24:50 Ian glosses over the Sturgeon Refinery. 'We finally got it working'. Maybe, but it's 13 years since ground broke on that site. It went way over budget. I worked there from 2016-18. Apparently, now it's producing 40,250 barrels per day of ultra-low sulfur diesel. It was originally supposed to produce 50,000 at start-up which was supposed to be before 2020. So now it's at 80% capacity. Or is that all it will ever be? All I know for sure is I drive a diesel truck and live less than an hour from that plant. Diesel is rarely cheaper than gas anywhere around here 🤔
I don’t have an opinion (just starting the video), but almost every new technology takes much longer than expected to get up to the expected capacity. Now that they have one plant working, what’s the likelihood the second plant takes 6 years to get to the same point? When working on any new process or technology, there are unknown unknowns. They’ve discovered most of those unknowns, and any new plant is pretty close to copy/paste. Maybe even at scale it’s not cost competitive, or whatever metric you’re using to determine “success,” but using the timeline of a pilot plant to determine how fast every subsequent plant will be built is a very bad methodology.
@timwildauer5063 I was in the trades, so I'm definitely no expert on the process in that plant. But what we were told is that the plant was a new German design. Particularly the gasifier unit. Anyway, it didn't work properly. I believe they had to completely retool and go back to a more basic process. That would have been after I was gone. It was a 5 billion dollar job that ballooned to 11 billion. Alberta bought in at 50%. If not for that, who knows how it might have ended up. It's good to have friends in high places. As usual 😃
Well done! This was clearly explained without resort to complex maths, chemistry or long-winded explanations of operational aspects of the many processes involved. All done with a smile and without aggro. I have sent an email to several friends with a link to the Utube site. Thanks.
Yah Ian is a great guest. I've seen a few videos of him speaking on different subjects before and he makes things very easy to understand. He seems like he would be fun to just have a couple drinks with and shoot the shit with too.
Nitrogen again: so I guess these oxygen separators are not really viable for getting the nitrogen out for a cleaner combustion. It's weird to see these technologies that seem perfectly capable of doing a thing that we need, but are not being used for it.
The CO² pipeline is a giant radiator for removing heat from the CO². As the CO² cools, its density goes up, and the pressure goes down, reducing the backpressur that the pump is working against as it tries to shove more CO² in the pipe. The cooler the pipeline is at the near the pump (less so as the gas gets further downthe line). The less energy is needed to compress the gas. This is very significant in how much energy is saved as the gas cools. It could save 50% of the energy to pump if the pipeline is sufficient diameter and cools quickly.
20:1220:17 Banana. *Detective Foster :* Yeah, and we're not gonna fall for a *_banana_* in the tailpipe. *Axel Foley :* [mocking him] You're not gonna fall for the *_banana_* in the tailpipe?
Gasification is the future of energy for all carbon sources that are not already oil or natural gas. Gasification is the start for rebuilding molecules of random hydrocarbons into perfect synthetic fuels and chemicals.
Im making great progress, thank you for the encouragement. I’ve managed to avoid car ownership (feeling wealthy because of it), and my meat consumption is way down!
China is broke! It’s $400 Trillion and more in debt and it’s now collapsing. Likely closer to $600 Trillion debt. So Canada’s hope on the East is foolish and destroying itself.
@PlanetFrosty BRICS is the future, buddy. You're believing the same people who tell you to fret about climate, and if you do your part, we can save earth 😃
Me too... Ian seems like he would be a lot of fun to have a few drinks with and shoot the shit with. I actually laughed out loud a few times in this episode.
The hydrogen comes some from the base material, but much of the hydrogen in gasification comes from water added at high heat. The carbon stripes the hydrogen from the water, making carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and all the gaseous trace minerals like sulfer that were in the feedstock.
