Support NeoGAF

[Anarion07]

http://www.climeworks.com/world-first-co2-capture-plant/

Climeworks (Switzerland) developed a process by which CO2 from air gets bound to a granule filter with amines. After saturation, it gets heated up to 100° C and CO2 can be extracted and processed further, later being used for food, beverages, green houses and/or fuels etc.

They sell these capture plants in various sizes:

http://www.climeworks.com/our-products/

The biggest one (double the size of the picture below) can remove 5 tons of CO2 from the air per day, at an efficiency 1000x higher than photosynthesis.

I couldn't find anything on CO2 release during production of these plants, but hey... It's a start! Especially after the past week.

 

[Pegasus Actual]

So how quick can they make... 20 million of them?

 

[MilkyJoe]

If only there were already plants that capture CO2...

 

[Anarion07]

So how quick can they make... 20 million of them?

Welp. Yeah they do say to really have an impact there have to be hundred thousands more. But it's about going both ways. Reducing emissions and capturing.

If only there were already plants that capture CO2...

The process is 1000x more efficient than photosynthesis

 

[Lautaro]

That sounds nice but I wonder how energy hungry is the device.

 

[slider]

If only there were already plants that capture CO2...

Nicely done.

 

[Anarion07]

That sounds nice but I wonder how energy hungry is the device.

From their website:

The majority of the energy required to run the direct air capture plant comes from low-grade/waste heat.

 

[F34R]

That sounds nice but I wonder how energy hungry is the device.

Exactly.. what are they using to run it?

 

[Squall5042]

This is awesome.

Come on billionaires, we need your help on this.

 

[2MF]

That sounds nice but I wonder how energy hungry is the device.

Yeah... Net carbon captured (including manufacturing) figures would be interesting to see.

5 tons of CO2 per day doesn't sound too impressive given that a driver emits tons of CO2 per year. Realistically how many of those plants could we build I wonder...

 

[Lautaro]

From their website:

Sure but how much its needed to power it. And if many are built they will be powered by other means. I just want to know how efficient is.

 

[2MF]

Sure but how much its needed to power it. And if many are built they will be powered by other means. I just want to know how efficient is.

More from their website:

Auxiliary equipment:
In addition to electrical energy the Climeworks process requires hot water at ~100 °C and cooling water at <15 °C. Climeworks Plants are engineered for integration of customer utilities if available to optimize energy consumption. In the absence of available heating and cooling Climeworks offers pre-engineered optional solutions.

Not sure how to reconcile this with the other quote... waste heat that boils water sounds like a lot of waste heat, but I guess it's meaningless without knowing how much water it needs.

 

[mrklaw]

and people said amine was a mistake..

 

[Anarion07]

More from their website:



Not sure how to reconcile this with the other quote... waste heat that boils water sounds like a lot of waste heat, but I guess it's meaningless without knowing how much water it needs.

Yep. And to be fair, you could always try make sure you only get your energy from renewables.

 

[Alx]

The process is 1000x more efficient than photosynthesis

Only photosynthesis also converts CO2 into something usable (organic molecules). This device still keeps it as CO2, and using it in greenhouses means you need an additional step of photosynthesis.
It's still interesting as a way of putting CO2 "in a can", so you can collect it in one place and consume it in another, but it's more about logistics.

 

[Zaru]

How many of these can you get for the kind of money corporations spend on lobbying against climate change measures?

 

[Nostremitus]

How much CO2 producing energy do they use to capture CO2?

Then factoring in transportation of the captured CO2, is it really a net positive?

 

[davepoobond]

so the point is to capture CO2 for soda at which point everyone gets diabetes trying to help use up all of the CO2 then everyone dies and no more CO2 is made

Sounds cool anyway, I guess. The amount of power needed seems like it would just zero the whole thing out. Needs to be 100% solar or something.

