioactive material leaks out of it's storage medium it could have devastating effects over tens of thousands of years.
@@TheBestNameEverMade Wrong! Not just wrong but stupid! Radioactive materials become non-radioactive with time and as they radiate, they lose mass.
Could also sell it as coke for steel industry cutting the emissions of coke generation.
It's still just CO2. You'd have to find some way to turn it into coke.
@@jmonsted Coke Ovens lol :) But I'm sure it's not quite that easy. But it does make sense and is more feasible than not.
@@ScarSonic97 You can't put gaseous CO2 into a coke oven and get anything solid out.
Can we buy Natural gas on dips as it's at 2 years low?? Pl advise.
I can't believe all the people essentially nitpicking this. This is a realistic step forward. If the developing world used technology like this the overall carbon output would be much lower than using conventional means. Sometimes you have to compromise, you don't get to live in Neverland and expect the whole world to be 100% renewable with zero emissions overnight. That will happen as our technology continues to evolve and economic incentives align with that evolution.
What is the carbon byproduct is the system described ?
This is brilliant! I'm from WA state, we have a goal of 100% electrical generation by 2045. As we have access to a lot of hydropower we are ahead of the game but still, there will need to be a lot of money spent on solar and wind power to get that technology even close to financial viability with burning hydrocarbons. Using the new and patented Allum system to capture carbon while burning cheap and abundant natural gas will be key to buying time to develop wind and solar. NetPower is simply brilliant!!
I have been trying to get all the WA state politicians to listen up, that there is a new way of reaching zero carbon footprint other than using hydro, solar and wind and that's using cheap and reliable natural gas with the Allum process.
Natural gas..... Natural gas...at its 2.5 years low....buy EVERY DIP ? Pl advise?
The slant is unreal. Doesn’t take a scientist to point out the problems with this “solution”.
As usual, the green fascists don't want solutions. Instead, they want to bitch.
@@Jemalacane0 use some common sense , pure oxygen is required instead of air and this reuires energy hence efficiency is very low
@@tgdhsuk3589 The efficiencies are competitive (62% vs 59%). The Allam Cycle uses heated CO2 to turn the turbines. This allows Allam cycle plants to avoid the energy wasteful process of condensing steam back into water.
Dead serious here. What are the problems? Thanks.
Can we buy Natural gas on dips as it's at 2 years low?? Pl advise.
How do they heat up the CO2 as working fluid to be used to spin the gas turbine?
The Allam combustion process, burning methane, produces both hot CO2 and water. Usually it would produce hot N2 and NOx as well, but not with this approach.
Natural gas..... Natural gas...at its 2.5 years low....buy EVERY DIP ? Pl advise?
This title seems like false clickbait. They even say in the video the emissions are just a different form. This is not to mention all the emissions use to mine and transport the gas.
They're not saying this alone will save the planet, they're saying that they can turn the gases they have into energy without bad emissions
@@Noah-fx4cm I might be missing something, but it seemed to me that they still produced the same emissions, just in solid form vs gas. Carbon sequestration on any meaningful scale hasn't really been tested yet, and I know it can potentially cause huge environmental risks like ocean acidification. I think it's dangerous to trump up technologies like this because they detract from real solutions like reducing emissions etc.
Mining is the biggest problem with every industry. Yes, that includes our precious solar panels and wind turbines. There is an ecological cost with EVERYTHING. Nothing is ideal.
Fracking is bad, yes. So is the process in extracting rare earth metals for renewable power.
@WILLIAM ZHANG Renewables have some emissions, but they are much lower overall than natural gas, coal etc. All mining is bad for the environment in the short term, but long term I think CO2 emissions are the biggest threat. Solar panels themselves are pretty light weight, so I'm not sure if they require intensive mining. Wind turbines are mostly a composite of glass (sand) and petroleum products. Either way I can't see this carbon capture technology being financially viable since solar is much cheaper already.
not real zero emissions but still cool
Zero-carbon-emissions is unrealistic and a fantasy. Reducing it, maybe. But zero is bullshit.
