Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Carbon .. Capture?

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Random Banter Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

st3v3
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:54 - 17 May 2022    Post subject: Carbon .. Capture? Reply with quote

I think I had an idea.

Nobody i've spoken to about carbon capture seems to really get either how it is do-able on a small scale or how to find out what existing ways are adaptable.

I thought about making a way for cars, vans, lorries, trains etc to capture it as they go about their daily routine.
Does anyone here work in industries using it?; like I read that it's already a big part of the food & drinks industry but how?
I know there was a Co2 shortage a while back and soft drinks companies were getting anxious but that seems to be okay again?

How do they get their supplies? Where does the Co2 come from?
____________________
Roger wrote: Women don't get damp for clingy puppies. Get some better happy pills, hit the gym & buy a medallion the size of a dinner plate. Job done
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Nobby the Bastard
Harley Gaydar



Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:13 - 17 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

Byproduct of the production of fertiliser if I remember correctly.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kawasaki Jimbo
World Chat Champion



Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:45 - 17 May 2022    Post subject: Re: Carbon .. Capture? Reply with quote

st3v3 wrote:
I think I had an idea.

I thought about making a way for cars, vans, lorries, trains etc to capture (CO2) as they go about their daily routine.


Collect it?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0552315/mediaviewer/rm1907648256/?ref_=tt_ov_i

Why has no one thought of this before..?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Nobby the Bastard
Harley Gaydar



Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:51 - 17 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shooting at overhead planes by thr troops inside will puncture it, stupid boy!
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:21 - 17 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

So kind of like a reverse turbo. The more you rev the engine, the more power it sucks from the car?

The main fault with this idea is having captured the carbon dioxide, using it for something is in no way reducing carbon emissions. The big problem with carbon capture is what the hell do you do with it once you've captured it? The ideal thing would be to precipitate it into a stable solid and use it as a building material but that takes more energy again.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

bhinso
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:12 - 18 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

Outsource it to Scotland.

Along with XR.

Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

A100man
World Chat Champion



Joined: 19 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:37 - 18 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nobby the Bastard wrote:
Byproduct of the production of fertiliser if I remember correctly.


..and beer/wine
____________________
Now: A100, GT250A, XJ598, FZ750

Then: Fizz, RS200, KL250, XJ550, Laverda Alpina, XJ600, FZS600
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

c_dug
Super Spammer



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:22 - 18 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

I worked in the Science Museum until very recently and we had an interesting exhibition on Carbon Capture, a bit on the small side but it does explain quite a lot about the technology as it stands, and the limitations for progress in the field - it's open until September if you're in London https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/see-and-do/our-future-planet

From memory there are a few different technologies in development, most produce a white powdery substance that looks a bit like sand which is the captured carbon.

Again from memory I think on display is a concrete core made using the captured carbon as an aggregate. Of course Concrete is one of the most polluting materials we make in volume, so this is a little self defeating.
____________________
I am a bellend, I am a man of constant sorrow, I am a gummy bear, I am a rock.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

bhinso
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:28 - 18 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just don't see the point in investing a relatively large amount of £ in order to save the level of pollution China probably spits out in a picosecond.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

ThunderGuts
World Chat Champion



Joined: 13 Nov 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:30 - 18 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

c_dug wrote:

Again from memory I think on display is a concrete core made using the captured carbon as an aggregate. Of course Concrete is one of the most polluting materials we make in volume, so this is a little self defeating.


Technically it's the cement that's the largest carbon footprint in concrete and there are alternatives in use now, e.g. GGBS (ground granulated blast furnace slag) which is a by-product of the steel industry, albeit we can't completely replace cement with it just yet. There is a lot of work in the concrete world to make concrete lower carbon (including carbon capture on cement works, plus polymer concretes that do away with cement entirely).

The sand/fine aggregate does sound interesting. The size and properties of it would be particularly interesting as good quality aggregate is become scarcer and sand is often dredged from the seabed; any product that could provide a high quality substitute would be very useful.

