Worlds largest atmospheric CO2 capture plant opens

[dvs_dave]

As the title, world’s largest atmospheric CO2 capture plant opens in Iceland, powered by geothermal energy, and storing the CO2 underground. 32,000 tons a year, or the equivalent of around 23,000 cars. Not bad.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/clime...

Interesting to see how the economics and energy consumption for this works out as everything I’ve seen so far suggests that this tech is a dead end at any sort of scale. I’m glad they’re trying it, and maybe this will be a turning point, but I doubt it.

Edited by dvs_dave on Friday 10th May 19:53

[OutInTheShed]

They are talking of reducing the cost per ton of CO2 to $300 per ton over the next decade or two.

Which kind of suggests storing the CO2 produced by a diesel car might be quite economical in the scheme of things?
A grand a year would store the CO2 from a typical mileage?

But how much storage capacity does the world have?
How much of the stored CO2 will leak out?
My guess is that storing CO2 will only be an option on a quite limited scale.
Lots of talk about Europe spending many billions on this, but what about the other 8 billion people in 2050?

[shirt]

It’s the storage I don’t understand. There’s another Swiss company, Synhelion, who use a solar converter, methane and co2 to create a synthetic gas that can be refined into synthetic fuels. These 2 technologies seem eminently compatible, and I’m sure the last time I read Climeworks’ website they converted the co2 into pellets.

[caziques]

If my maths is correct, New Zealand has 1.75 million hectares of pine trees, sucking up around 50 million tons of CO2 a year (around 6.5% of the land area).

Shame I only have 168 hectares. At US$300 (240 pounds) per ton for CO2, that would (in a few years time) give me an annual income of a million pounds a year.

The current price of CO2 in NZ is around 28 pounds.

Let's revisit this topic in ten years time, see what's happened.

[PetrolHeadInRecovery]

shirt said:

It’s the storage I don’t understand. There’s another Swiss company, Synhelion, who use a solar converter, methane and co2 to create a synthetic gas that can be refined into synthetic fuels. These 2 technologies seem eminently compatible, and I’m sure the last time I read Climeworks’ website they converted the co2 into pellets.

The Carbfix page was a quite nice overview. I think the chemical reactions are similar (but not the same) as in enhanced rock weathering plans, but obviously pumping the CO2 underground requires less space. Climeworks approach is probably also one of the most verifiable ones, so once there's a real market for "hard" offsets, it is possible to charge premium price for the service.

300$/ton would add about a dollar per litre in "production" costs and the pump prices might go up close to 100% (when everyone involved adds their profit margins). Back in 2018, it was possible to foment the "yellow vest" protests in France when fuel prices increased by 16%,..

IMHO, we need everything that works, so this should be applauded. Climeworks will probably remain a niche solution in the overall emission reduction/mitigation/negative emission space, but might e.g. make long-distance air travel compatible with a planet that we'd still recognise in 30 years' time.

[Huff]

dvs_dave said:

As the title, world’s largest atmospheric CO2 capture plant opens in Iceland, powered by geothermal energy, and storing the CO2 underground. 32,000 tons a year, or the equivalent of around 23,000 cars. Not bad.

Snip for one side comment - I agree with the idea this approach is v likely a dead-end - but let's also just sense-check those two numbers - because I suspect its 'best Marketing light' being shone, just as when we see a claim like ...' it generates' X MW, enough for Y thousand homes'

Anyway - 1.39tonnesCO2/car/year , then. Aha, at what gm CO2/Km?
Well - try, say, 250g/Km, which is still common in anything interesting/ or a not-mahoosive, UK SUV say- that's about 3500 miles/yr. Erm, no.
So - for 12000mile/yr - it'd requires a fleet average of 45grammes CO2 / Km.

We are nowhere near that, whatsoever; will def struggle even beginning with an all-EV fleet if embodied carbon is taken into account.


(That's not to say I'm not curious how this large-scale test works in detail; I also applaud it. There will be cases, maybe industrial processes, where such as 'a local capture measure' - might well make great sense)

Edited by Huff on Saturday 11th May 16:54

[MrTrilby]

caziques said:

If my maths is correct, New Zealand has 1.75 million hectares of pine trees, sucking up around 50 million tons of CO2 a year (around 6.5% of the land area).

The trouble with trees is that they’re only really a temporary store of carbon - even if they don’t get cut down and burned, eventually they die and when they decay the carbon is released back to the atmosphere.

[PlywoodPascal]

caziques said:

If my maths is correct, New Zealand has 1.75 million hectares of pine trees, sucking up around 50 million tons of CO2 a year (around 6.5% of the land area).

Shame I only have 168 hectares. At US$300 (240 pounds) per ton for CO2, that would (in a few years time) give me an annual income of a million pounds a year.

The current price of CO2 in NZ is around 28 pounds.

Let's revisit this topic in ten years time, see what's happened.

lol, exactly

There are lots of technological solutions to removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Unfortunately they are all stter than a simple tree.

[PlywoodPascal]

MrTrilby said:

caziques said:

If my maths is correct, New Zealand has 1.75 million hectares of pine trees, sucking up around 50 million tons of CO2 a year (around 6.5% of the land area).