@Arwyn You don't really count what it takes to build a plant. But the operation of the plant.
As for a real answer, the emissions is CO2. All they have done was to be able to capture the emissions for resale. Which the video states it can be used for more oil drilling. So it will be dispersed in the environment anyways by attributing to more gas emissions. But it is better than going directly to the environment, no one is denying that.
so are they capturing co2 from regular power stations and reusing it or are they making a whole power station just for this? in which case if they are burning gas just for the co2 then why not use the heat to boil water for a regular turbine as well?
Natural gas..... Natural gas...at its 2.5 years low....buy EVERY DIP ? Pl advise?
Just from watching this I'm super skeptical about injecting CO2 into the ground and accelerating rock formation. Are they able to control the rate of rock formation, and are they fully aware of all the potential implications of speeding up a natural process? Just don't wanna see earthquakes and stuff
hey, this is just make up, the real problem is invisible.
question yourself, do you really think we would let methane leak if it was purple.... they're just hiding the smoke.
That's all you're skeptical about? The entire thing is loaded with BS. They don't mention that the net zero plant requires a massively energy intensive oxygen generator. They don't stop to mention that the guy claiming the temp will rise 7 to 9 degrees by the end of century is citing 100% BS, widely discredited data. They don''t stop to warn about how natural-gas powered electrical generation will cause the price of heating American houses to skyrocket out of control.
Not taking into account gas leakage of methane into the environment when drilling for gas.
However there you have an incentive to minimize that. That's your money flying away.
@@shoopinc Every 1000 BTUs, they lose $3000.
Has any new details come from this project?
CO2 capture is a questionable technology as indications are that the reserves they are pumped into leak the CO2 back to the atmosphere through microfractures that can't be mapped by active seismic.
Can we buy 2 lots of Natural Gas for Dec contract??
Just build more nuclear power plants.
It would definitely solve our problems for the immediate problems.
@@jonathankr and for the future. Well designed and efficient nuclear fission power plants can provide huge amounts of energy. 100% of the waste can be completely contained and with scale it can be stored easily in a safe way.
Every other form of energy production either expelles the harmful waste into the atmosphere or doesn't meet our energy requirements.
While it may be super effective it is not true to say that it is ‘100%’ contained. Google Radioactive Wave being Seeped into Waters
Max Harrison It is better to have many kinds of energy generation. I think Nuclear Fission is okay, as it produces a lot of power, but the production of nuclear waste pushes the idea over the edge more often then not. Why would we use nuclear if we can just line a huge surface with solar and wind? The most natural way of producing energy is, by not producing it, but by harvesting it. We should harvest the energy given to us by Earth (aka wind, solar and geo-thermal).
@@diggleda2952 solar and wind have numerous problems apart from the cost and ill-timed energy production. If done properly, nuclear waste can be fully contained. There have been times where it hasn't been but even then, damage caused has been negligble compared to fossil fuel waste.
Geothermal energy would be perfect if there were more places where it could be done.
Uranium-235 is energy given to us from the earth.
Nice! So this process is more efficient for electricity production but can waste heat be recovered for heating purposes and would it be any better than standard cogeneration plant for Norden climate?
Can we buy 2 lots of Natural Gas for Dec contract??
they made a big turbo? Would this fit in a 2005 Subaru Impreza?
In the beginning they keep showing Steam coming out of those chimneys. That white smoke? Mostly water, not CO2. (just nit-picking)
The problem of injecting CO2 into the ground is that you need WATER to accomplish the process, and water is a scarce resource that I think should not be "wasted" in a process like this one.
You are thinking freshwater. Can this be accomplished with ocean saltwater? According to the work of a planetary physicist contacted by Kotaku by taking official LORE measurements about diameter and other stats the volume of a Halo is ~224 million cubic kilometers. There is 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers of water on earth. That is enough volume to fill ~6.18 Halo Rings right to the ceiling with water.
fuck the water, you'll endup frying because of the methane leaks first.
that's just a retarded concept to hide the smoke, nothing more.
i fucking wonder that we would never let gas pipes leak if the methane was purple....
