Can This Company Use Earth's Heat to Suck Carbon from the Sky? (msn.com) 74
An anonymous reader shares this report from the Washington Post:
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the sky — or "direct air capture," as it is known by experts and scientists — is a bit like a time machine for climate change. It removes CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it deep underground, almost exactly the reverse of what humanity has been doing for centuries by burning fossil fuels. Its promise? That it can help run back the clock, undoing some of what we have done to the atmosphere and helping to return the planet to a cooler state.
The problem with direct air capture, however, has been that it takes energy — a lot of energy.... But if the energy powering that comes from fossil fuels, direct air capture starts to look less like a time machine than an accelerator: a way to emit even more CO2. Now, however, a company is working to combine direct air capture with a relatively untapped source of energy: Heat from Earth's crust. Fervo Energy, a geothermal company headquartered in Houston, announced on Thursday that it will design and engineer the first purpose-built geothermal and direct air capture plant. With the help of a grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the company hopes to have a pilot facility online in 3 to 5 years.
If it works, it will be a way to produce carbon-free electricity, while reducing CO2 in the atmosphere at the same time. In short, a win-win for the climate. "You have to have your energy from a carbon-free source" for direct air capture to make sense, said Timothy Latimer, the CEO of Fervo Energy. "Geothermal is a great match...." Geothermal wells don't, of course, get anywhere close to Earth's core, but a geothermal well drilled just 1 to 2 miles into hot rocks below the surface can reach temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees. Water is pumped into the well, heated and returned to the surface, where it can be converted into steam and electricity. Even after generating electricity, most geothermal plants have a lot of waste heat — often clocking in around 212 degrees. And conveniently, that happens to be the exact temperature needed to pull carbon dioxide out of an air filter and bury it underground.
The article notes a study which found that if air capture were combined with all the geothermal plants currently in America, the country "could suck up around 12.8 million tons of carbon dioxide every year."
And "Unlike wind and solar, a geothermal plant can be on all of the time, producing electricity even when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining."
The problem with direct air capture, however, has been that it takes energy — a lot of energy.... But if the energy powering that comes from fossil fuels, direct air capture starts to look less like a time machine than an accelerator: a way to emit even more CO2. Now, however, a company is working to combine direct air capture with a relatively untapped source of energy: Heat from Earth's crust. Fervo Energy, a geothermal company headquartered in Houston, announced on Thursday that it will design and engineer the first purpose-built geothermal and direct air capture plant. With the help of a grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the company hopes to have a pilot facility online in 3 to 5 years.
If it works, it will be a way to produce carbon-free electricity, while reducing CO2 in the atmosphere at the same time. In short, a win-win for the climate. "You have to have your energy from a carbon-free source" for direct air capture to make sense, said Timothy Latimer, the CEO of Fervo Energy. "Geothermal is a great match...." Geothermal wells don't, of course, get anywhere close to Earth's core, but a geothermal well drilled just 1 to 2 miles into hot rocks below the surface can reach temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees. Water is pumped into the well, heated and returned to the surface, where it can be converted into steam and electricity. Even after generating electricity, most geothermal plants have a lot of waste heat — often clocking in around 212 degrees. And conveniently, that happens to be the exact temperature needed to pull carbon dioxide out of an air filter and bury it underground.
The article notes a study which found that if air capture were combined with all the geothermal plants currently in America, the country "could suck up around 12.8 million tons of carbon dioxide every year."
And "Unlike wind and solar, a geothermal plant can be on all of the time, producing electricity even when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining."
Why not use trees? (Score:3)
Sure seems like anywhere there is good geothermal, you'd also have abundant access to water and programs that planted a lot of trees would get almost as much carbon capture done - and provide an enjoyable forest.
Also on the flip side sounds harmful for the(very) local environment to be heavily pulling a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Because as temperature is rise (Score:5, Insightful)
None of these carbon capture schemes work nor are they supposed to. They exist so that oil companies and car companies can present what looks like a viable solution so that you won't demand action on climate change. There's supposed to lull you into a sense of comfort so that you will maintain the status quo and not risk devaluing their massive holdings of oil and gas. It's a scam similar to how recycling is a scam created by the plastic industry
Re: (Score:1)
Trees absorb less CO2.
Yeah - that just means you plot more trees!
None of these carbon capture schemes work nor are they supposed to.
If that's the case then the trees are obviously the best idea because at least you have actual trees at the end of the process!
Re: (Score:2)
None of the fast-growing trees which function in hot climates can tolerate drought without some alternate source of moisture, such as S. Sempervirens harvesting coastal fog. A more likely candidate is bamboo, although it generally has significant water requirements as well; Bamboo grows to its full size very rapidly, so it can take advantage of wet years.
