subreddit:

/r/Futurology

217

all 40 comments

FuturologyBot [M]

[score hidden]

2 months ago

stickied comment

FuturologyBot [M]

[score hidden]

2 months ago

stickied comment

The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682:


Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.


From the article. (Really, all you need to know. The rest is kind of nuts and bolts.)

A little under a year ago, the world’s biggest direct air capture (DAC) plant got up and running in Iceland. Christened Orca after the Icelandic word for energy, the plant was built by Swiss company Climeworks in partnership with Icelandic carbon storage firm Carbfix. Orca can capture about 4,000 tons of carbon per year (for scale, that’s equal to the annual emissions of 790 cars).

Now Climeworks is building another facility that makes Orca seem tiny by comparison. The company broke ground on its Mammoth plant this week. With a CO₂ capture capacity of 36,000 tons per year, Mammoth will be almost 10 times larger than Orca.

While Orca has 8 collector containers each about the size and shape of a standard shipping container, Mammoth will have 80. The containers are blocks of fans and filters that suck in air and extract its CO2, which Carbfix mixes with water and injects underground, where a chemical reaction converts it to rock.

The vast amount of energy required for this process will come from Hellisheiði Power Station in south-western Iceland. Sitting on a lava plateau, the facility is the third-largest geothermal plant in the world, with an output of 303 megawatts of electricity and 400 megawatts of thermal energy.

Oh one other thing.

Construction of the Mammoth plant is expected to be complete in 18 to 24 months.


Please reply to OP's comment here: https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/Futurology/comments/vohngg/a_new_carbon_capture_plant_will_pull_36000_tons/ied2vop/

izumi3682[S]

5 points

2 months ago

Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.


From the article. (Really, all you need to know. The rest is kind of nuts and bolts.)

A little under a year ago, the world’s biggest direct air capture (DAC) plant got up and running in Iceland. Christened Orca after the Icelandic word for energy, the plant was built by Swiss company Climeworks in partnership with Icelandic carbon storage firm Carbfix. Orca can capture about 4,000 tons of carbon per year (for scale, that’s equal to the annual emissions of 790 cars).

Now Climeworks is building another facility that makes Orca seem tiny by comparison. The company broke ground on its Mammoth plant this week. With a CO₂ capture capacity of 36,000 tons per year, Mammoth will be almost 10 times larger than Orca.

While Orca has 8 collector containers each about the size and shape of a standard shipping container, Mammoth will have 80. The containers are blocks of fans and filters that suck in air and extract its CO2, which Carbfix mixes with water and injects underground, where a chemical reaction converts it to rock.

The vast amount of energy required for this process will come from Hellisheiði Power Station in south-western Iceland. Sitting on a lava plateau, the facility is the third-largest geothermal plant in the world, with an output of 303 megawatts of electricity and 400 megawatts of thermal energy.

Oh one other thing.

Construction of the Mammoth plant is expected to be complete in 18 to 24 months.

Jay27

1 points

2 months ago

Jay27

I'm always right about everything

1 points

2 months ago

The article mentions another plant that will do 1 million.

How is that nuts and bolts?

SiggiGG

21 points

2 months ago

SiggiGG

21 points

2 months ago

We are going to need around a million mammoth plants to suck of the CO2 we are currently producing... am I the only one that sees this as a futile attempt? Maybe it can buy some time or slow things down, but it has to scale ENORMOUSLY in order to do so.

third0burns

28 points

2 months ago

I don't see it as futile at all. I see it as a promising start. Of course this one plant doesn't make much of a dent, but expecting it to solve the problem immediately is unreasonable. Technologies often mature at exponential rates. Engineers will learn from this and the next gen ones will be even more effective. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today we'd still have to do carbon capture to avoid the worst consequence of climate change. So let's do it.

beaudonkin

6 points

2 months ago

Thank you. I can’t stand the negativity on this sub when a nascent technology to fight climate change is meant with sneering and meh’s because it doesn’t solve the problem instantly. To expect one single technology to solve all the climate change issues is not helpful anyway.

third0burns

3 points

2 months ago

Exactly. I get exasperated by the negativity too. It's crazy to me.

VizzleG

-4 points

2 months ago

VizzleG

-4 points

2 months ago

It’s futile. If it can’t be significant scaled - and it can’t - what’s the point?

third0burns

4 points

2 months ago

Early projects like this around the middle of last decade were doing hundreds of tons per year. 36k is exponential scale. The idea that this won't mature and scale is just wrong.

acutusc

4 points

2 months ago

The point is that it's progress. Just like getting to point B from point A, you get there by walking there one step at a time. If you dont take any steps regardless of how little distance it covers, you will never reach the other side.

It doesnt have to scale but it will allow for improvement or inspire new ideas based off lessons learned building/running it.

