Forums

insane

Started by John Larkin June 9, 2015
http://carbonengineering.com/



-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   laser drivers and controllers

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Are they a penny stock ? If so I'll take five bucks worth just for fun. 

Hey, that is how it is done. You never take from the big boys, you can only take from the other little boys. 
On 09/06/2015 05:41, John Larkin wrote:
> > http://carbonengineering.com/
I have to agree. The energetics cannot possibly work out. A device to waste energy whilst refining a tiny amount of pure CO2. I wonder whose foolish money is invested in that? Doing it to cooled furnace flue gasses at least gives you a head start but even then so far no one has come up with a workable scheme. -- Regards, Martin Brown
On 6/9/2015 2:37 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 09/06/2015 05:41, John Larkin wrote: >> >> http://carbonengineering.com/ > > I have to agree. The energetics cannot possibly work out. > > A device to waste energy whilst refining a tiny amount of pure CO2. > > I wonder whose foolish money is invested in that? > > Doing it to cooled furnace flue gasses at least gives you a head start > but even then so far no one has come up with a workable scheme.
Why are you so convinced that this is not practical? The issue is not can it be done, the issue is simply how much it will cost. When I worked in a lab we captured CO2 in a similar manner. It is simple, basic chemistry. They are investing time, effort and money into ways to make it practical on a large scale. Why is it so impossible? -- Rick
On 09/06/2015 08:21, rickman wrote:
> On 6/9/2015 2:37 AM, Martin Brown wrote: >> On 09/06/2015 05:41, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> http://carbonengineering.com/ >> >> I have to agree. The energetics cannot possibly work out. >> >> A device to waste energy whilst refining a tiny amount of pure CO2. >> >> I wonder whose foolish money is invested in that? >> >> Doing it to cooled furnace flue gasses at least gives you a head start >> but even then so far no one has come up with a workable scheme. > > Why are you so convinced that this is not practical? The issue is not > can it be done, the issue is simply how much it will cost.
The energy needed to make CO2 by the process they describe is so huge that the thing cannot possibly break even or come remotely close. Even fractional distillation of liquid air would probably work out cheaper and energetically more efficient plus you would obtain more valuable LN2, LOX and LAr as byproducts for good measure.
> When I worked in a lab we captured CO2 in a similar manner. It is > simple, basic chemistry. They are investing time, effort and money into > ways to make it practical on a large scale. Why is it so impossible? >
You can scrub small amounts of CO2 and SO2 this way if cost and energy is no constraint but you cannot do it economically on a large scale. Making lime for cement from CaCO3 is one of the most energy expensive bulk processes in industrial production. This is a non starter green pipe dream for people with no clue about thermodynamics or economics. -- Regards, Martin Brown
On 6/9/2015 5:00 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 09/06/2015 08:21, rickman wrote: >> On 6/9/2015 2:37 AM, Martin Brown wrote: >>> On 09/06/2015 05:41, John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>> http://carbonengineering.com/ >>> >>> I have to agree. The energetics cannot possibly work out. >>> >>> A device to waste energy whilst refining a tiny amount of pure CO2. >>> >>> I wonder whose foolish money is invested in that? >>> >>> Doing it to cooled furnace flue gasses at least gives you a head start >>> but even then so far no one has come up with a workable scheme. >> >> Why are you so convinced that this is not practical? The issue is not >> can it be done, the issue is simply how much it will cost. > > The energy needed to make CO2 by the process they describe is so huge > that the thing cannot possibly break even or come remotely close.
It's not an energy machine. Who said it would produce energy? The idea is to not continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates. I'm not sure how you would think it could possibly produce more energy than is put into it.
> Even fractional distillation of liquid air would probably work out > cheaper and energetically more efficient plus you would obtain more > valuable LN2, LOX and LAr as byproducts for good measure.
So what do you actually know about the process and the energy required?
>> When I worked in a lab we captured CO2 in a similar manner. It is >> simple, basic chemistry. They are investing time, effort and money into >> ways to make it practical on a large scale. Why is it so impossible? >> > > You can scrub small amounts of CO2 and SO2 this way if cost and energy > is no constraint but you cannot do it economically on a large scale. > > Making lime for cement from CaCO3 is one of the most energy expensive > bulk processes in industrial production. This is a non starter green > pipe dream for people with no clue about thermodynamics or economics.
Uh, CaCO3 *is* lime. I think you are referring to the production of "quick lime" or calcium oxide. All the chemical reactions are cyclical. So the only required energy expenditure is in releasing CO2. The rest of the chemical reactions will proceed with little energy input and in fact, the production of Ca(OH)2 is highly exothermic. Don't you think they recover that heat? I'm sure this will be a challenging project to make practical. But the numbers associated with "practical" will change as we move forward and removing CO2 from our industrial processes becomes more and more important. -- Rick
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 11:00:54 AM UTC+2, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 09/06/2015 08:21, rickman wrote: > > On 6/9/2015 2:37 AM, Martin Brown wrote: > >> On 09/06/2015 05:41, John Larkin wrote: > >>> > >>> http://carbonengineering.com/ > >> > >> I have to agree. The energetics cannot possibly work out. > >> > >> A device to waste energy whilst refining a tiny amount of pure CO2. > >> > >> I wonder whose foolish money is invested in that? > >> > >> Doing it to cooled furnace flue gasses at least gives you a head start > >> but even then so far no one has come up with a workable scheme. > > > > Why are you so convinced that this is not practical? The issue is not > > can it be done, the issue is simply how much it will cost. > > The energy needed to make CO2 by the process they describe is so huge > that the thing cannot possibly break even or come remotely close.
Depending where you get your energy from. I agree that it seems unnecessarily energy intensive, but the level of energy expenditure is matched in soda recovery plants across the world, so it's not impossibly huge.
> Even fractional distillation of liquid air would probably work out > cheaper and energetically more efficient plus you would obtain more > valuable LN2, LOX and LAr as byproducts for good measure.
It delivers the CO2 as a solid, which might make for practical problems.
> > When I worked in a lab we captured CO2 in a similar manner. It is > > simple, basic chemistry. They are investing time, effort and money into > > ways to make it practical on a large scale. Why is it so impossible? > > You can scrub small amounts of CO2 and SO2 this way if cost and energy > is no constraint but you cannot do it economically on a large scale.
You can't. Other people may have schemes that may work better than you imagine to be possible.
> Making lime for cement from CaCO3 is one of the most energy expensive > bulk processes in industrial production. This is a non starter green > pipe dream for people with no clue about thermodynamics or economics.
Making lime for cement is not as energy expensive as - say - making aluminium from alumina. That a process requires expending a lot of energy at some points doesn't stop the operators getting a lot of that energy back elsewhere. Until you know the intimate details of the process you'd be wise to be less dogmatic about its economics. I agree that it sounds like it ought to be total bullshit, but it's surprisingly specific about what they actually do, so it may work better - in their specific plant - than one would guess from what one might know about more primitive set-ups doing some of the same operations. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 6/9/2015 6:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 11:00:54 AM UTC+2, Martin Brown wrote: >> On 09/06/2015 08:21, rickman wrote: >>> On 6/9/2015 2:37 AM, Martin Brown wrote: >>>> On 09/06/2015 05:41, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> http://carbonengineering.com/ >>>> >>>> I have to agree. The energetics cannot possibly work out. >>>> >>>> A device to waste energy whilst refining a tiny amount of pure >>>> CO2. >>>> >>>> I wonder whose foolish money is invested in that? >>>> >>>> Doing it to cooled furnace flue gasses at least gives you a >>>> head start but even then so far no one has come up with a >>>> workable scheme. >>> >>> Why are you so convinced that this is not practical? The issue >>> is not can it be done, the issue is simply how much it will >>> cost. >> >> The energy needed to make CO2 by the process they describe is so >> huge that the thing cannot possibly break even or come remotely >> close. > > Depending where you get your energy from. I agree that it seems > unnecessarily energy intensive, but the level of energy expenditure > is matched in soda recovery plants across the world, so it's not > impossibly huge. > >> Even fractional distillation of liquid air would probably work out >> cheaper and energetically more efficient plus you would obtain >> more valuable LN2, LOX and LAr as byproducts for good measure. > > It delivers the CO2 as a solid, which might make for practical > problems.
Solid? Where did you read that? The CO2 comes off at high temps as a gas. -- Rick
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 21:41:58 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