Re: (Score:1)
None of the fast-growing trees which function in hot climates can tolerate drought without some alternate source of moisture
Where is there significant enough geothermal energy to build these towers that also has draught issues?
For instance, Iceland has amazing geothermal energy resources - but also an abundance of water and no drought issues.
Anywhere with significant geothermal activity I can think of also has pretty much bulletproof water resources. And generally across the planet more areas will have mor
Re: (Score:2)
Anywhere with significant geothermal activity I can think of also has pretty much bulletproof water resources.
The place in the world with the most geothermal activity is the konocti volcano fields near The Geysers. There is a lake nearby, but its level fluctuates significantly, and also the rights to take water from it have been sold to a neighboring county.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of these carbon capture schemes work nor are they supposed to.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "economically unviable". If you had unlimited money to throw at the problem, present-day carbon capture technology could get the job done. Of course, if you had unlimited money to throw at the problem, you could also just stop burning fossil fuels in the first place. BEV technology has been around for over 100 years [youtube.com]. Why are most of us still driving cars that belch carbon? Like Puff Daddy said, It's All About the Benjamins.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is a red herring from the fossil fuel companies. They throw a few bucks at fuel cell R&D so they can go on polluting as usual. It feels like we've been promised hydrogen fuel cells for as long as we've been promised fusion energy. Meanwhile batteries are viable right now. Maybe not for every single task that presently uses an ICE, but for a lot of them. Sure, making batteries causes a lot of CO2 emissions, but so does making fuel cells. And so does making the hydrogen to go in them!
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is a red herring from the fossil fuel companies.
Then why is Toyota working aggressively to make hydrogen based cars? Why did MIT spend so much time solving that issue? And Oil companies get a lot of money from electricity because a lot of natural gas is expelled when they drill for oil. That natural gas is going into power production. They may not get squat from producing H2.
And so does making the hydrogen to go in them
As stated above, MIT have solved that problem and has licensed the tech.
Re: (Score:2)
And Oil companies get a lot of money from electricity because a lot of natural gas is expelled when they drill for oil. That natural gas is going into power production. They may not get squat from producing H2.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Right now, most hydrogen is made from natural gas by steam reforming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, fossil fuel companies are making money by selling natural gas to burn to produce electricity. They are also selling natural gas to reform into hydrogen, which has the advantage that they can claim it is "green," even though it isn't.
My point stands, fossil fuel companies love to promote hydrogen because it they can continue with business as usual
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Right now, most hydrogen is made from natural gas by steam reforming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... [wikipedia.org]
It's called technological advancement, and it's a recent move.
You keep talking about this MIT process, but haven't produced a link.
You haven't hired me as your research assistant. Go look it up yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't hired me as your research assistant. Go look it up yourself.
I asked for a link, not a thesis. You make extraordinary claims, and I'm not even asking for extraordinary evidence, just _something_ to prove you're not a troll or a shill.
No they're technically unviable too (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
None of these carbon capture schemes work nor are they supposed to.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "economically unviable". If you had unlimited money to throw at the problem, present-day carbon capture technology could get the job done.
No it can't.
Think of the scale of the problem: Almost every single person on the planet is driving/cooking/doing things to produce CO2. Even if you don't drive a car or own any light bulbs you're still buying stuff that was delivered on trucks. Hardly anybody in the developed world even drinks water out of pipes any more. The madmen have convinced them that water in bottles is better.
Contemplate that for a second.
Now tell me we're supposed to build a few "plants" somewhere that can undo all of that? It's la
Re: (Score:1)
There is also the question of how much carbon you set free when operating and making the carbon capture equipment. If you don't have a net positive effect there, it is useless.
There is an interesting project elsewhere: https://news.mit.edu/2023/carbon-dioxide-out-seawater-ocean-decorbonization-0216 [mit.edu].
That MIT project tries to simplify the capture part by extracting the CO2 from sea water, which they hope will be cheaper and more efficient than current methods.
Re: (Score:2)
None of these carbon capture schemes work nor are they supposed to.
Wikipedia states that it's a 50-68% reduction. It's not perfect, but that's a huge reduction. And because companies that create CO2 have an incentive to keep operating, they'll be aggressive in trying to improve those numbers.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It could be that CO2 emissions are the only thing staving off the next ice age.
It's not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the 100% only solution is to what? You claim zero carbon capture "schemes" work.
Personally I see this as a continuum. And just like everything recently, they're focusing on one detail they think is the most important. Spamming that message over and over. Ignoring anyone who asks questions or tries to think.
The solution is to shut them up. And FORCE a conversation. Or ignore them. Actively block them with laws.
Why is it that other people think they're allowed to pick and choose what other people th
Re: (Score:1)
I would certainly not give YOU the power to decide what can be advertised for. Putting people like you in charge is the fastest way to lose free speech. And to stifle innovation as well.