Your guest is not aware of NET Power. It’s a US entity whose process works by combusting natural gas with pure oxygen in a combustor, producing CO2 and water. We mix this with recirculated CO2 and use it to spin a turboexpander, producing power. When the turboexpander exhaust cools, water and byproducts are removed. What remains is CO2. Most of the CO2 is compressed and recirculated back to the turboexpander while a small portion exits the cycle, like a slowly overflowing bucket, and is captured. The captured high purity CO2 can be easily sequestered or sold to industry. Nearly all CO2 is ultimately captured through the process. NET Power has collaborated with the Frog Lake First Nation east of Edmonton. Frog Lake's NET Power plant will generate 300 megawatts of electricity, and produce water for 15,000 households. The clean water is a waste product of the process. Kanata says the project development is underway with construction expected to start in 2023 and power production to start by 2025. Chad Gvozdenovic with Kanata Clean Power said he believes the technology is a game changer for both the province and the country. "This will allow our transition and will support renewables with firm dispatchable 24/7 power, so we will allow renewables to penetrate really deeply in our electricity system," he said.
I think putting CO² in a oil feal is a good idea as long as the oil feal is deep and capped by non permeable rock to prevent migration. CO² does not damage the potential for further extraction from a liquid reservoir, it instead enhances liquid petroleum recovery as it pressurize the reservoir and pushes some of the more bound oil liquid around making more available for extraction. I think injecting CO² into a gas field is not a good idea. CO² will contaminate the natural gas, destroying the potential for future recovery. Our extraction technology will be sufficient to extract more gas from the field at a later date. Also, in decades to a few hundred years, it is likely that many of our shale gas beds will recover a significant quantity of gas as the gas pressure eqilises throughout the rock and gas slowly continues to form from the organic materials remaining in the shale. Don't contaminate the gas. If you want the best ways to do carbon capture, here they are: 1.Find a suitable shallow sea and provide sufficient minerals and fertilizer to induce algae growth to pull enormous amounts of CO² from the atmosphere and have a sufficient current to provide oxygenation and establish a food web based on the algae to produce quality sea food for people. 2. Use gasification to produce power, fuel, and chemicals from waist wood, but do not burn up the charcoal, instead use the charcoal in agriculture to ensure that fertilizer stays in the soil where crops can use it, also reducing toxicity of agricultural chemicals, and improving soil life and water retention, thereby significantly improving crop yealds and helping to reverse soil loss. If you want to burn the coal but not have the combustion products, you have to grow plants to make new hydrocarbons. Trying to bury CO² simply to reduce CO² in the atmosphere is a fools errand. The energy efficiency and the amount of expensive equipment, materials, and manpower are effectively prohibitive. Basically, it is a Rube Goldberg machine that uses more energy than it saves while costing a fortune to operate and maintain.
The refinery problem for the US and Canadian petroleum exports is why Trump is talking to Venezuela. They have a suitable oil for the US refineries if Canada stops their oil then America cannot easily make their refined products gasoline and diesel. If they can get crude.oil from Venezuela then they are more independent of Canada. It is unbelievable really. Carbon capture and storage really it allows you to produce more oil to burn. We need to stop burning carbon to make electricity and basic heating. We will probably have to burn some hydrocarbons for air travel maybe some for plastics. Maybe we can now forget about CCS as a saviour for coal.
I think you are getting side tracked by super critical CO2. Super critical carbon dioxide can be used as amazing solvent. If you want the solvent properties then you have to be careful with getting the parameters correct. If you are just transfering the CO2 then it doesn't matter much about is it in the super critical state or not.
It doesn't make sense to speak of cost and price for production. Price is a function of consumer expectations. Production is limited by available energy/entropy resources. Price is sexy, energy is work.
26:00 So don't worry about burning down the forest because we need the CO2 to filter fossilized sunlight? Don't worry about melting polar ice, enough for 60+ m searise? Don't worry about melting permafrost? ...
Fossil-fuels are used to build, maintain, and decommission wind-and-solar. Meanwhile, wind-and-solar is not used to power *_any_* factory. *_No fossil-fuels = no wind-and-solar._*
@@TheDanEdwards Here is your "energy transition": Global coal use is at all-time highs. Global oil use is at all-time highs. Global natural-gas use is at all-time highs. Wind-and-solar are not powering anything. They are *_requiring_* increasing amounts of fossil-fuels every year. If you think they can power factories, then build or buy a factory and power it off-grid exclusively on its own wind-and-solar and your choice of storage. Let us know how it went. By the way, Elon Musk already proved this can't be done.
