Comments on: Forget Carbon Capture & Storage; Think Carbon Capture & Utilization

By: Askgerbil Now

Askgerbil Now — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:45:00 +0000

CO2 capture is done on a commercial scale in a number of industries.
It is scrubbed from raw natural gas to make the gas “pipeline quality”. It is also separated from hydrogen in steam reforming of natural gas by fertiliser manufacturers.

A number of commercial uses of CO2 exist and new ones are emerging. Algae farming needs large volumes of concentrated CO2. One commercial operator recently discovered that algae oil is far more valuable when marketed as nutrient supplements rather than biodiesel.

“Indicative wholesale prices for the Chlorella and B-Carotene are currently $16,000 and up to $90,000 per tonne, respectively. The algae is 100% used as the product. A healthy gross margin on revenue is anticipated as capital costs are expected to be in the vicinity of $7,000 per tonne.” (Algae.Tec)

By: Ecomike

Ecomike — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:01:00 +0000

One company that I know of has a near commercial CCU process ready to go that converts CO2 into formic acid with a substantially lower energy input than the current process for making formic acid. It is a new generation of organic electrolytic reactor. They received their first patent this year (2012), and are building a pilot plant at a Cement plant in Canada. The cement plant is a Lafarge plant. Here is the story:
http://www.mantraenergy.com/Technology/ERCTechnology.aspx

By: Countries with Climate Policy TLC Gain Competitive Edge | CleanTechnica

Countries with Climate Policy TLC Gain Competitive Edge | CleanTechnica — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:57:17 +0000

[…] industries in the US.’More on DBCCA’s July 2011 report to come…Related Reading:Forget Carbon Capture & Storage; Think Carbon Capture & UtilizationClean Tech (& Dirty Tech) Policy & Politics NewsAustralia’s Climate Legislation Meets […]

By: douglas prince

douglas prince — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:48:00 +0000

What I’d like to know is how the hell anyone can say CCU has a relatively short payback time for investors when the whole concept is still in the R&D phase?
That’s just a dumbass statement…

By: Wilmot McCutchen

Wilmot McCutchen — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:50:00 +0000

@Bob Wallace — I agree with you that CO2 capture is not feasible at utility scale using chemicals mixed in with flue gas. This would also double the fresh water consumption of power plants, at a time when water supplies are stressed. I would add that the sequestration element of CCS has been called by prominent petroleum engineering professors “a profoundly non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions” and dangerous to the groundwater. I see no other purpose to CCS than to have the taxpayers pay for oil companies’ enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations.

But I do not agree with your statement that “we can power transportation and make our electricity without fossil fuels. Those are technologies in hand.” What technologies?

By: Wilmot McCutchen

Wilmot McCutchen — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:56:00 +0000

CCU, as Brian points out, takes energy. Burning more fossil fuels to produce that energy creates CO2 — more than is converted into useful products. Wind and solar, however, could do this job during the times when they are curtailed. Wind has trouble selling power into the grid at night (when wind is most available) because there is plenty of power already available in the spinning reserve. A hybrid power system, using wind to convert the CO2 from fossil fuel generation, would give wind a path to wide deployment, whereas right now wind is going to waste because of a fundamentally wrong business model of selling power into the grid at night, when nobody is buying.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:14:00 +0000

This doesn’t make any mention of the fact the turning carbon dioxide into things like fuels, chemical products, and polymers requires more energy than was present in the coal to begin with. This is like a coal to liquid fuels program only more complicated and with a lower energy return.

The only viable ways of making this work that I am aware of are to use solar (either photovoltaic, thermal), algea based solar, or nuclear power to run the CO2 conversion process. With solar and nuclear it would be more cost effective to directly replace coal in the power grid. Algea grows better in a high CO2 atmosphere and it is possible it could be made cost effective but would require some form of capture and transport and large areas which might be better used for PV farms.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:17:00 +0000

We have no effective and efficient method to capture the CO2 coming from fossil fuel plants.

Why don’t we just leave all that carbon underground?

We can power transportation and make our electricity without fossil fuels. Those are technologies in hand. Let’s just get busy and build them out.

Doesn’t it make sense to just not make the mess to start with as opposed to looking for cute ways to clean it up?