 

[Anarion07]

so the point is to capture CO2 for soda at which point everyone gets diabetes trying to help use up all of the CO2 then everyone dies and no more CO2 is made

Sounds cool anyway, I guess. The amount of power needed seems like it would just zero the whole thing out. Needs to be 100% solar or something.

Well we don't really know how much energy it needs and what kind of energy sources it's coming from, except "low grade/waste heat".

Also, Europeans love sparkling water, not just soda ;P

 

[jellies_two]

Ok so make it nuclear powered then scale it up to the size of those things in that stupid movie Oblivion and we will be on the road to atmo repair!

 

[dakun]

i'm just glad there is still brainpower and innovation going on in regards to climate change. First steps will always be inefficient. Hopefully 20-30 years from now we'll laugh at how bad these first steps were, instead of wondering how little we have advanced.

 

[jellies_two]

No need for government intervention the free market will innovate to create these solutions. (Sarcasm).

I never understand how people can promote this view that capitalism will solve the problem when dumping co2 into the atmosphere is invisible, odourless, and free. The Montreal accord would be something trump would cancel because it makes hair product more expensive.

 

[patapuf]

If i interpret it correctly the idea is more to use this in places where exess heat/energy is produced instead of letting it go to waste.

Though maybe it's efficient enough to be worth it to just build a farm of those things. Can't imagine that'd be economically feasible though. canned CO2 isn't exactly a hot commodity.

 

[BAW]

Who cares if it is desirable as a commodity? We just need to grab the CO2 from the air and bury it into the ground!

Governments of the world: Order a gazillion of these please!

 

[patapuf]

Who cares if it is desirable as a commodity? We just need to grab the CO2 from the air and bury it into the ground!

Governments of the world: Order a gazillion of these please!

If it was one this capture plant would spread by itself.

Since it may not be (probably, i don't know the specifics) it'll depened on government spending, as you point out.

 

[Anarion07]

If i interpret it correctly the idea is more to use this in places where exess heat/energy is produced instead of letting it go to waste.

Though maybe it's efficient enough to be worth it to just build a farm of those things. Can't imagine that'd be economically feasible though. canned CO2 isn't exactly a hot commodity.

Let's hope demand goes up. Lot's of working ideas popping up, like captured CO2 used for concrete production or fuels etc.

 

[Lafazar]

This sounds like a great technology, but there are a few red flags:
-Why do they not state how much energy is required for the process? They proudly state that their process does not require water and little area, but they completely omit the energy requirement on their webpage, making me fear it is uneconomically large.
-Captured CO2 is worthless and useless except for a few specialist applications. Converting it to fuel requires even more energy.
-All the stated uses of CO2 on the webpage (i.e. using the captured CO2 for beverages) will release the gas again, making the whole process pointless for actually reducing CO2 in the air.

 

[sechsterangriff]

These have to be powered on renewable, otherwise it doesn't make much sense.

 

[Sunster]

sounds nice but..

 

[Steel]

These have to be powered on renewable, otherwise it doesn't make much sense.

Pretty much. Maybe they can attach enough solar panels to the station for it to be self-sufficient. Actually, even considering that, you'd probably remove more CO2 by just having those solar panels as a replacement for coal directly.

 

[Makai]

1000x efficiency sounds like bullshit

 

[Anarion07]

1000x efficiency sounds like bullshit

The process is 1000x more efficient in capturing CO2 compared to photosynthesis. I don't see why that shouldn't be possible

 

[E-Cat]

 

[Qvoth]

1000x more efficient than plants but if it still takes a million of these factories running non-stop for a century then it doesn't really mean much

 

[Madchad]

so at what point in time will the argument to turn them off begin ? some greedy big wigs will get their hands on them and refuse to turn them off due to huge profits thus suffocating all plant life on the planet.

:O

Still screwed

 

[Steel]

so at what point in time will the argument to turn them off begin ? some greedy big wigs will get their hands on them and refuse to turn them off due to huge profits thus suffocating all plant life on the planet.