And yes, that is ad hominem. Because you seem to willfully ignore that there might be useful things in some of these carbon capture schemes. That detail they spam might be useful in combination with other ones and lead to a viable combination of technology. Schemes that are completely nonviable will fall through as soon as i
Re: Because as temperature is rise (Score:1)
Recycling efforts in the 1940s contributed directly to the successful war effort, recycling items like tin, nylon, rubber, cooking fats, and more.
Recycling itself is hardly a scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Trees absorb less CO2. That's because the way trees absorb CO2 is by pulling it in through little holes in themselves. They lose water through those holes too and so they can constrict them. So is temperatures rise causing them to lose more water they take in less CO2 because they're keeping the holes closed to save water.
Yeah but since there is more CO2 in the air they need to open those holes less so they can absorb the same amount of CO2 without losing water due to higher concentration of CO2.
So plants are now able to grow in desert areas where they weren't able to grow before!
CO2 is making Earth greener:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Well these things *can* work but the cynic in me thinks that this geothermal plant will end up being bought outright by a large company or they'll sell the carbon credits out on the open market for companies to buy. i.e. companies will pay a small inconvenience fee to greenwash their balance sheet and pretend they're carbon neutral.
Anyway to put this geothermal capture into perspective, Ireland emits 60 million tonnes of CO2 per year and this plant could capture 1/5th of it, assuming it worked. Which is bet
Re: Why not use trees? (Score:3)
Because trees die, and then get disposed of in some way. That way usually eventually involves releasing the CO2 again, either through burning or rotting.
Re: (Score:2)
Use the trees to make buildings, furniture, or any of a number of wooden items. The carbon is then captured in these items for a long time before they are burned or left to rot. Making wooden stuff and is going to capture carbon. We don't have to capture the carbon forever to reduce the CO2 in the air, we just need to put a delay in that cycle. The longer the delay the better so if we plan this out we can landfill the wood in ways that will lock that carbon away for a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
landfill the wood in ways that will lock that carbon away for a very long time.
Char it to charcoal and bury it in open pit ex-coal mines to complete the cycle!
Re: (Score:2)
fraud.
money spent but not spent what it was intended for.
so from my perspective.
money will be invested.
law suits will then follow.
all because dumb a***s will not plant a tree
Re: (Score:2)
Because trees die, and then get disposed of in some way.
Is there not significant demand for wooden furniture? Or you can simply bury the wood. But realistically there is enough demand for wood theres no need for that CO2 captured to be released.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
As with trees, the hemp eventually decomposes and releases the carbon back as CO2.
Whether hemp or trees or any other plant, you have to sequester it away permanently, for instance burying it in the ground, to keep the carbon out. That's actually what Nature did in the Caboniferrous Period, when dead plants were covered up and eventually turned into the coal we are now finally releasing back into the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
As with trees, the hemp eventually decomposes and releases the carbon back as CO2.
So? Just increase the total area under crop.
GROW MORE POT!
Re: Why not use trees? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hempcrete (a hemp/lime composite) purportedly has a net sequestration rate of 108kg CO2/M3. See the hempcrete site [hempcrete.com.au]. If this is replacing conventional concrete, hundreds of kgs more. I know, it is weird this company is shipping the hemp from France with that added transport CO2, but that is not integral to its production.
There was also a light-weight cement using granulated automotive tyres that replaces conventional aggregate being developed at RMIT [rmit.edu.au].
Re: Why not use trees? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment the best use of geothermal is to replace fossil fuel plants, so that the CO2 isn't emitted in the first place.
The best way to capture CO2 is at the source, i.e. the emissions from fossil fuel plants.
Sucking it out of the atmosphere is going to have much less impact than those two things, although we will want to do it anyway at some point. Powering it will likely be wind and solar, creating demand for the excess energy they produce when other sources of demand are low.
Re: (Score:2)
These are technically solvable & generally beneficial solutions for the vast majority of people on this planet. The problems aren't technological, they're political. Corporations & minority special interests are making it very difficult for our political leaders to enact effective policies &
Re: (Score:2)
Nope (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Nope (Score:2)
The real question is, will it cost less than climate change will cost, because thatâ(TM)s when governments will pay attention.
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense. If that was the case climate change would have been dealt with by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon capture is silly nonsense. Trying to remove carbon from the atmosphere is like removing a few drops of water from the ocean.
It's not that hopeless. With a big effort we could remove a few bucketfuls!
Geothermal is one of the real alternatives. (Score:2)
Unfortunately it hasn't gotten the hype that solar and wind have. I guess there were never enough politically connected people who stood to profit from it.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil and gas crowd continue to get a whole lot more of that sweet taxpayer's money than the renewables guys though.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil and gas crowd continue to get a whole lot more of that sweet taxpayer's money than the renewables guys though.
