US picks the first two sites for carbon-capture hubs
Up to $1.2 billion in funding for handling "legacy" carbon emissions.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/us-picks-the-first-two-sites-for-carbon-capture-hubs/

Useless money spending?

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 02:32:53 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

>US picks the first two sites for carbon-capture hubs
>Up to $1.2 billion in funding for handling "legacy" carbon emissions.
> https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/us-picks-the-first-two-sites-for-carbon-capture-hubs/
>
>Useless money spending?

That's crazy in so many ways.

On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 11:06:44 UTC+3, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:12:37 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 02:32:53 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid>
> > wrote:
> > >US picks the first two sites for carbon-capture hubs
> > >Up to $1.2 billion in funding for handling "legacy" carbon emissions.
> > > https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/us-picks-the-first-two-sites-for-carbon-capture-hubs/
> > >
> > >Useless money spending?
> >
> > That's crazy in so many ways.
> Not as crazy as continuing to burn fossil carbon as fuel when we know it is wrecking the climate.
>
> Tapering off is less painful than going cold turkey - the withdrawal symptoms would include a lot of deaths - but we really should be tapering off faster.
>
> John Larkin has been brainwashed into thinking that more CO2 in the air isn't damaging the climate, but that's mostly because he doesn't have a lot of brain to wash.
>
The two pilot projects (capturing 0.002 Gt annually) can not matter to US current
emission (~6 Gt annually). But one can't get anywhere without starting to go.

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:33:01 PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> US picks the first two sites for carbon-capture hubs
> Up to $1.2 billion in funding for handling "legacy" carbon emissions.
> https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/us-picks-the-first-two-sites-for-carbon-capture-hubs/
>
> Useless money spending?

"The ultimate goal is to cut the cost of capturing and storing a tonne of CO2 below $100 before a decade has expired." As James Hansen has pointed out on the basis of atomic weight argument, $100/t CO2 is really $400/t C. So it's really a quite bit more expensive than they mislead people to believe.

"The former Office of Fossil Energy has been renamed to Fossil Energy and Carbon Management as part of this focus."- OMG! Another institutional reorganization, that's always used to deflect previous failures.

" The DOE estimates that will be the equivalent of taking roughly half a million cars off the road."- probably an gross overestimate, and even then, not much for a place like this:
"There are 290.8 million cars in the U.S. as of September 2022. This number includes all vehicles, including cars, SUVs, vans, and other medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that were registered. Between 2021 and 2022, the number of cars in the U.S. rose by 0.45%"

Until society very seriously and drastically curtails GHG emissions, DAC will never keep up, since legacy CO2 is ever growing. Notice they use the word 'legacy' to imply something from the past that's no longer ongoing, and that's certainly untrue.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:33:01?PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> US picks the first two sites for carbon-capture hubs
>> Up to $1.2 billion in funding for handling "legacy" carbon emissions.
>> https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/us-picks-the-first-two-sites-for-carbon-capture-hubs/
>>
>> Useless money spending?
>
>"The ultimate goal is to cut the cost of capturing and storing a tonne of CO2 below $100 before a decade has expired." As James Hansen has pointed out on the basis of atomic weight argument, $100/t CO2 is really $400/t C. So it's really a quite bit more expensive than they mislead people to believe.
>
>"The former Office of Fossil Energy has been renamed to Fossil Energy and Carbon Management as part of this focus."- OMG! Another institutional reorganization, that's always used to deflect previous failures.
>
>" The DOE estimates that will be the equivalent of taking roughly half a million cars off the road."- probably an gross overestimate, and even then, not much for a place like this:
>"There are 290.8 million cars in the U.S. as of September 2022. This number includes all vehicles, including cars, SUVs, vans, and other medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that were registered. Between 2021 and 2022, the number of cars in the U.S. rose by 0.45%"
>
>Until society very seriously and drastically curtails GHG emissions, DAC will never keep up, since legacy CO2 is ever growing. Notice they use the word 'legacy' to imply something from the past that's no longer ongoing, and that's certainly untrue.