Ale Vic water isn't a scarce resource outside of drought areas, which doesn't include Iceland
Actually it deposits CO2 in the form of mineral formation, using the ground somewhat like a catalyst.
you prolly dont care at all but does anyone know a tool to get back into an instagram account??
I was dumb lost my login password. I would love any help you can give me!
@Madden Landen Instablaster =)
@Arturo Skylar Thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and im waiting for the hacking stuff now.
I see it takes a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Arturo Skylar it did the trick and I actually got access to my account again. Im so happy:D
Thank you so much you saved my account :D
@Madden Landen you are welcome xD
Plants are CO2 scrubbers. However, if CO2 is a concern, splitting atoms emits zero CO2 inherently.
Except the build, the operation and the disposal which is always underestimated.
CO2 is not a concern, people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
@@veronicathecow It's that way for any energy source.
Natural gas..... Natural gas...at its 2.5 years low....buy EVERY DIP ? Pl advise?
Can we buy 2 lots of Natural Gas for Dec contract??
In Fusion We trust ...
This video is hopium. The Icelandic lady stating "If we take all the basalt available on earth, theoretically we could use it to permanently store much more than all co2 that we would emit from burning all fossil fuel available globally".. what a ridiculous statement. "If we take all the basalt on earth".. well, no, that is never going to be possible, so don't try and paint a rosy picture based on an impossibility.
Can we buy Natural gas on dips as it's at 2 years low?? Pl advise.
This is a brilliant way to re-design the traditional power plant into one that fully captures CO2. Meanwhile C02 is a marketable product, so they can generate money for their byproduct. *Yes it would be interesting to know how energy intensive the O2 capture is, however I assume they factored that into the whole efficiency equation when they stated that it is just as efficient as a traditional natural gas plant that has no CO2 capture.*Yes there is proven CO2 capture and sequestration. There is a shell refinery in Alberta that has hit the 4 million ton CO2 capture mark this year. They sequester the CO2 from and pump it deep underground for permanent storage.
2:15 That’s my favorite pencil!
Why not use direct thermal from the sun for heating rather burning fuels?
The CO2 went full circle
From the death of organisms
To extraction
To Primary energy
To secondary energy
Then back to extraction
okay thats pretty smart using the co2 as the working fluid
“*Imagine when you have economics driving a solution, instead of policy aspirations*”
I felt that...
zero emissions? did you research by reading their marketing brochures?!?
it's only 0 emissions if you cool, compress and capture the CO2 - as in any other power plant. the only real difference here: less gas to capture because nitrogen is separated before the process (at significant cost)...misleading marketing clip.
How many times do Michael Mann's scientific theories have to be overturned by actual empirical data, in order for people to stop citing him as an authority ?
We should concentrate on the use of net power and nuclear if we really want to keep the economy alive while also trying to reduce emissions
I have the same exact pencil!!
how much energy does this power plant produce in a time?
Euh, i don’t understand. What does it matter that u change the medium but still store the newly created co2? Does this cycle increase the co2 concentration of the flue gas somehow? Is that what makes the capture cheaper?
Another nicely made investigation. Thumbs up to the Bloomberg team for the interesting videos!
How far down did you pull the oil/gas, and how far down are you pumping the CO2? Realistically how long do you think it’ll take for it to resurface? Not long at all if you’re thinking long term. There are better energy sources
oil isnt burned in "Carbon spewing plants" its used mostly for transportation...
It’s burned in power plants all the time
@@13_cmi not in North America unless in remote locations
Something is fishy here.
Can we use a Westinghouse nuclear battery or equivalent I believe they produce 10 mega watts For 10 years without refueling
now how can we get it out the ground without fracking?