Coal is rapidly dying. Helped China ramp up, and now they’re starting to end the bringing online of new coal plants. Here the US coal mines are closin* because they are uneconomical. In Colorado, electricity prices have experienced *lower* inflation than the overall inflation rate during the last decade, as the portion of electricity from coal has been cut from two thirds to one third The most expensive option by far is continuing to add co2 to the atmosphere at the same or increasing rates
I hooked an ozone generator to my 90+ gas furnace. Wired it in to come on with the gas. Really effective carbon capture is pre combustion aka hydrogen. The best way I found was a molten aluminum heat source and a skimmer . Post combustion. Yeah o2 feed gas , then exhaust compression.... injection or bottle/ greenhouse whatever. There is a need for co2 refrigerant and green coke. Do um both
@gmw3083 the plasma reactor is a very exciting opportunity in science, vacuum or pure atmosphere reactions are very relevant to industry. And things the dusty plasma non nuclear fusion reactions are an opportunity in this regard as well , an possibilities of a more efficient non nuclear material thermal source may exist as well. Fyi I'm generally a toxic human. But I put systems in place to survive that
@mikepict9011 I'm interested because there was a fire here, and I have a big pile of aluminum wreckage. Some went molten and coagulated with other junk mixed in. I was planning to melt it into ingots or something one day. What you're talking about seems like it might be a better idea.
Why are we wasting time on CO2, it’s a minor inefficient greenhouse gas. You could double CO2 and it would have a less than 1% effect on thermal energy flow to space.
Not the best way of thinking about it. The energy flow to space will be about the same. This outward energy flow will be what it has to be to achieve equilibrium, balancing the energy in from space. The question is, when co2 is increased, how much higher do temperatures have to be in order for the lower-efficiency-of-radiating-to-space to still radiate the same energy coming in.
Just as NASA scientists know better than the average highly intelligent person how to put a person on the moon, the average highly intelligent person should trust that the NASA scientists saying that co2 is a huge issue… they know what they’re talking about.
@@SigFigNewton I should have quoted my source, it's not my math obviously, its Dr. William Happer PhD Physics retired Princeton Prof and inventor of the then classified sodium laser or Guidestar for the Star Wars program. I apologize for making it sound like it was an original idea from myself...I was just too lazy to write all of this out at the time. Look up "Gas of Life", a lecture by the good Dr. its interesting.
Yes, it is possible to find people who disagree with and have been debunked by people who are actual experts in the field. Evidently Happer didn’t even understand that it’s an energy equilibrium problem? I didn’t realize that he was *that* ill informed.
@ And Dr. Lindzen from MIT. I mean I'm obviously not capable of doing the math myself, I listen to people like this who are far smarter than me. Who should I be listening to? Who do you listen to?
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
The ending of this was great. He basically explained the frustration with SMRs.
I'm so happy there are companies giving up on Carbon Capture - what a waste of money, time and human energy
24:50 Ian glosses over the Sturgeon Refinery. 'We finally got it working'. Maybe, but it's 13 years since ground broke on that site. It went way over budget. I worked there from 2016-18.
Apparently, now it's producing 40,250 barrels per day of ultra-low sulfur diesel. It was originally supposed to produce 50,000 at start-up which was supposed to be before 2020. So now it's at 80% capacity. Or is that all it will ever be?
All I know for sure is I drive a diesel truck and live less than an hour from that plant. Diesel is rarely cheaper than gas anywhere around here 🤔
I don’t have an opinion (just starting the video), but almost every new technology takes much longer than expected to get up to the expected capacity. Now that they have one plant working, what’s the likelihood the second plant takes 6 years to get to the same point? When working on any new process or technology, there are unknown unknowns. They’ve discovered most of those unknowns, and any new plant is pretty close to copy/paste. Maybe even at scale it’s not cost competitive, or whatever metric you’re using to determine “success,” but using the timeline of a pilot plant to determine how fast every subsequent plant will be built is a very bad methodology.