:O

Still screwed

There's no point in turning them on in the first place unless we have a 100% non-carbon grid. Honestly, the same can be said of electric cars, really. If those cars get their electricity from coal then they're putting more CO2 in the air than a gas powered car per mile. Though, I suppose having those cars already be adopted by the time coal gets phased out would help speed things along.

 

[Hackworth]

The process is 1000x more efficient in capturing CO2 compared to photosynthesis. I don't see why that shouldn't be possible

If your only worry is CO2 conversion, photosynthesis is pretty slow and only semi-reliable, so making a more efficient CO2 capture system should be pretty possible.

IDK enough about this to know if the machine does what it says, but...

 

[Alx]

If your only worry is CO2 conversion, photosynthesis is pretty slow and only semi-reliable, so making a more efficient CO2 capture system should be pretty possible.

IDK enough about this to know if the machine does what it says, but...

As I mentioned earlier, photosynthesis and this device aren't doing the same thing, so it's unfair to compare their efficiency.
Photosynthesis is consuming CO2 to store solar energy, producing complex molecules that can be used as food (fruit, grains, leaves) or fuel.(wood). This machine is consuming energy to store CO2 without really transforming it, it's still CO2 and you need to consume even more energy to retrieve it.
So photosynthesis is producing renewable energy, this thing is (at best) consuming some. The only common point is they are both storing CO2, but energy-wise they're opposite.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

Welp. Yeah they do say to really have an impact there have to be hundred thousands more. But it's about going both ways. Reducing emissions and capturing.




The process is 1000x more efficient than photosynthesis

The problem being photosynthesis is 1 000 000 000 x more common.

 

[Makai]

The process is 1000x more efficient in capturing CO2 compared to photosynthesis. I don't see why that shouldn't be possible

How did they calculate this number? It seems like marketing spin for something unremarkable and commonplace.

 

[Anarion07]

How did they calculate this number? It seems like marketing spin for something unremarkable and commonplace.

I'll try to dig deeper and find some publications or patents with a better specification.
But calling that unremarkable and commonplace is such an anti-research and anti-progress statement.
That's how stuff like this works. One step at a time. In the right direction.

 

[cityhunter]

If only there were already plants that capture CO2...

If only we tried to find methods of helping fix shit instead of fellating ourselves on top of our bullshit moral high horses and do nothing to contribute to the solution...&#129300;&#129300;&#129300;

 

[vewn]

As I mentioned earlier, photosynthesis and this device aren't doing the same thing, so it's unfair to compare their efficiency.
Photosynthesis is consuming CO2 to store solar energy, producing complex molecules that can be used as food (fruit, grains, leaves) or fuel.(wood). This machine is consuming energy to store CO2 without really transforming it, it's still CO2 and you need to consume even more energy to retrieve it.
So photosynthesis is producing renewable energy, this thing is (at best) consuming some. The only common point is they are both storing CO2, but energy-wise they're opposite.

This.
The machine isn't producing oxygen and is just there to capture CO2 and sell that to farmers who release it onto their plants to improve growth. Not much benefit to the environment there.

 

[ShemhazaiX]

How did they calculate this number? It seems like marketing spin for something unremarkable and commonplace.

I mean, is it that hard to calculate? You take the speed it converts an arbitrary amount of CO2 and compare it to how fast a plant can convert that same arbitrary amount.

 

[pr0cs]

This is what governments should be spending money on, especially if they are going to tax us to death in the name of saving the environment

 

[The Greek Freak]

How can we get politicians to invest in them so that they get kickbacks and stop intentionally fucking the planet?

 

[cameron]

Article from last year, when the plant was set to open:

C02 is already taken out of the air in enclosed spaces like submarines and space capsules. Climeworks will be using a similar process called direct air capture (DAC), in which normal ambient air is pushed through a fibrous sponge-like filter material that has been impregnated with chemicals called amines, derived from ammonia, which bind to C02.

