PowerSwitch

https://tatachemicalseurope.com/ecokarb

Part of the emissions from the power plant stack at Tata Chemicals in Cheshire are now diverted to the new carbon capture plant.
This removes CO2 from the fumes and liquifies it - the captured CO2 is stored before being used to make Sodium Bicarbonate.....

Seems like a win-win

It depends on whether the bicarb is sequestered somewhere that it won't return to CO2 or not. If the bicarb is used for food use, say, it can't be considered as sequestration as the CO2 returns to the atmosphere almost immediately.

Sodium Carbonate (Soda Ash) and Sodium Bicarbonate have been made on this site for nearly 150yrs - a big customer was traditionally the glass making industry in St Helens. Like a lot of UK industry, the site wasn't invested in and is old and knackered. It was part of ICI for many years, but divested and sold on, eventually to Tata. Think they've struggled to compete with cheap foreign imports for bulk/commodity business, so they now look to produce higher end specialty products.

According to their blurb, the high purity 'Ecokarb' sodium bicarbonate will be used in the pharmaceutical industry and other EP/USP applications.
Sodium Bicarbonate is also used in food, toothpaste, haemodialysis, animal feed, flue gas treatment systems etc.

kenneal - lagger wrote: ↑27 Sep 2021, 02:48 It depends on whether the bicarb is sequestered somewhere that it won't return to CO2 or not. If the bicarb is used for food use, say, it can't be considered as sequestration as the CO2 returns to the atmosphere almost immediately.

Baking soda (Sodium Bicarbonate) is widely used in baking, so I guess it ends in the sewers ?
People aren't going to stop eating cakes for the climate - it's hard enough asking them to stop eating red meat...

Never really thought about it before, but I guess the CO2 used in fizzy drinks ends up as methane ?

The baking soda used in baking is converted back to CO2 during cooking, the gas bubbles are what makes the cakes rise.

The CO2 in fizzy drinks vents to atmosphere as CO2.

So it is only a carbon capture plant with no storage. It has absolutely no benefit for the climate then and is really not a worthy news item: vaguely interesting at most.

kenneal - lagger wrote: ↑28 Sep 2021, 14:41 So it is only a carbon capture plant with no storage. It has absolutely no benefit for the climate then and is really not a worthy news item: vaguely interesting at most.

They call it a Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU) plant.
I guess it will replace CO2 from other sources, which will have to have been made/transported.
Perhaps not an earth shattering impact, but making use of a 'waste' product that otherwise would go directly to atmosphere.
Whilst we still need/use pharmaceuticals, bakery goods, toothpaste, haemodialysis products, animal feed, flue gas treatment systems etc., we will still need to make/import Sodium Bicarbonate....

Better that it's made in the UK with reduced environmental impact ??

New research center will find solutions to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and convert it into valuable raw materials:
https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/ne ... materials/

Quite a bit of research going in this direction at the moment....

Mark wrote: ↑30 Sep 2021, 13:39 New research center will find solutions to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and convert it into valuable raw materials:
https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/ne ... materials/

Quite a bit of research going in this direction at the moment....

Yep, it's a useful distraction from actually reducing carbon burn. You can *seriously* research such things and convince yourself (and your government etc) that you are doing great things to address climate change.

clv101 wrote: ↑30 Sep 2021, 13:42

Mark wrote: ↑30 Sep 2021, 13:39 New research center will find solutions to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and convert it into valuable raw materials:
https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/ne ... materials/

Quite a bit of research going in this direction at the moment....

Yep, it's a useful distraction from actually reducing carbon burn. You can *seriously* research such things and convince yourself (and your government etc) that you are doing great things to address climate change.

The trouble is that MPs will jump at this sort of thing as it adds to growth and produces more jobs, even when we probably already have too many. Growth and economists still rule the roost, unfortunately. Until they can be unseated the world is doomed I'm afraid.

I can see where you're both coming from, but personally, I'd rather see R&D money spent on this type of thing rather than a whole multitude of other areas. Of course, the priority still needs to be to get away from burning carbon, but we all know there's still an awful long way to go with that...

Whilst we still buy/use 'stuff', we will still have the industrial processes that make 'stuff'.

I would prefer to see most R+D cancelled and money spent instead on fitting PV modules to existing public buildings, and on the erection of wind turbines in suitable places.

Pv modules are a mature technology, available right now, and easy to install. A million pounds spent on PV will produce a worthwhile return, a million pounds on most research simply consumes money and energy.

I recall for example a local authority spending money on "research into renewable energy" Did they really expect to discover anything new or useful ?

Local and national government need "more doing" and less talking, even if the talking is called research.

Proportionally, local and national governments spend very little on R&D.

Percentage of global research and development spending in 2018, by industry:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270 ... -industry/

Computing & Electronics - 22.5%
Healthcare - 21.7%
Auto - 16%
Software & Internet- 15.7%
Industrials - 10.6%
Chemicals & Energy - 4.1%
Consumer - 3.2%
Aerospace & Defence - 2.8%
Other - 1.9%
Telecom - 1.5%

It very much depends on what the R&D is going to....
Do we really need better Aerospace & Defence - I would say not, but in reality this will be the last to go....
Do we really need more/better/quicker/smaller computers, electronics, software, internet etc. - probably not
Do we need better medicines and cars - probably, in some areas (eg COVID vaccines, electric vehicles)

The amount spent on researching energy is relatively small.
Personally I think Energy R&D is important, but it obviously needs to be directed in the right areas (eg batteries, wave power etc.)

I have posted on the Electrical thread two instances where research is bringing new and better battery technology to market. These could greatly enhance the use of renewable energy and reduce the need for fossil fuel use and even nuclear power so research does have its uses.

I would be happy to see research where there are quantifiable benefits but I would suspect that most research monies are spent on salaries for research that gets quietly put on the shelf after the person or team has finished the project.

I think the UK could do some useful research on energy storage and types of power that a suitable for the UK such as tidal and offshore wind. Sadly the UK did not commercialise its wind research in the 1970s and got stuck buying Danish, Spanish and German made wind turbines as a result.

Sea defences might be another area of useful research.