The carbon capture solutions I've heard of embed the carbon into large blocks/containers from memory, with the intention of dropping them into the sea (!). It is, however, still moving a problem around.
____________________
TG.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

st3v3
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:48 - 18 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

stinkwheel wrote:
So kind of like a reverse turbo. The more you rev the engine, the more power it sucks from the car?
Actually no, though I'm not intelligent enough to have thought like that Laughing

stinkwheel wrote:
The main fault with this idea is having captured the carbon dioxide, using it for something is in no way reducing carbon emissions. The big problem with carbon capture is what the hell do you do with it once you've captured it? The ideal thing would be to precipitate it into a stable solid and use it as a building material but that takes more energy again.
I agree that capturing released carbon isn't reducing emissions in the first place but talking in context of the thread on here about fancy cars and electric making ICE redundant; if every vehicle that moved was taking Co2 out of the air, the planet wouldn't be burning itself alive and the shift to EVs wouldn't be anywhere near as pressing.
We could enjoy V8s a bit longer without the Greenpeace guilt trip.

c_dug wrote:
I worked in the Science Museum until very recently and we had an interesting exhibition on Carbon Capture, a bit on the small side but it does explain quite a lot about the technology as it stands, and the limitations for progress in the field - it's open until September if you're in London https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/see-and-do/our-future-planet
Handy, i'm at Wembley in July or August so will be looking into that. Thumbs Up

ThunderGuts wrote:

The carbon capture solutions I've heard of embed the carbon into large blocks/containers from memory, with the intention of dropping them into the sea (!). It is, however, still moving a problem around.
Not sure moving it around is a problem, the problem is it being active in the atmosphere.
If we've got breeze block sized chunk of the stuff buried in the depths of uncharted ocean or locked underground in the Sahara then how is it a problem?
It's similar to Nuclear waste in that regard? ..No?

The problem is I can't get a legit contact with any company doing this stuff, I already emailed a local uni who are advertising a successful project along these lines but them professors be busy people.

Also, why the feck haven't most governments by now agreed that they could build capture stations disguised as tower blocks and have 2 or 3 in every city? Surely a 7-10 storey structure quietly sucking Co2 from the air throughout the day is a positive thing?
____________________
Roger wrote: Women don't get damp for clingy puppies. Get some better happy pills, hit the gym & buy a medallion the size of a dinner plate. Job done
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Robby
Dirty Old Man



Joined: 16 May 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:25 - 18 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

CO2 is CO2, the source doesn't matter.

So pilot carbon capture plants are aimed at fossil fuel power stations, where a lot of CO2 is made. They're very big. I haven't looked at the number recently, but ~7 years they were expecting to burn an extra 30% more fuel to run the carbon capture plant. This is still the most efficient way of doing carbon capture.

Carbon capture direct from the air is significantly more expensive and energy intensive. You're trying to pull out a trace gas, whereas in the exhaust of a gas power plant CO2 is a significant factor.

To do this on a moving vehicle, you would need the chemistry set fitted to separate the CO2 from the other gases. Then the power to run it. It would be far cheaper, lighter and more efficient to have an electric car.

If your idea involved just capturing everything coming out of the tailpipe for processing later, bear in mind that a 1L car running at 3000 rpm is pumping about 1500 litres of air through the engine every minute. About 75% of that is nitrogen.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 00:30 - 19 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is chemistry. Carbon dioxide is a very stable, low energy state molecule. In the case of the stuff we are producing, the energy has already been removed from the hydrocarbons. In order to make it something that's NOT cabon dioxide, you have to apply energy.

The best form of carbon capture is plants. They use a solar powered proton pump to break apart carbon dioxide and turn it into sugar. Then they stick the sugar together to make it into wood. It did occurr to me that probably the most efficient means of atmospheric carbon capture would be algae farms. Unless someone comes up with a way of making large scale synthetic chloroplasts.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Easy-X
Super Spammer



Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:21 - 19 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

We already have a system of carbon capture: they're called plants. Grow more plants Rolling Eyes

Obviously there's more to it than that:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

TBH CO2 isn't really important. A rise in levels might kill us in a thousand years or so. Particulates and Nitrogen Oxides are killing ppl right now Sad
____________________
Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

st3v3
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:28 - 30 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robby wrote:

Carbon capture direct from the air is significantly more expensive and energy intensive. You're trying to pull out a trace gas, whereas in the exhaust of a gas power plant CO2 is a significant factor.
That's the thing, I don't think it needs to be.

Na forget the exhaust, focus on the trace gas (I presume this also means minority?) part of the problem, from what i've read the carbon parts of environmental gas/air is something that can be bottled, heated and seperated?

Why aren't we reverse engineering this process? There must be a simple way of filtering out carbon dioxide from the other gases it mixes with?