Here in Australia the right wing media loves to give it to disabled and unemployed welfare recipients. The joke is that mining companies get more in tax breaks for diesel fuel alone than the budget for those living with welfare payments.
Re: (Score:1)
Right wing media loves giving money to disabled and unemployed welfare recipients? What are your left wing media like?
Re: (Score:2)
I have a crazy idea (Score:2)
How about we use that "earth heat" to generate power that otherwise needs fossil fuels that produce CO2? You know, cut out that middle man.
Re:I have a crazy idea (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we use that "earth heat" to generate power that otherwise needs fossil fuels that produce CO2?
Congrats! If you'd read the summary, you'd see that they proposed doing exactly that:
" it will be a way to produce carbon-free electricity, while reducing CO2 in the atmosphere at the same time.
...Even after generating electricity, most geothermal plants have a lot of waste heat — often clocking in around 212 degrees. And conveniently, that happens to be the exact temperature needed to pull carbon dioxide out of an air filter and bury it underground.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that 212 Celsius? Seems like there would be more efficient things to do with it, like district heating/hot water, or just running more low temperature steam generators. I guess if the plant is far from anywhere that can use the heat directly it makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that 212 Celsius? Seems like there would be more efficient things to do with it, like district heating/hot water, or just running more low temperature steam generators. I guess if the plant is far from anywhere that can use the heat directly it makes sense.
Until you asked the question, my assumption was that it's Fahrenheit. 212F is the boiling point of water, which also makes it pretty close to the condensing point of steam. My guess is that after the steam has spent much of its energy turning turbines, it would have just enough energy left to be barely-boiling water.
Even at that, water at 212F would be good for heating buildings if they can minimize both the heat loss in transit and the energy required to pump it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, that makes sense. You can tell I don't use imperial measures.
0.1% solved (Score:3)
The article notes a study which found that if air capture were combined with all the geothermal plants currently in America, the country "could suck up around 12.8 million tons of carbon dioxide every year."
This is a thousands of worldwide emissions. We will need to scale a lot to get a significant impact.
Re: (Score:2)
The article notes a study which found that if air capture were combined with all the geothermal plants currently in America, the country "could suck up around 12.8 million tons of carbon dioxide every year."
This is a thousands of worldwide emissions. We will need to scale a lot to get a significant impact.
Currently, geothermal energy accounts for about 0.4% of US electrical energy production, and less than 1% world wide. Scale that up significantly and you can start talking about this having potential to be a part of a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
The removal of CO2 can be sold as carbon credits, funding the plant and making geothermal more economically viable in areas where it otherwise wouldn't be. That in turn displaces fossil fuel generation, reducing emissions.
No, but... (Score:2)
That form of geothermal... (Score:2)
I will design an EV running on an AAA battery (Score:2)
Can I have a grant too now? Or a pony?
No, they won't. (Score:2)
What is that rule that points out that if an article title asks a question the most likely answer is no?
The primary goal of any entity is to preserve its existence. To preserve the existence of a for-profit corporation means making a profit. Direct air capture of carbon could make sense if that carbon could be somehow sold at a profit. One possible means of doing so is to use the carbon that is captured to produce hydrocarbons for sale. People like hydrocarbons, mostly as a fuel but also as lubricants a
Re: (Score:2)
Locking the carbon away into a geological feature is not going to be profitable.
Companies are already doing it. They have an incentive to stay in business, so it's worthwhile. Grants will add motivation, though.
Anyone have the chemical reaction? (Score:2)
I'm amazed that on slashdot we're skipping the formula and chemical names for the actual process that is supposedly a cure for what ails us.
No, I'm not going to click through and see if they gave the minute amount of actual detail that might matter.
Climeworks (Score:2)
From the description, it sounds like they're pretty much copying Climeworks [wikipedia.org].
If only it ran on cow farts! (Score:2)
That's the dream.
Futility personified (Score:2)
'The article notes a study which found that if air capture were combined with all the geothermal plants currently in America, the country "could suck up around 12.8 million tons of carbon dioxide every year."'
US emits about 5 billion tons a year. China about 11 billion and rising. World emits about 37 billion and rising.
These guys should just show they can generate electricity cost effectively and reliably. Show they can drill to that depth and operate. And do whatever will pay for itself with the exces
Betteridge's Law Of Headlines applies here (Score:2)
"No, they probably can't."
Carbon sequestration only works at scale if you have abundant free electricity. If we had abundant free electricity, we wouldn't be in this mess!
And in other news from planet earth.... (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Leading the world in tackling climate change.
How many holes? (Score:2)