Let's assume this facility costs nothing to operate, requires no maintenance, and can reliably last 20 years before needing to be replaced. Over 20 years, it will collect 73000 tons of CO2. At a...
Let's assume this facility costs nothing to operate, requires no maintenance, and can reliably last 20 years before needing to be replaced. Over 20 years, it will collect 73000 tons of CO2. At a cost of $20 million, that will be a cost of $274 per ton of CO2 captured.
That's not actually that bad. A ton of CO2 is about the per passenger CO2 emissions for a flight from New York to London. Now, I know I left a lot of things out my quick calculation; operations and maintenance are not free. So this estimate is low. On the other hand, larger plants that would be deployed at scale would have better economies of should be even cheaper.
This tech, anywhere near it is, will not be capable of making say, natural gas power generation, carbon neutral. It's just too expensive, the natural gas plant would have to sell their electricity at such a high price that it would be uncompetitive.
However, over the next decade or two, all power grids are moving away from fossil fuels anyway. The future is one where the bulk our energy comes mainly from solar, with a good helping of wind, with a little nuclear thrown in for good measure . Carbon-neutral electricity generation will be handled by carbon-free energy sources not by CO2 capture.
For most transportation, there are better options than carbon capture. Nearly all cars will be electric. Trains will be electrified. Short-haul aviation will run on battery power. But there are some areas where it's very difficult to decarbonize. One of these applications is large commercial jet travel. Batteries simply aren't anywhere near that level, and even hydrogen struggles to compete. For giant jets, you need huge quantities of very energy-dense fuel, and there really isn't any substitute.
That's where tech like this will really shine. If we can't decarbonize long haul aviation, then we can at least make it carbon neutral. If you can afford a thousand dollar ticket for a transatlantic flight, you can afford a little bit more to cover the cost of sequestering the carbon your flight generates. Alternately, we could mandate that jet fuel and other fuels be produced from carbon pulled from the atmosphere. Do it like we did the ethanol mandates a few years back. First start with a mandate that 1% of the jet fuel be atmospherically-derived. Slowly increase it over several years until planes are powered entirely by fuel made from captured atmospheric carbon. Sure, the fuel then is just a battery for an array of solar panels somewhere, but who cares? If burning jet fuel derived from a solar-powered CO2 capture and fuel production plant allows us to decarbonize aviation faster than waiting for god-tier batteries, then we should do it.
This plant, once fully operational will collect 3,650 metric tons of CO2 per year. Once that is finished, they will build a commercial scale plant that collects 110,000 metric tons per year. Still...
This plant, once fully operational will collect 3,650 metric tons of CO2 per year.
Once that is finished, they will build a commercial scale plant that collects 110,000 metric tons per year. Still just a drop in the bucket, but that should collect the CO2 emissions for about 25,000 people. That’s on the scale of how many users are serviced by a power generation plant and they can always go bigger for future projects.
This initial project is to develop and demonstrate the technology, but it’s the future larger projects that will be more cost effective and have a greater impact.
This actually seems like one of the best versions of carbon capture that I've seen. Having hydrogen be a byproduct of carbon sequestration seems like it can help make it commercially viable. The...
This actually seems like one of the best versions of carbon capture that I've seen. Having hydrogen be a byproduct of carbon sequestration seems like it can help make it commercially viable.
The generation of hydrogen also seems like it could make this a very useful building block for future green energy industries.
The $20 million system in Singapore will be capable of removing 3,650 metric tons of CO2 per year
Let's assume this facility costs nothing to operate, requires no maintenance, and can reliably last 20 years before needing to be replaced. Over 20 years, it will collect 73000 tons of CO2. At a cost of $20 million, that will be a cost of $274 per ton of CO2 captured.
That's not actually that bad. A ton of CO2 is about the per passenger CO2 emissions for a flight from New York to London. Now, I know I left a lot of things out my quick calculation; operations and maintenance are not free. So this estimate is low. On the other hand, larger plants that would be deployed at scale would have better economies of should be even cheaper.
This tech, anywhere near it is, will not be capable of making say, natural gas power generation, carbon neutral. It's just too expensive, the natural gas plant would have to sell their electricity at such a high price that it would be uncompetitive.
However, over the next decade or two, all power grids are moving away from fossil fuels anyway. The future is one where the bulk our energy comes mainly from solar, with a good helping of wind, with a little nuclear thrown in for good measure . Carbon-neutral electricity generation will be handled by carbon-free energy sources not by CO2 capture.
For most transportation, there are better options than carbon capture. Nearly all cars will be electric. Trains will be electrified. Short-haul aviation will run on battery power. But there are some areas where it's very difficult to decarbonize. One of these applications is large commercial jet travel. Batteries simply aren't anywhere near that level, and even hydrogen struggles to compete. For giant jets, you need huge quantities of very energy-dense fuel, and there really isn't any substitute.
That's where tech like this will really shine. If we can't decarbonize long haul aviation, then we can at least make it carbon neutral. If you can afford a thousand dollar ticket for a transatlantic flight, you can afford a little bit more to cover the cost of sequestering the carbon your flight generates. Alternately, we could mandate that jet fuel and other fuels be produced from carbon pulled from the atmosphere. Do it like we did the ethanol mandates a few years back. First start with a mandate that 1% of the jet fuel be atmospherically-derived. Slowly increase it over several years until planes are powered entirely by fuel made from captured atmospheric carbon. Sure, the fuel then is just a battery for an array of solar panels somewhere, but who cares? If burning jet fuel derived from a solar-powered CO2 capture and fuel production plant allows us to decarbonize aviation faster than waiting for god-tier batteries, then we should do it.
This plant, once fully operational will collect 3,650 metric tons of CO2 per year.
Once that is finished, they will build a commercial scale plant that collects 110,000 metric tons per year. Still just a drop in the bucket, but that should collect the CO2 emissions for about 25,000 people. That’s on the scale of how many users are serviced by a power generation plant and they can always go bigger for future projects.
This initial project is to develop and demonstrate the technology, but it’s the future larger projects that will be more cost effective and have a greater impact.
This actually seems like one of the best versions of carbon capture that I've seen. Having hydrogen be a byproduct of carbon sequestration seems like it can help make it commercially viable.
The generation of hydrogen also seems like it could make this a very useful building block for future green energy industries.