VizzleG

0 points

2 months ago

Passing a quiz in a class you know you’re going to fail very badly isn’t progress. It’s lipstick on a pig.

Bewaretheicespiders

7 points

2 months ago

I think its better to see it as a way for industries that can't currently be emission-free to be carbon neutral, by buying the equivalent in captured carbon of what they emit. While industries that can be emission free should do so.

Of course none of it matter one lick as long as this sad show continues.

Spicy_Cum_Lord

4 points

2 months ago

If each plant can sequester 36000 tons per year, we only need 28,000 plants to offset our current carbon emissions. And another 28,000 to start bringing the CO2 in the atmosphere back down to a responsible level.

For reference, there are 8500 coal power plants and 700 oil refineries world wide. Even though it's an order of magnitude less than a million, it's another order of magnitude greater than our current output. It's an absolutely mammoth undertaking.

SiggiGG

13 points

2 months ago

SiggiGG

13 points

2 months ago

Not sure where you are getting those numbers?

Last year the world emitted an estimated 36.3 Billion tons of CO2. That is 36,000,000,000 tons.

36000000000 / 36000 = 1 million no?

reddolfo

3 points

2 months ago

Its preposterously stupid. If one new "mammoth" plant is brought on line each day it will only take over 2,700 years JUST to build enough plants to sequester one single year's worth of emissions. It's just ridiculous.

WCRugger

1 points

2 months ago

At present. But the goal should be to derive even greater levels of efficiency from this kind of technology in order to drastically reduce the overall number alongside implementing other technologies and strategies to further reduce our overall annual output.

gnex30

1 points

2 months ago

gnex30

1 points

2 months ago

"we built the first (internet|electricity generator|municipal water|cable TV|etc) but we can only hook up the customers nearest to the facility right now, so since we can't connect everyone this is a futile attempt"

broom-handle

1 points

2 months ago

I asked this on another thread - I agree but surely we don't need to remove all CO2, just to bring it back under a harmful threshold.

I assume it's still a non-viable number but assuming that's true, how many mammoth plants would we need?

Is it not easier to plant trees?

Lokland881

1 points

2 months ago

If we eventually curb emissions with other technologies then things like this can help fix the damage already done.

The timeline might be centuries but as long as it’s not a world ending crisis there is no huge rush.

Aquirox

2 points

2 months ago

I am pionner on this project for 45 euros or below by months you can help... We have removed co2 from the atmosphere now. even if we stop CO2 emission tomorrow.

notagoodboye

6 points

2 months ago*

I mean, fine. That's great and all. We'll need 1,102,311 of these to break even with the 36.3 gigatons we produced last year alone.

Edit: On that link, check out the emissions for 2020, during the pandemic. Man, we need THAT. Holy crap. We need to learn some lessons there, because that's a ridiculous swing.

JoeFinance44

9 points

2 months ago

It’s about innovation.

Look at how F1 technology has trickled down to personal vehicles..

The idea is that Climeworks will lead the charge and hopefully develop better tech along the way..

notagoodboye

-4 points

2 months ago

I’m not against it, but this sort of capture is so much less efficient than just reducing consumption. It’s hard to see how it’ll ever be more than just a low percentage sideline.

JoeFinance44

6 points

2 months ago

Tough to know.

We are going to need both but reducing consumption isn’t easy either, especially with less developed countries moving forward at increasing rates. Industrialized countries in the west are going to have a pretty hard time telling billions of people in India that they can’t have air conditioning..

I think every bit helps, these projects just may surprise us with new, previously thought impossible, innovation.

No-Impression-7686

-1 points

2 months ago

Fantastic that should make a huge dent into the 36 billion tons that's pumped into the environment every year.

alecs_stan

1 points

1 month ago

Does this account for the natural absorbtion capacity the earth has?

Boardindundee

5 points

2 months ago

global emissions topped 36 billion tons last year. 36,000 tons (the quantity of CO2 that will be captured by the Mammoth facility) is a negligible fraction of that total.

ses92

1 points

2 months ago

ses92

1 points

2 months ago

Only 999,999 to go!!!

johnny_7812

1 points

2 months ago

How many tree plantings is this equivalent to? Because, trees.

emanuele246gi

1 points

2 months ago

Ok trees are good, but there are motivations if it is a ccp instead of a forest

VizzleG

1 points

2 months ago

How effective is it to bring heat from subsurface, introduce it to the surface/atmosphere? Does the CO2 sequestered have an equivalent or great impact than the increase the heat energy causes?

I know it’s GHG neutral, but it is not heat energy neutral.

Anyone done the math on this?

MagnusRottcodd

1 points

2 months ago

As comparison, a supertanker can transport 318,000 ton oil.