The trouble with trees is that they’re only really a temporary store of carbon - even if they don’t get cut down and burned, eventually they die and when they decay the carbon is released back to the atmosphere.

You could cut them down and store them underground though.

[GT9]

Huff said:

Snip for one side comment - I agree with the idea this approach is v likely a dead-end - but let's also just sense-check those two numbers - because I suspect its 'best Marketing light' being shone, just as when we see a claim like ...' it generates' X MW, enough for Y thousand homes'

Anyway - 1.39tonnesCO2/car/year , then. Aha, at what gm CO2/Km?
Well - try, say, 250g/Km, which is still common in anything interesting/ or a not-mahoosive, UK SUV say- that's about 3500 miles/yr. Erm, no.
So - for 12000mile/yr - it'd requires a fleet average of 45grammes CO2 / Km.

We are nowhere near that, whatsoever; will def struggle even beginning with an all-EV fleet if embodied carbon is taken into account.


(That's not to say I'm not curious how this large-scale test works in detail; I also applaud it. There will be cases, maybe industrial processes, where such as 'a local capture measure' - might well make great sense)

Edited by Huff on Saturday 11th May 16:54

The average lifetime footprint for an all-EV fleet charged from renewable electricity is 50 g/km or less.

[Huff]

GT9 said:

The average lifetime footprint for an all-EV fleet charged from renewable electricity is 50 g/km or less.

Thanks for the correction! - useful reading.

[FMOB]

I think it is the geothermal energy that makes this plant feasable, what are they going to do when the storage is full?

[dvs_dave]

Huff said:

dvs_dave said:

As the title, world’s largest atmospheric CO2 capture plant opens in Iceland, powered by geothermal energy, and storing the CO2 underground. 32,000 tons a year, or the equivalent of around 23,000 cars. Not bad.

Snip for one side comment - I agree with the idea this approach is v likely a dead-end - but let's also just sense-check those two numbers - because I suspect its 'best Marketing light' being shone, just as when we see a claim like ...' it generates' X MW, enough for Y thousand homes'

Anyway - 1.39tonnesCO2/car/year , then. Aha, at what gm CO2/Km?
Well - try, say, 250g/Km, which is still common in anything interesting/ or a not-mahoosive, UK SUV say- that's about 3500 miles/yr. Erm, no.
So - for 12000mile/yr - it'd requires a fleet average of 45grammes CO2 / Km.

We are nowhere near that, whatsoever; will def struggle even beginning with an all-EV fleet if embodied carbon is taken into account.


(That's not to say I'm not curious how this large-scale test works in detail; I also applaud it. There will be cases, maybe industrial processes, where such as 'a local capture measure' - might well make great sense)

Edited by Huff on Saturday 11th May 16:54

Dunno, seems to check out? 1.42 average tons annually is the equivalent of 22,535, or approx 23,000 cars.

• The average UK car (Diesel, Petrol, Hybrid) contribution to CO2 emissions is 119.7 grams per kilometre (g/Km) and with an average of 12,000km (7,600mls) per year 119g/km x12k = 1.42 Metric tons of CO2 per year per car.

https://www.firstvehicleleasing.co.uk/blog/co2-emi...

Splitting hairs beyond that is probably missing the point.

Edited by dvs_dave on Sunday 12th May 22:10

[dvs_dave]

PlywoodPascal said:

MrTrilby said:

caziques said:

If my maths is correct, New Zealand has 1.75 million hectares of pine trees, sucking up around 50 million tons of CO2 a year (around 6.5% of the land area).

The trouble with trees is that they’re only really a temporary store of carbon - even if they don’t get cut down and burned, eventually they die and when they decay the carbon is released back to the atmosphere.

You could cut them down and store them underground though.

CO2 has some interesting properties when you compress it. It becomes a supercritical fluid, a state midway between a gas and a liquid, where it fills its container like a gas, but with the density of a liquid. So it can be stored relatively easily and efficiently in this state in large quantities, for example in underground caverns, old oil/gas wells, etc. without it easily leaking out as it’s effectively in a liquid form.

[rodericb]

PlywoodPascal said:

MrTrilby said:

caziques said:

If my maths is correct, New Zealand has 1.75 million hectares of pine trees, sucking up around 50 million tons of CO2 a year (around 6.5% of the land area).

The trouble with trees is that they’re only really a temporary store of carbon - even if they don’t get cut down and burned, eventually they die and when they decay the carbon is released back to the atmosphere.

You could cut them down and store them underground though.

Or make things out of them.

[Evanivitch]

FMOB said:

I think it is the geothermal energy that makes this plant feasable, what are they going to do when the storage is full?

Probably be one of the clean hydrogen manufacturing leaders.

[Evanivitch]

MrTrilby said:

The trouble with trees is that they’re only really a temporary store of carbon - even if they don’t get cut down and burned, eventually they die and when they decay the carbon is released back to the atmosphere.

The biggest issue with the decay cycle is the methane released. The carbon can be sequested into the soil, as is done with many crops, and improves soil health.

Or others have said, we could use the wood for long term items like construction, or we could store it as charcoal even.