CCS for waste wood gasification plant

[Mark]

Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration facility to be developed at Ince Bio Power, the largest waste wood gasification plant in the UK.

Cheshire plant wins government funding to pioneer ‘green’ technology:
https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwe ... technology

[kenneal - lagger]

This is just the latest in a run of these things. The problem is it keeps up hope for the fossil fuel industry that they might be able to carry on polluting.

[clv101]

A few points on CCS:

The CO2 from burning fossil fuel is approximately 3.7 larger in mass thanks to all the extra oxygen atoms.
At standard temperature and pressure, it is approximately 1000 x more voluminous as it's a gas (rather than a solid/liquid... natural gas complicates the figure a bit but you get the idea. It doesn't 'fit'.
The CO2 is also dilute, highly so in the atmosphere, or from the exhaust from a billion engines. Compared to fossil fuel that just sits there waiting to be literally picked up or pumped.

These three points all involve large amounts of energy, to move, to squash, to capture the CO2.

The fossil fuel industry is the biggest industry we have - made possible by the VAST *free lunch* energy payback associated with fossil fuels.

The idea that we could build a parallel system, larger than the existing fossil fuel industry to capture and sequester the CO2 from fossil fuels is energy blind, it's a nonsense. There literally isn't the energy budget to do it. The idea we can afford it, with currency, maybe raised from carbon taxes or something is physically illiterate.

CCS is a myth, every bit as daft as migrating to Mars.

[kenneal - lagger]

Our problem is that the economists and politicians promoting it have no concept of EROEI or Net Energy and so as long as they think that it can be made to work on a monetary basis it must work any way.

There are a few economists who do understand EROEI and net energy and their consequences for the economy but they don't give out the positive message that politicians want to hear so they are not listened too. Politicians will drag us down the drain still parroting the positive messages fed to them by their economist advisers.

[Catweazle]

CCS is a myth, every bit as daft as migrating to Mars.

I can only assume that most people have no idea about chemistry, and believe that you can separate the carbon from the oxygen using less energy than was released when they combined.

So, given that energy will be needed to separate the C from the O, the obvious method is to use sunlight and the wonders of plants, either by passing the CO2 through huge polytunnels full of plants or bubbling it through a bio "soup". All of which begs the question "why not simply use solar power to generate the electricity in the first place ?"

RGR had it right, use renewable electricity generation and use the oil as a feedstock for manufacturing.

[kenneal - lagger]

CCS is not about changing the chemistry of CO2 it's about compressing and potentially liquifying it so that it can be stored in former oil bearing strata deep underground at high pressure. The energy required to do that might not be the same as that required to chemically alter it but it is significant all the same.

[clv101]

Thanks to all the extra oxygen atoms, it doesn't fit. There is significantly more mass. It's far beyond simple compression.

[Catweazle]

Can we afford to start burying oxygen ?

https://www.oxygenlevels.org/atmospheri ... _graph.php

[clv101]

It's already unavailable as CO2, burying the CO2 would increase the atmospheric O2 partial pressure.

[Catweazle]

It's already unavailable as CO2, burying the CO2 would increase the atmospheric O2 partial pressure.

Plants can take the carbon and release the O2, as they have done since life evolved, but not if we bury it. I realise that the amount of O2 might be insignificant, but that's what people said about CO2 emissions.

[BritDownUnder]

It's already unavailable as CO2, burying the CO2 would increase the atmospheric O2 partial pressure.

Plants can take the carbon and release the O2, as they have done since life evolved, but not if we bury it. I realise that the amount of O2 might be insignificant, but that's what people said about CO2 emissions.

I think the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere (as O2 molecules) is 18% and proportion of CO2 (which by coincidence also contains the same amount of oxygen in its molecule as O2) is 0.04% so there is 450x as much oxygen in the atmosphere. It is just that that little bit of CO2 is causing a very big problem in global warming. Note we do need some CO2 to keep the average temperature of the earth's surface from being -18 Celsius - just not too much.

I read somewhere that is the oxygen proportion in the atmosphere reached about 25% then whole forests would begin to catch fire spontaneously. Higher proportions than that such as in 'oxygen tents' mean that special fabrics must be used. I think the Apollo 1 fire intensity was related to combusting plastics.

[kenneal - lagger]

I think that there might start to be problems if the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere drops below 16%, I think it is, as at the percentage things won't burn in the atmosphere. We can still breath OK at that percentage but we're safe from fires if a little cold during the winter.

[BritDownUnder]

I think the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere has been relatively stable for a long time and the fact that things wont burn below 16% and will spontaneously combust above 25% is somewhat regulating. There have been a few "Great Oxygenation Events" but with plants continually producing oxygen from water and burning of carbon containing materials to produce CO2 and water maybe there is something of a cycle. From what I recall CO2 can be taken by silicates converted to silica/carbonates and removed from the atmospheric cycle permanently making limestone and coral - until a volcano comes along.

I think Catweazle has nothing to worry about in that regard with an oxygen shortage. More danger from the global warming short term and sun becoming a red giant long term.

[Catweazle]

I think Catweazle has nothing to worry about in that regard with an oxygen shortage. More danger from the global warming short term and sun becoming a red giant long term.

I think you're right, it's a tiny amount of oxygen being removed. I do wonder whether simple creatures without complex respiration mechanisms might be affected.

[adam2]

CCS is a myth, every bit as daft as migrating to Mars.

I can only assume that most people have no idea about chemistry, and believe that you can separate the carbon from the oxygen using less energy than was released when they combined.

So, given that energy will be needed to separate the C from the O, the obvious method is to use sunlight and the wonders of plants, either by passing the CO2 through huge polytunnels full of plants or bubbling it through a bio "soup". All of which begs the question "why not simply use solar power to generate the electricity in the first place ?"

RGR had it right, use renewable electricity generation and use the oil as a feedstock for manufacturing.

"carbon capture and storage" as generally promoted does not involve separating the carbon from the oxygen, but instead the capture and burial of carbon dioxide.
The proposed process should more accurately be called "carbon DIOXIDE capture and storage" but that is too long a phrase for politicians and reporters.