i’m seeing a lot of enthusiasm around free air carbon capture technology and honestly i think this is wishful thinking the kinetics of pulling something out of the air at 0.04% suck badly. way better to avoid emissions or keep it from going out as exhaust at the source, probably
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @DanielleFong
I saw a proponent of direct capture argue that it made sense. He said that due to the kinetics of the particular processes, the thermodynamic disadvantage of doing it in ambient air was surprisingly small relative to flue gas. I was skeptical but
.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chriswaterguy
send a link if you ever remember where you heard this
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanielleFong
*Checks storage* I still have my draft as submitted. The link was Keith captures carbon. https://web.archive.org/web/20081204023115/http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/september2008/keith-carboncapture … Calculations were not given. Here's my draft as submitted, in screenshots – can send copy if you'd like. 1/2pic.twitter.com/PTPHz1pWZD
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chriswaterguy @DanielleFong
Googling direct air capture thermodynamic gives a few analyses as well. Draft article 2/2pic.twitter.com/1JrzyNFrrL
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chriswaterguy
david keith... serious mad scientists vibrs with that one; i’ve had my disagreements over the years with that one, but in this case they actually did build a thing! thank you for the link. one of those towers per person eh? hmmm... still pretty far fetched but not insanely sopic.twitter.com/MQdIyHDTwP
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong
Massive versions of this DAC tower, using surplus power from massive renewable farms… *If* power is the main cost here, it could actually be a serious option. Escaping Twitter now, but my big question would be, what are the other inputs, & how sustainable, ecologically & $?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chriswaterguy @DanielleFong
Not requesting you to research that. Just idly wondering.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chriswaterguy
calera was using basic water, sodium hydroxide, to sequester more carbon in cement. the lack of an abundance of basic reservoirs to run their process was a problem so they switched to using seawater which they sprayed into flue gas, a similar idea. but their NaOH was consumed...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
is the sodium hydroxide consumed in keith’s process or do they recycle it? if they can really just loop the chemical around and around it could work. but i still would put it on a flue stack first!
-
-
Replying to @DanielleFong
So it mentions that the solution is regenerated. I guess it depends how effectively it's regenerated. It all comes down to the numbers – amount of chemical that is consumed and the cost/impact of supplying that chemical.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chriswaterguy @DanielleFong
My chemical engineering degree is 28 years old and not much practised. But I'm happy to help work this out, to the best of my ability.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
