I’m all for a smart CO2 trading system, but the alternative is I suppose the kind of horrible failed government program that cleaned up the Cuyahoga River, dramatically reduced smog in U.S. cities, reduced lead poisoning in the environment (possibly the cause of the dramatic drop in crime in the U.S. in the last two decades) and other similar horrible failures?
[Bolding Mine] Renewable energy is not free. It usually has a very high fixed cost and annual maintenance costs are not trivial.
Regardless of how you feel about alternate power sources this EPA action just set in motion some HUGE capital costs that will be needed to refurbish or replace the majority of electric energy production facilities in the USA. Clean air is a valiant goal but let’s not fool ourselves. Rebuilding the electric power infrastructure is going to cost us dearly.
Whatever your personal budget is for electric power consider this summer the good ol’ days.
Just how are you planning on capturing it? If chemically, then you’re at best using most of the energy you got from burning it in the first place to produce the needed chemicals. If you’re putting it in some sort of container, then where do you put the containers, what do you do when they fill up, and how do you prevent them from leaking? Plus you’ll probably need to put energy into pumping them up to pressure, unless you’re storing it at atmospheric pressure, in which case your storage requirements are that much larger.
BubbaDog, you’re right that all of these infrastructure upgrades are going to be expensive, in the short term at least. But in the long term, not putting them in is going to be far more expensive.
Has anyone done research into generating renewable energy with the intention of storing it for later use?
I understand that transmission loss is a huge factor so generating energy using renewable sources in the obvious places, e.g. solar in the sahara, wind in the prairies etc can be unrealistic. But what if we generated electricity in order to electrolyze water to generate hydrogen. The hydrogen can then be transported to be used where and more importantly when it is needed.
There are some hard problems to solve, like how to transport the hydrogen* and setting up hydrogen generation facilities in necessarily inhospitable places, but the problems are not insurmountable IMHO.
*Airships!
There are many ways of doing it. One way that has been done for over a century is making Urea:
CO2 + 2NH3 ----> CO(NH2)2 + H2O
Another way is to make sodium bicarbonate.
The other way is to use the CO2 for EOR (enhanced oil recovery). This is what Dakota gasification does to their CO2 which is used in Canada.
CO2 pipelines operate at around 2000 to 2500psi range. Thats the pressure it will be stored at too. Its a liquid (or for scientific types - supercritical fluid) at these pressures.
The above methods are economically sound but they can only account for a fraction of the CO2 produced today. The real challenge is to store the vast amount of CO2 into underground formations and you are right there are possibilities of leakages. In all probability you will store it as a liquid.
As a side note : CO2 capture is the process of separating CO2 out of plant exhaust streams (most contain high levels of N2). CO2 sequestration is the process of storing CO2 underground.
Also - as far as pressure goes, IGCC plants have pre-combustion CO2 capture - which is already at a high pressure.
OK, so where do you get all that ammonia, or whatever sodium compound you’re using to make baking soda?
I detect a note of sarcasm there. Please note that I am an immigrant to the US and do not subscribe to the idealogies of big government or small government. I believe in effective government regardless of size. Besides - this is GQ.
There is evidence to believe that renewable energy will play a bigger part in the future energy mix of the world. However, it will still be small and fossil fuels would have a bigger share. The point I am making is to invest in these fossil fuel generation system to improve their efficiency and not just invest in renewables.
My points are based purely on the basis of engineering and economic studies that I have personally been involved.
CO2 has many commercial uses, such in welding, beverages, and sports equipment(Paintball). Could the captured CO2 be sold to offset the costs of this program?
Edit: Fire extinguishers and dry ice, too.
Ammonia (NH3) from Coal
C + H2O + O2 ----> CO + CO2 + H2 (Gasification)
CO + H2O ----> H2 + CO2 (Shift Reaction)
3H2 + N2 --------> 2 NH3 (Haber’s reaction)
For baking soda
CO2 + H2O + NaCl –> NaHCO3 + H2 + Cl2 - read more here
Again - the above are very niche applications and only take care of a very very small fraction of the CO2 generated today.
Let’s say we use scrubbers. How much CO2 are we actually talking about storing?
ETA: I guess that sort of ties into boffking’s question.
Yearly production is 2000 million metric tons so coal plants produce ~1500 million tons of CO2.
Thats a very small application. The USA generates around 4.5 million thousand metric tons (yes it is million thousand) per year
A typical beverage CO2 Plant is around a 1000 metric tons/year. Assume 50 states have 50 each of those and even then you have 2500 thousand metric tons / year.
So 2500 versus 4.5 million !!
So, other than existing applications all we can do is store it? There’s nothing we could turn it into (that wouldn’t require more energy than it generated in the first place, obviously)?
Pretty much!
There are niche applications like I mentioned : Urea, methanol, EOR - but these can only account for a small fraction.
Could you mix it with something to create a solid? Like, for building material?
Not really. You can make CaCO3 (Calcium Carbonate - Chalk) or Na2CO3( Soda) by reacting it with CaOH (lime) or NaOH (caustic) - but then CaOH is produced by calcining (heating at high temperature) of CaCO3 and NaOH is produced by electrolysing seat water. So the net result is more CO2 in the air.
One of the class of materials being studied to keep CO2 in the “solid” state is Metal Organic Frameworks. Read here. These are currently extremely expensive and have limited potential
Thank you. That was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Off to read.
Yes. This is the holy grail for energy. All big corporations (from Oil companies to power equipment makers) have huge investments in this. And the government has invested a lot too. Good results have been elusive so far.
Oh Boy! that was the idea of the hydrogen economy about 10-20 years back which fizzled out once the infrastructure costs were considered.
My friend - in my engineering career, I have found that upfront costs rule (or come very close to it). Here is some human perspective for you with respect to upfront costs :
1> Look how Villagers in the Shandong Province of China take risks and carry gas for cooking - here and here
2> In Nigeria 74% of households rely on fuelwood or charcoal for cooking and only about 50% of homes have electricity. Source. Nigeria is also one of the biggest gas flaring (they just burn off the gas) countries in the world and loses around $2.5 billion per year. Source
3> Closer to Home - Look at this satellite pictureof the Bakken field before and after. Thats the equivalent of more than $100 million per month - just flared in the air. The amount of gas flared could heat a million homes or generate about 1,500 mw of electricity cite
If upfront costs were no factor - you would not have the stuff happening above.
That’s where you get a tiny fraction of the ammonia needed. Coal might provide plenty of ammonia for our present ammonia needs, but it can’t come anywhere remotely close to being enough to be useful for CO2 capture. You’d basically need to mine orders of magnitude more coal than you’re actually burning, just to provide the ammonia.