@timwildauer5063 I was in the trades, so I'm definitely no expert on the process in that plant. But what we were told is that the plant was a new German design. Particularly the gasifier unit. Anyway, it didn't work properly. I believe they had to completely retool and go back to a more basic process. That would have been after I was gone.
It was a 5 billion dollar job that ballooned to 11 billion. Alberta bought in at 50%. If not for that, who knows how it might have ended up. It's good to have friends in high places. As usual 😃
Wow your lighting and video improved so much!
Well done! This was clearly explained without resort to complex maths, chemistry or long-winded explanations of operational aspects of the many processes involved. All done with a smile and without aggro. I have sent an email to several friends with a link to the Utube site. Thanks.
A video you might like, only simple math ruclips.net/video/kZA9Hnp3aV4/видео.html
Yah Ian is a great guest. I've seen a few videos of him speaking on different subjects before and he makes things very easy to understand. He seems like he would be fun to just have a couple drinks with and shoot the shit with too.
Thanks for the support! Glad you enjoyed it.
That was really interesting and informative. It was not what I was expecting and was very grounded in the science. Well done.
amines are made up of hydrogen and nitrogen and carbon, just thought i throw my two cents
Excellent interview. Thank you both for your amazing insights.
Nitrogen again: so I guess these oxygen separators are not really viable for getting the nitrogen out for a cleaner combustion. It's weird to see these technologies that seem perfectly capable of doing a thing that we need, but are not being used for it.
Bring someone on to talk olivine weathering and fish fertilization for CO2 absorption
this is a great episode. shines a light into another dark corner of the transition magical thinking room.
The CO² pipeline is a giant radiator for removing heat from the CO². As the CO² cools, its density goes up, and the pressure goes down, reducing the backpressur that the pump is working against as it tries to shove more CO² in the pipe. The cooler the pipeline is at the near the pump (less so as the gas gets further downthe line). The less energy is needed to compress the gas. This is very significant in how much energy is saved as the gas cools. It could save 50% of the energy to pump if the pipeline is sufficient diameter and cools quickly.
Outstanding !
20:12 20:17 Banana.
*Detective Foster :* Yeah, and we're not gonna fall for a *_banana_* in the tailpipe.
*Axel Foley :* [mocking him] You're not gonna fall for the *_banana_* in the tailpipe?
Great interview.
Gasification is the future of energy for all carbon sources that are not already oil or natural gas. Gasification is the start for rebuilding molecules of random hydrocarbons into perfect synthetic fuels and chemicals.
0:29 *_50,000 ppm_* is "not a whole lot" easier to capture from than *_425 ppm?_*
It’s far closer to being economically viable, but that doesn’t make it close to being economically viable.
Think of carbon capture and storage like fusion pwr. Nice if it is feasible some day. Meanwhile we need to stop combusting ffuels
@@SigFigNewtonyou're welcome to stop combusting fossil fuels. Go ahead
@SigFigNewton : So you are going to eat zee-bugs produced using fossil fuels. Without diesel you don't eat anything.
Im making great progress, thank you for the encouragement. I’ve managed to avoid car ownership (feeling wealthy because of it), and my meat consumption is way down!
Well done. Informative. thanks
Nice interview.
Great Interview.
China is broke! It’s $400 Trillion and more in debt and it’s now collapsing. Likely closer to $600 Trillion debt. So Canada’s hope on the East is foolish and destroying itself.
@PlanetFrosty BRICS is the future, buddy. You're believing the same people who tell you to fret about climate, and if you do your part, we can save earth 😃
Loved this one.
Me too... Ian seems like he would be a lot of fun to have a few drinks with and shoot the shit with. I actually laughed out loud a few times in this episode.
The hydrogen comes some from the base material, but much of the hydrogen in gasification comes from water added at high heat. The carbon stripes the hydrogen from the water, making carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and all the gaseous trace minerals like sulfer that were in the feedstock.
Your guest is not aware of NET Power. It’s a US entity whose process works by combusting natural gas with pure oxygen in a combustor, producing CO2 and water. We mix this with recirculated CO2 and use it to spin a turboexpander, producing power. When the turboexpander exhaust cools, water and byproducts are removed.