> http://carbonengineering.com/
I like this. Their basic technology seems idiotic to me (TBH), I'm not certain it's competitive to fractional air distillation, but I think they have a shot. They should do a better job plastering the sales pitch all over the front page.
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:

> On 6/9/2015 5:00 AM, Martin Brown wrote: >> On 09/06/2015 08:21, rickman wrote: >>> On 6/9/2015 2:37 AM, Martin Brown wrote: >>>> On 09/06/2015 05:41, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> http://carbonengineering.com/ >>>> >>>> I have to agree. The energetics cannot possibly work out. >>>> >>>> A device to waste energy whilst refining a tiny amount of pure CO2. >>>> >>>> I wonder whose foolish money is invested in that? >>>> >>>> Doing it to cooled furnace flue gasses at least gives you a head start >>>> but even then so far no one has come up with a workable scheme. >>> >>> Why are you so convinced that this is not practical? The issue is not >>> can it be done, the issue is simply how much it will cost. >> >> The energy needed to make CO2 by the process they describe is so huge >> that the thing cannot possibly break even or come remotely close. > > It's not an energy machine. Who said it would produce energy? The > idea is to not continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at ever > increasing rates. > > I'm not sure how you would think it could possibly produce more energy > than is put into it.
Because that would be stupid. Perhaps he is not stupid? For example, if the CO2 from the fossil fuel needed to power it is more than the CO2 recovered, it is fundamentally pointless. -- John Devereux