On this point, we know the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but science says it does not happen quickly enough. “We are currently sending about 6 million tons per hour,” said Laurie Greter. “It is like a warm blanket clouds on us, and this causes climate change.”
GUETRE runs a commercial strategy for 1pointfive, a radical idea company: absorbs carbon dioxide particles from the air, with a technology called direct air capture. It looks like magic, but in reality, it is just a chemistry. The huge fans in the air blow through a liquid that absorbs carbon dioxide particles. The clean air returns outside, while the besieged carbon dioxide is converted to Kiryat. When you heat these pellets, you will get pure carbon dioxide that flows into collecting tanks.
What happens to that besieged carbon dioxide? “Today, people are simply burying carbon dioxide underground,” said Giter. “They also turn carbon into artificial fuel, so that we can put it in a plane, truck or ship-some of these sectors that are difficult to avoid. People put carbon dioxide in concrete. People make diamonds. People make mysterious drinks.”
A demonstration in British Columbia, Canada, can pull four tons of carbon dioxide from air every day. It was built by Carbon Engineering. Its next project, which opened this summer, will be a much larger deal – a commercial factory that is built in Texas, greater than 300 times from the British Columbia factory.
According to Guetre, you will be able to withdraw about 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually.
So, how many plants needed to avoid climate disaster?
“Climate experts believe that, by 2050, we will need to build between 10,000 to 20,000 of these building blocks consisting of 10,000 megatone to be complementary to all other works that we do to solve climate change,” said Gitler. “Therefore, it is a large building … just like the water treatment industry. Now you will get an air treatment industry.”
Carbon capture factory, to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. / Credit: CBS News
Well, direct air capture appears to be an ideal solution. We can save the planet with chemistry! But there is one small problem, according to Mark Jacobson, Professor of Environmental Engineering at Stanford University.
Jacobson believes that direct air capture is a huge BoondGGLE, for one major reason: “You need these big fans, need chemical, and it takes a lot of electricity to do so,” he said. “Even in the best case, when using renewable electricity to operate it, it prevents renewable electricity from reducing more carbon dioxide by replacing the fossil fuel power station or the source of fossil fuel heating.”
In other words, we get about 60 % of our electricity from dirty fuel. So why do we use our renewable sources to remove pollution from gas and coal? Will it not be the simplest, easier and more effective in using this clean energy directly, and then eliminate the infrastructure of fossil fuel completely?
“You have to think about who suggests this technology,” said Jacobson. “Who will benefit from carbon capture and direct air capture? They are fossil fuel companies.”
Certainly: Most of the air sticking companies are funded by the oil industry. For example, Occidental Petroleum has 1point5 and carbon engineering.
Jacobson said: “They only say,” Well, we extract the most carbon dioxide from which we are emitting. Therefore, we must be allowed to continue pollution and continue mining. “
He did not make friends: “Oh, yes, people hate me, people hate me, and people hate me, and people hate me, and they hate me coal. They do that, because I say the truth. We do not need any of these techniques.”
I asked Gueture if the motive for oil and gas companies, by promoting carbon capture, is to allow emissions to continue. “We get this question a lot.” “We need to get rid of fossil fuels, and this will dry out the market for fossil fuel producers. We need to create the market for them to do what they call the carbon administration, which really gets carbon out of the air and places it under the ground, or creates carbon products.”
But large chemical plants are not the only way to pull carbon from the air. Experiments are conducted with algae (as algae breathes carbon dioxide and provides oxygen in return), and smaller and more efficient plant designs.
Thanks to the financing from the Ministry of Energy, the National Carbon Cracker Center, in Alabama, takes care of new technologies that can remove carbon from the air and reduce cost. “Today’s costs for direct air capture anywhere from 500 to 600 dollars per ton, and we are working to lead this cost to where we are in a neighborhood less than $ 200 per ton,” said director John Northington. “It can decrease.”
Meanwhile, the controversy or not, the carbon removal industry progresses. There are a hundred and thirty of air -adhering factories in business around the world.
Lori Gterter emphasizes that it will not be a silver bullet, but it will be an important part of the answer: “When we put all the tools together – winds, solar and electric cars and remove carbon dioxide widely – we have everything. We actually know how to reach scratch.
For more information:
1pointfiveCarbon engineeringMark Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford UniversityThe National Carbon Capture CenterWilsonville, Alaa.
A story produced by AMOL Mhatre. Editor: Emanuele SecCI.
See also:
Big Tech Big Tec on nuclear energy (“Sunday morning”)Apple Tim Cook CEO to create a clean energy future (“Sunday morning”)Inside Marvel PVs in Scotland (“CBS this morning: Saturday”)Engine problem: How to threaten greenhouse gases our world (“Sunday morning”)Saying over climate change: transferring fossil fuel companies to court (“Sunday morning”)The new “gold gold” batteries and “gold” gold (“Sunday morning”)Fusion Energy: Opening the strength of the stars (“Sunday morning”)
Is carbon capture a solution to the climate crisis?
An extended interview: Denzel Washington and Jake Gilnahal on “Atlail”