It's a bit dishonest to say the plant has achieved zero emissions. The goal would be either to sequester the CO2 or find a market for it. I don't think the CO2 market is large enough to handle the supply from large plants using this cycle. Maybe sequestration is a viable option. That would increase costs though.
Bloomberg Business Sentiment
Even if the emissions of CO2 are zero, please explain how the chromium and other regulated leachate metals are removed from the combustion process? What other byproducts are created? Incomplete information.
Isn't there a way to use the gas without burning it by passing it over a fuel cell like bloom energy does.
I applaud the technology but I will also advise that you cannot get 7 degree warming b/c co2 saturates. If co2 volumes were to double, triple etc it fills up the air parcel such that the photon reradiation rises to an ever shorter depth in the air column aka can't get off the surface to warm the air. This is termed the law of diminishing returns. Temp then levels off.
This is all fine and dandy, but does it mean these gas power plants need to be near a certain type of rock formation to make it economically viable?
amateurs complaining in the comments as if they were chemical engineers or something. Oil and gas has a long way to go until it finishes up. If you really don't wanna use it, don't use the oven, don't use a regular car, and live with no electricity because it's the main source of power. Or just switch to solar, and wind energy, OH WAIT they also use fuels to function and are too expensive
@@caedenw truth brother.
For every calorie the average person consumes there is a "fossil fuel" input of 9 calories in equivalent energy... so yeah, there's that.
Why do you want to lock up CO2 it's a net benefit,plants love it!
stfu
This is interesting
Amazing human ingenuity. Excellent job Texas and Iceland.
Another nice chair finding on the deck of the Titanic.
This is what drives a successful economy...ingenuity and invention.
Iceland uses geothermal energy to heat water and make electricity.
What makes the co2 turn the turbine?
High pressure gas?
heh comment sections...
filled with students and art majors thinking they can solve chemical engineering.
Totally agree
yeah ... liberal arts solves everything.. gimmie a hug bro. lol. now gimme $10,000 to feed my 13 kids from diff mamas
OR! gimme dollars because someone has to be responsible for my kids. ... true story, online, look it up
it has been students in the past that have pioneered major scientific breakthroughs
Natural gas..... Natural gas...at its 2.5 years low....buy EVERY DIP ? Pl advise?
Those excess CO2 can be used as raw materials for producing carbon nano tubes (a very conductive material).
Joe Rogan got me here
FritzyNB same
Same
Did he make sure to mention that this video leaves out the fact that the Allam cycle is just as costly as other carbon capture methods?
Natural gas..... Natural gas...at its 2.5 years low....buy EVERY DIP ? Pl advise?
This solves only one problem of burning dinosaur juice. BUT, gas/oil will still run out and still requires Oxygen from the air to burn... This is major BS in my opinion.
Kárpát Zoltán stfu
Gas and oil won't run out for decades (if not well over 100 years). That gives us plenty of time to innovate our use or create other power sources.
Now this is quality content. You guys deserve a much bigger audience.
So whats the down side of this? Why dont we see this more commonly in the world?
India 15 New Lng power plants have to setup be scientific make in india be boost
burn gas in a gas turbine, use the exhaust heat to produce steam for a steam turbine. for the exhaust gas, capture the co2 and use it in a sCO2 turbine... excess CO2 can be used for eor
Net Power is going to change the world
I don't think this video clearly explains exactly how this process works. They gloss over the process and proclaim it as the best thing ever but without any real explanation.
it uses methane pipelines that leak 20%, methane is 24 times more potent than co2 and is invisible unlike the smoke from natural gas, they're just doing some make-up.
then it comes the notion that it has 0 emission and people invest more in natural gas for a "perceived" notion of health.
Google "Allam power cycle" -- there is a wiki page for that.
damn its always those English people starting these revolutionary companies
The Net Power plant and the whole Allam cycle theory looks really cool. Only wish it'd cater more to non-fossil fuels
It can, but this is the proverbial first step
I’m afraid there is nothing zero about this process.