Once the filter is saturated, the gas will be released by warming it with the heat generated by a nearby municipal waste incineration plant, then piped to a 4 hectare greenhouse.

The big question for air capture has always been its price. “The American Physical Society estimated that on a large scale C02 could be captured for $600 per tonne,” says Climeworks chief operating officer Dominique Kronenberg. “We expect to equal that and eventually get costs down well below that.”

At that price, taking C02 out of the air is more expensive than removing it from the flue gases of industrial facilities and power plants, where the gas is up to 300 times more concentrated. Capturing flue gas is already happening in a handful of demonstration projects around the globe.

“The advantage of taking it out of the ambient air is that you can do it wherever you are on the planet,” says Kronenberg. “You don’t depend on a C02 source, so you don’t have high costs transporting it where it is needed.”'

Climeworks will be using funding from the Swiss Federal Office of Energy to fine-tune the plant design to make it run more cheaply and efficiently during the three-year pilot period.

The company hopes that thereafter it will run as a self-sustaining business. The plant will collect between 2 and 3 tonnes of C02 a day. Humans add about 40 billion tonnes of the greenhouse gas to the air annually.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...bon-capture-plant-set-to-open-in-switzerland/

 

[Aureon]

Welll...
The current production of co2 is about 100m tons a day. To counter that, we'd need 20 million plants.
On the other hand, for example, a car produces 0.1kg per km, so this thing 'nullifies', per day, 50K KM being driven.

However, this thing costs 3-4 million.

Compared to trees: An acre of trees absorbs 2.5 tons per year, so a plant like this is about equivalent to 700 acres of forest.

Also, i'm not entirely sure if co2 reused in growing plants \ making soda doesn't get back to the atmosphere...

This is what governments should be spending money on, especially if they are going to tax us to death in the name of saving the environment

At this point in time, this is research. Shutting down coal plants is the easiest - Coal will put out 1kg of co2 per kwh.
A kwh (production cost) is around 0.1 cents, and switching to a fully green alternative bumps it to 0.25 or so - including grid\battery costs - 0.15 cents per kg works out to a 1.5 dollars per ton, compared to 600 dollars to get it out of the atmosphere.

 

[ShemhazaiX]

Article from last year, when the plant was set to open:



https://www.newscientist.com/articl...bon-capture-plant-set-to-open-in-switzerland/

Napkin math on that indicates we'd need about 43 million of those plants to completely neutralise human carbon emissions. Not accounting for other neutralising factors such as current photosynthesis levels and a further reduction in our carbon footprint.

Hopefully the tech advances enough to make it way more efficient and find more viable tools in reducing CO2 levels.

Welll...
The current production of co2 is about 100m tons a day. To counter that, we'd need 20 million plants.
On the other hand, for example, a car produces 0.1kg per km, so this thing 'nullifies', per day, 50K KM being driven.

However, this thing costs 3-4 million.

Compared to trees: An acre of trees absorbs 2.5 tons per year, so a plant like this is about equivalent to 700 acres of forest.

Also, i'm not entirely sure if co2 reused in growing plants \ making soda doesn't get back to the atmosphere...

It's per year, not per day.

 

[Makai]

I'll try to dig deeper and find some publications or patents with a better specification.
But calling that unremarkable and commonplace is such an anti-research and anti-progress statement.
That's how stuff like this works. One step at a time. In the right direction.

I don't know if it's remarkable because I have no baseline to compare it to. I just have a hype video. Even the infographic on their site seems to think the economics of it are terrible. Reminds me of Solar Roadways.

I mean, is it that hard to calculate? You take the speed it converts an arbitrary amount of CO2 and compare it to how fast a plant can convert that same arbitrary amount.

I thought they were going for energy consumption efficiency - plants get it for free from the sky but solar isn't good enough for this I guess. Actually, I'm not sure it can even use electricity - just adjacent heat sources. Like you could use the electricity to generate heat but are plants really 1000x worse than that?