How much energy does it take for oxygen to be concentrated into tanks for hospital patients?

stinkwheel wrote:
The problem is chemistry. Carbon dioxide is a very stable, low energy state molecule. In the case of the stuff we are producing, the energy has already been removed from the hydrocarbons. In order to make it something that's NOT carbon dioxide, you have to apply energy.
Let's keep it as carbon dioxide, so we don't need to waste energy converting it initially; there has to be an easy way to make (mostly) blocks or cylinders of the stuff?

If there is a way to do that on a domestic level, the world changes?
____________________
Roger wrote: Women don't get damp for clingy puppies. Get some better happy pills, hit the gym & buy a medallion the size of a dinner plate. Job done
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

c_dug
Super Spammer



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:04 - 30 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

st3v3 wrote:
Let's keep it as carbon dioxide, so we don't need to waste energy converting it initially; there has to be an easy way to make (mostly) blocks or cylinders of the stuff?

If there is a way to do that on a domestic level, the world changes?


Carbon Dioxide in its solid state is better known as Dry Ice, the stuff they use for fancy smoke effects amongst other things. It needs to be cooled to not far off of -80°c which takes a huge amount of energy to achieve, and then it needs to be kept there, which takes a huge amount of energy to sustain. "Huge" relatively, as in, in you'll generate more carbon dioxide than you'll capture.
____________________
I am a bellend, I am a man of constant sorrow, I am a gummy bear, I am a rock.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Nobby the Bastard
Harley Gaydar



Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:06 - 30 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

st3v3 wrote:
Let's keep it as carbon dioxide, so we don't need to waste energy converting it initially; there has to be an easy way to make (mostly) blocks or cylinders of the stuff?

If there is a way to do that on a domestic level, the world changes?


You cannot do it without adding energy. Thats wht trees need sunlight.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

ThunderGuts
World Chat Champion



Joined: 13 Nov 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:28 - 30 May 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

c_dug wrote:
st3v3 wrote:
Let's keep it as carbon dioxide, so we don't need to waste energy converting it initially; there has to be an easy way to make (mostly) blocks or cylinders of the stuff?

If there is a way to do that on a domestic level, the world changes?


Carbon Dioxide in its solid state is better known as Dry Ice, the stuff they use for fancy smoke effects amongst other things. It needs to be cooled to not far off of -80°c which takes a huge amount of energy to achieve, and then it needs to be kept there, which takes a huge amount of energy to sustain. "Huge" relatively, as in, in you'll generate more carbon dioxide than you'll capture.


In theory actually you liberate energy when you cool something down and you liberate even more when it changes from gas to liquid to solid (enthalpy change). The opposite is true and more obvious; you need energy to vapourise a liquid, e.g. water. Unfortunately, when cooling something down, extracting the energy completely efficiently is where the energy cost comes in, it's not that the process doesn't release energy, it's just we haven't found a way to do it without it consuming an awful lot at the same time. Incidentally, that's essentially what air-source (or ground-source/water-source) heat pumps do, they cool down the surrounding air/water/ground to extract the energy and feed it into your heating system.

Back to topic though, the form of carbon storage really needs to be something that is stable in the long term without the need for specialist storage and/or ongoing maintenance. I suspect converting carbon dioxide into pure carbon would be ideal, but again we're back to massive energy required because as stinkwheel says, CO2 is very stable and requires a lot of energy to break the bonds.

I like the idea of massive amounts of photosynthesis. Who knows, maybe we'll refine the idea one day to produce sugar (i.e. a food source) more directly through a biochemical reaction rather than via plants, it'll then kill two birds with one stone, remove CO2 and produce food at the same time (albeit a basic food, but it's still something useful).
____________________
TG.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Robby
Dirty Old Man



Joined: 16 May 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:26 - 01 Jun 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

There isn't a really simple way to filter the CO2 out of air. There are lots of ways of doing, but all of them require a fair amount of energy. One of the simplest is just getting the air really cold. CO2 will condense and drop out at -78c, where oxygen and nitrogen and still quite happy being gases.

As for storage, one possibility is used-up natural gas wells. They did a good of keeping the gas stored away for millions of years, so should be able to hold the CO2 with acceptable levels of leakage. It doesn't need holding for millions of years this time, just to leak out at a slow enough rate to be manageable.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:31 - 01 Jun 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

ThunderGuts wrote:
I suspect converting carbon dioxide into pure carbon would be ideal, but again we're back to massive energy required because as stinkwheel says, CO2 is very stable and requires a lot of energy to break the bonds.


Yes, you'd need at least as much as you got from burning the carbon to produce the carbon dioxide initially, you'd be turning the waste back into a fuel (effectively charcoal).