Solar? No. Coal? No. Wind? No. The answer is hamster wheel power! Not 100% efficient but 100% fun.
now we have earned the CO2 saturation point is 20ppm and beyond that has little effect....
The guy that said that the fossil fuel industry is coming to an end is dead wrong. Sheesh
Where's proof that co2 is harmful? Experiments with two identical greenhouses were done to prove this. One greenhouse had co2 % doubled. The plants grew faster and required less water. Why is this ignored?
Complete success
Burning natural gas for fuel is bad for the enviroment.
This looks like another Theranos scandal.
Can we buy natural gas on dips as winter is cold in entire euro and consumption should go up...pl advise 🙏
Natural gas buy support folded hands 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 and touching feet but pl support
Ingenious!
Talk to Duke Energy in the Carolinas since they are converting some coal plants to natural gas or half coal / half gas.
People often think computers make people smarter, not true, it's just a tool which can be used to augment people with vision.
I 100% agree
Is that gas coming from fracking sites?
1:50 "Enter this man"?
Plant trees 🌳🌲🌴🌿its very simple.
Yes the CO2 does “enter the atmosphere” from this plant, just down the road somewhere.
Ok this is awesome!
The pure O2 Allam cycle is a lovely idea. Yet it doesn’t solve the hard problem which is reinserting carbon underground, all 30B tons of it every year. It’s not accurate to throw “zero emissions” on this video when this La Porte plant burns nothing and instead sells off its CO2. No, Iceland doesn’t have a practical scheme to sequester 30B tons/yr of anything.
I call bullshit!... second law of thermodynamics. emissions happen, period. and this vid does NOT explain that
“Utilize that hydrocarbon in a clean way”
What hand waiving nonsense.
this is wat i think works economically electric engines make it more expensive for industrialism
We need to get cereal
They use the excess carbon to make him more 0.5 pencil refills
thank u , for this video . a lot of information
0:23 Screen saver
Shout out Iceland didn’t know about this!
So they use CO2 as a working gas to power the turbine, so it's not really 0 emission until you figure out a way to ensure the carbo doesn't enter the atmosphere.
By the time these technologies became profitable (and that won't happen, btw) enough to evolve as mainstream, it wouldn't make a difference anyway.
As much as I can see these companies are working hard to avoid CO2 gas emissions, in the long run like Michael Mann said they ( The climate worshipers )want to get rid of anything fossil fuel / petro chemical involved which will really pose some challenges.. While I am not a big supporter of fossil fuels/petro chemicals because of pollution it will be hard to do do with out some of the things we are use to like plastics. And again while I am very anti plastic waste, plastic provides practical solutions in today's society, it just needs more controls and balance on how it is used. There is a feel that society pressured from Greenpeace etc will toss out the baby with the bath water. The message however is clear from the climate clerics anything fossil fuel is bad. I think the long term prospect is that these companies will be eventually forced to close. The same goes for the efficient new coal power plants. The main fanboys are solar and wind which are still waiting for a breakthrough in storage of power. We will just have to hope that happens soon. The only truly valid 24/7 clean reliable cheap energy left is Hydro, Geo-thermal, and Nuclear . But again they get less attention especially nuclear from the climate evangelists .
Most of your fossil fuel cheerleading is debunked by your own rebuttals. The solutions are viable and available. The stranglehold of oil lobbying is keeping the renewable technologies at bay through political power plays. The market, hopefully, is showing signs of moving the needle slowly, but power and greed will always be in the way of what is right, just and correct.
@@jimmyf9545 Maybe you should preach that to Europe now that Russia's fossil fuels are being turned off and all the money Germany has spent on Wind and Solar has not really had much of bonus and now makes them look like a joke and an easy country to defeat. Now they will need to crank up their coal powered station to stop them becoming third world. The price for stupidity /idealism and following the draconian carbon zero UN protocols. China/India will gain to wealth/victory as they get an easy pass under developing country status by the UN. You have to look at the big picture and the manipulations that are taking place. Winners and Losers
@@WeddingDJBusiness Spare me.