People pretend that there is a giant plastic bubble over the USA or
over Berkeley CA, and that our cutting back on CO2 will improve our
climate. There is no bubble.

China and India are building coal plants weekly, and Australia and
Indonesia and Russia are happy to sell them gigatons of coal.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 13:22:37 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:33:01?PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> US picks the first two sites for carbon-capture hubs
>>> Up to $1.2 billion in funding for handling "legacy" carbon emissions.
>>> https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/us-picks-the-first-two-sites-for-carbon-capture-hubs/
>>>
>>> Useless money spending?
>>
>>"The ultimate goal is to cut the cost of capturing and storing a tonne of CO2 below $100 before a decade has expired." As James Hansen has pointed out on the basis of atomic weight argument, $100/t CO2 is really $400/t C. So it's really a quite bit more expensive than they mislead people to believe.
>>
>>"The former Office of Fossil Energy has been renamed to Fossil Energy and Carbon Management as part of this focus."- OMG! Another institutional reorganization, that's always used to deflect previous failures.
>>
>>" The DOE estimates that will be the equivalent of taking roughly half a million cars off the road."- probably an gross overestimate, and even then, not much for a place like this:
>>"There are 290.8 million cars in the U.S. as of September 2022. This number includes all vehicles, including cars, SUVs, vans, and other medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that were registered. Between 2021 and 2022, the number of cars in the U.S. rose by 0.45%"
>>
>>Until society very seriously and drastically curtails GHG emissions, DAC will never keep up, since legacy CO2 is ever growing. Notice they use the word 'legacy' to imply something from the past that's no longer ongoing, and that's certainly untrue.
>
>People pretend that there is a giant plastic bubble over the USA or
>over Berkeley CA, and that our cutting back on CO2 will improve our
>climate. There is no bubble.
>
>China and India are building coal plants weekly, and Australia and
>Indonesia and Russia are happy to sell them gigatons of coal.

Up here north of Seattle, I see the coal trains headed to just over
the border into Canada. They used to ship to Canada via Bellingham,
WA but the mayor did not want Bellingham to be associated with that
activity I understand. Since the coal is going to China anyway, we
might as well reap some reward money instead.

boB

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:41:08 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

> China may be building more high efficiency (about 30%) coal-fired power plants, but it is retired lots of older low-efficiency (about 8%) plants. That's actually reducing their CO2 output per kW.hour generated

Where did you get such low efficiency numbers ?

The Carnot efficiency defines the power plant efficiency. The larger
the temperature difference between the hot and cold side, the higher
the efficiency.

Current nuclear reactors do not tolerate very high temperatures, thus
limiting the efficiency just above 30 %, the EPR runs up to 37%.

However coal-fired power plants tolerate at temperatures of 550 C so
efficiencies well over 40 % is possible.

with natural gas and combi plants (gas+steam turbines) efficiency up
to 60 % is possible.

torsdag den 17. august 2023 kl. 20.36.21 UTC+2 skrev upsid...@downunder.com:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:41:08 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > China may be building more high efficiency (about 30%) coal-fired power plants, but it is retired lots of older low-efficiency (about 8%) plants. That's actually reducing their CO2 output per kW.hour generated
> Where did you get such low efficiency numbers ?
>
> The Carnot efficiency defines the power plant efficiency. The larger
> the temperature difference between the hot and cold side, the higher
> the efficiency.
>
> Current nuclear reactors do not tolerate very high temperatures, thus
> limiting the efficiency just above 30 %, the EPR runs up to 37%.
>
> However coal-fired power plants tolerate at temperatures of 550 C so
> efficiencies well over 40 % is possible.

The coal-fired power plant here, nearing it's expected 30 year retirement
since it started production in 1998, is 47%

it also does district heating bringing the efficiency with the right mix to the 90's