Plants and microorganisms are the answer. They are what made all the fuels we're burning in the first place.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:39 - 01 Jun 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

st3v3 wrote:

How much energy does it take for oxygen to be concentrated into tanks for hospital patients?


A huge amount. You effectively compress the air and pass it repeatedly through a kind of seive that holds ontosome of the the nitrogen but allows the oxygen to pass through. Then you vent the nitorgen and pass the slightly more concentrated oxygen through again. Repeat until the nitrogen is gone. The compressor uses a lot of power, it releases a lot of that energy as heat (which in turn takes more energy to remove) because it repeatedly compresses and decompresses the gas until pure oxygen comes out of the other end.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Nobby the Bastard
Harley Gaydar



Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:14 - 01 Jun 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is why a catalyst is used on cars and why it's unrealistic to do it on a small scale. Once you get to power station level you can at least make the plant as efficient as possible but carbon capture before we have fusion is wholly unrealistic.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Robby
Dirty Old Man



Joined: 16 May 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:34 - 03 Jun 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nobby the Bastard wrote:
Once you get to power station level you can at least make the plant as efficient as possible but carbon capture before we have fusion is wholly unrealistic.


It's entirely possible, I was looking at bids to do it 15 years ago with the science and engineering all worked out. The major downsides were fuel burn - about 30% more on the pilot projects to run the carbon capture plant - and the cost of building and operating the carbon capture plant, which were high but not building a nuclear power station high.
Also storing the captured CO2. That bit was (is) still theoretical, and there was going to a lot of it. Tanker loads of fuel in, tanker loads of CO2 out.

Then politics and economics killed it, or at least slowed it down until the next election, when the new guys didn't give a shit.

Right now, battery storage for renewables seems to be going the same way. Not doing it because it would add to electricity bills, while a fairly small hiccup in the global supply of natural gas adds a hell of a lot more to electricity bills.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

st3v3
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:48 - 05 Jun 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nobby the Bastard wrote:


You cannot do it without adding energy. Thats why trees need sunlight.
No but surely the trick is to not use man-made energy?
If we can use a process which is natural but not necessarily naturally occurring in a particular way?
It's us cheating, but if it doesn't add to the problem who cares?

stinkwheel wrote:
st3v3 wrote:

How much energy does it take for oxygen to be concentrated into tanks for hospital patients?


A huge amount. You effectively compress the air and pass it repeatedly through a kind of seive that holds ontosome of the the nitrogen but allows the oxygen to pass through. Then you vent the nitorgen and pass the slightly more concentrated oxygen through again. Repeat until the nitrogen is gone. The compressor uses a lot of power, it releases a lot of that energy as heat (which in turn takes more energy to remove) because it repeatedly compresses and decompresses the gas until pure oxygen comes out of the other end.
Why is this okay - or at least not mentioned by anyone anywhere especially climate groups?
Sure we need pure oxygen medically to help out but we need excess carbon alot less to stop the planet wiping us out before it heals itself.


So my question really needs to be, is there an efficient way to sieve out Co2 as it blows around in the wind?
____________________
Roger wrote: Women don't get damp for clingy puppies. Get some better happy pills, hit the gym & buy a medallion the size of a dinner plate. Job done
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Robby
Dirty Old Man



Joined: 16 May 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:31 - 06 Jun 2022    Post subject: Reply with quote

st3v3 wrote:

So my question really needs to be, is there an efficient way to sieve out Co2 as it blows around in the wind?


Not efficient enough.

From what I can see, the various processes for removing CO2 from the air are fairly mechanical - things like cryogenic removal or high pressure osmosis. In such processes, efficiency comes from incremental improvements in various parts of the machinery.

What you appear to be looking for is a revolutionary improvement from using a catalyst to dramatically reduce the energy requirements using clever chemistry. I can't find any evidence of such a thing being found, but there is the usual frothing about carbon nanotubes, same as on any emerging technology.

It would make sense for the planet to do what you were suggesting earlier in the thread - basically build a load of air-source carbon capture plants in cities with solar panels on the roof. My utopian preference would be to somehow incorporate the technology into heat pumps, seeing as they already have a lot of the bits required fitted. The issue as ever is cost and efficiency. It's only worth doing at all if the energy being used to do carbon capture is green in the first place. The UK is currently still producing about 50% of its electricity from fossil fuels.

So a better use for the money right now is in building wind turbines, solar panels and battery storage, and insulating homes.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 1 year, 296 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Random Banter All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.12 Sec - Server Load: 0.09 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 148.15 Kb