What remains is CO2. Most of the CO2 is compressed and recirculated back to the turboexpander while a small portion exits the cycle, like a slowly overflowing bucket, and is captured. The captured high purity CO2 can be easily sequestered or sold to industry. Nearly all CO2 is ultimately captured through the process.
NET Power has collaborated with the Frog Lake First Nation east of Edmonton. Frog Lake's NET Power plant will generate 300 megawatts of electricity, and produce water for 15,000 households. The clean water is a waste product of the process.
Kanata says the project development is underway with construction expected to start in 2023 and power production to start by 2025.
Chad Gvozdenovic with Kanata Clean Power said he believes the technology is a game changer for both the province and the country.
"This will allow our transition and will support renewables with firm dispatchable 24/7 power, so we will allow renewables to penetrate really deeply in our electricity system," he said.
Building on proven technology with the capacity that will be needed in the future is intelligent design. 👍
I think putting CO² in a oil feal is a good idea as long as the oil feal is deep and capped by non permeable rock to prevent migration. CO² does not damage the potential for further extraction from a liquid reservoir, it instead enhances liquid petroleum recovery as it pressurize the reservoir and pushes some of the more bound oil liquid around making more available for extraction.
I think injecting CO² into a gas field is not a good idea. CO² will contaminate the natural gas, destroying the potential for future recovery. Our extraction technology will be sufficient to extract more gas from the field at a later date. Also, in decades to a few hundred years, it is likely that many of our shale gas beds will recover a significant quantity of gas as the gas pressure eqilises throughout the rock and gas slowly continues to form from the organic materials remaining in the shale. Don't contaminate the gas.
If you want the best ways to do carbon capture, here they are:
1.Find a suitable shallow sea and provide sufficient minerals and fertilizer to induce algae growth to pull enormous amounts of CO² from the atmosphere and have a sufficient current to provide oxygenation and establish a food web based on the algae to produce quality sea food for people.
2. Use gasification to produce power, fuel, and chemicals from waist wood, but do not burn up the charcoal, instead use the charcoal in agriculture to ensure that fertilizer stays in the soil where crops can use it, also reducing toxicity of agricultural chemicals, and improving soil life and water retention, thereby significantly improving crop yealds and helping to reverse soil loss.
If you want to burn the coal but not have the combustion products, you have to grow plants to make new hydrocarbons. Trying to bury CO² simply to reduce CO² in the atmosphere is a fools errand. The energy efficiency and the amount of expensive equipment, materials, and manpower are effectively prohibitive. Basically, it is a Rube Goldberg machine that uses more energy than it saves while costing a fortune to operate and maintain.
The refinery problem for the US and Canadian petroleum exports is why Trump is talking to Venezuela. They have a suitable oil for the US refineries if Canada stops their oil then America cannot easily make their refined products gasoline and diesel. If they can get crude.oil from Venezuela then they are more independent of Canada. It is unbelievable really. Carbon capture and storage really it allows you to produce more oil to burn. We need to stop burning carbon to make electricity and basic heating. We will probably have to burn some hydrocarbons for air travel maybe some for plastics. Maybe we can now forget about CCS as a saviour for coal.
check out the allam cycle
Carbon capture is so energy expensive and storage so problematic. That it should be dumped in the bin where it belongs.
I think you are getting side tracked by super critical CO2. Super critical carbon dioxide can be used as amazing solvent. If you want the solvent properties then you have to be careful with getting the parameters correct. If you are just transfering the CO2 then it doesn't matter much about is it in the super critical state or not.
If the material to be transported is not dense, your piping system will suffer from poor throughput.
It doesn't make sense to speak of cost and price for production. Price is a function of consumer expectations. Production is limited by available energy/entropy resources. Price is sexy, energy is work.
26:00 So don't worry about burning down the forest because we need the CO2 to filter fossilized sunlight? Don't worry about melting polar ice, enough for 60+ m searise? Don't worry about melting permafrost? ...
Protect the global forests and plankton ecosystems.
Entropy ruclips.net/video/Sz1n0RHwLqA/видео.html
Melting Antarctica would be 60+ m searise.
Protect the permafrost.
Those EVs in China are increasingly wind and solar powered.
Fossil-fuels are used to build, maintain, and decommission wind-and-solar. Meanwhile, wind-and-solar is not used to power *_any_* factory.
*_No fossil-fuels = no wind-and-solar._*
@@aliendroneservices6621 Maybe you're wrong,
@@TheDanEdwards Here is your "energy transition":
Global coal use is at all-time highs.
Global oil use is at all-time highs.
Global natural-gas use is at all-time highs.
Wind-and-solar are not powering anything. They are *_requiring_* increasing amounts of fossil-fuels every year. If you think they can power factories, then build or buy a factory and power it off-grid exclusively on its own wind-and-solar and your choice of storage. Let us know how it went.
By the way, Elon Musk already proved this can't be done.
Coal is rapidly dying. Helped China ramp up, and now they’re starting to end the bringing online of new coal plants.
Here the US coal mines are closin* because they are uneconomical. In Colorado, electricity prices have experienced *lower* inflation than the overall inflation rate during the last decade, as the portion of electricity from coal has been cut from two thirds to one third
The most expensive option by far is continuing to add co2 to the atmosphere at the same or increasing rates
I've got a bridge for you.
US tariffs against Canada are insane
They worked as prescribed.
I hooked an ozone generator to my 90+ gas furnace. Wired it in to come on with the gas. Really effective carbon capture is pre combustion aka hydrogen. The best way I found was a molten aluminum heat source and a skimmer . Post combustion. Yeah o2 feed gas , then exhaust compression.... injection or bottle/ greenhouse whatever. There is a need for co2 refrigerant and green coke. Do um both
@mikepict9011 You don't think the molten aluminum is noxious or even toxic?
@gmw3083 95 thermal efficiency is 95% thermal efficiency. Higher electricity input, sure . This is snake oil. Is gas oil.
@gmw3083 the plasma reactor is a very exciting opportunity in science, vacuum or pure atmosphere reactions are very relevant to industry. And things the dusty plasma non nuclear fusion reactions are an opportunity in this regard as well , an possibilities of a more efficient non nuclear material thermal source may exist as well. Fyi I'm generally a toxic human. But I put systems in place to survive that
@gmw3083 only engineers understand and they laugh and shake their heads . Usually 65+ deep in giving up phase
@mikepict9011 I'm interested because there was a fire here, and I have a big pile of aluminum wreckage. Some went molten and coagulated with other junk mixed in. I was planning to melt it into ingots or something one day. What you're talking about seems like it might be a better idea.
Why are we wasting time on CO2, it’s a minor inefficient greenhouse gas. You could double CO2 and it would have a less than 1% effect on thermal energy flow to space.
Not the best way of thinking about it. The energy flow to space will be about the same. This outward energy flow will be what it has to be to achieve equilibrium, balancing the energy in from space. The question is, when co2 is increased, how much higher do temperatures have to be in order for the lower-efficiency-of-radiating-to-space to still radiate the same energy coming in.
Just as NASA scientists know better than the average highly intelligent person how to put a person on the moon, the average highly intelligent person should trust that the NASA scientists saying that co2 is a huge issue… they know what they’re talking about.
@@SigFigNewton I should have quoted my source, it's not my math obviously, its Dr. William Happer PhD Physics retired Princeton Prof and inventor of the then classified sodium laser or Guidestar for the Star Wars program. I apologize for making it sound like it was an original idea from myself...I was just too lazy to write all of this out at the time. Look up "Gas of Life", a lecture by the good Dr. its interesting.
Yes, it is possible to find people who disagree with and have been debunked by people who are actual experts in the field. Evidently Happer didn’t even understand that it’s an energy equilibrium problem? I didn’t realize that he was *that* ill informed.
@ And Dr. Lindzen from MIT. I mean I'm obviously not capable of doing the math myself, I listen to people like this who are far smarter than me. Who should I be listening to? Who do you listen to?