- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WSJ: Small Oil Producer Stands to Win Big From Climate Bill
Posted on 1/30/23 at 1:11 pm to GumboPot
Posted on 1/30/23 at 1:11 pm to GumboPot
You obviously understand the chemistry side of this stuff. I've got a grasp on some of the actual physical infrastructure of these operations, but not nearly smart enough to understand the chemistry. 
I can see where the point-source sequestration (via pipeline directly from an emitter before it is ever released into the air) could be of benefit to the planet in the form of helping our petrochemical facilities put out less emissions.
However, it's the direct air capture stuff that has me puzzled and wondering if we aren't trading one perceived problem for another. Those dac facilities take a shite-ton of electricity and water to run, from what I understand. And what appears to be a bigger immediate issue now than increased CO2? Availability of energy (electricity) and availability of water.
Maybe on the water side, those things can run off of recycled oilfield and wastewater? Again, though water recycle facilities require a decent amount of generated power.
I can see where the point-source sequestration (via pipeline directly from an emitter before it is ever released into the air) could be of benefit to the planet in the form of helping our petrochemical facilities put out less emissions.
However, it's the direct air capture stuff that has me puzzled and wondering if we aren't trading one perceived problem for another. Those dac facilities take a shite-ton of electricity and water to run, from what I understand. And what appears to be a bigger immediate issue now than increased CO2? Availability of energy (electricity) and availability of water.
Maybe on the water side, those things can run off of recycled oilfield and wastewater? Again, though water recycle facilities require a decent amount of generated power.
This post was edited on 1/30/23 at 1:13 pm
3
Posted on 1/30/23 at 1:41 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
Those dac facilities take a shite-ton of electricity and water to run, from what I understand. And what appears to be a bigger immediate issue now than increased CO2? Availability of energy (electricity) and availability of water
Making energy more scarce than it already is... is the point. They say it out loud at all their conferences. Hell they're planning on paying the 3rd world Not to develop.
Watermelon environmental policies. Green exterior, all Red on the inside.
This post was edited on 1/30/23 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 1/30/23 at 2:05 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
However, it's the direct air capture stuff that has me puzzled and wondering if we aren't trading one perceived problem for another. Those dac facilities take a shite-ton of electricity and water to run, from what I understand.
You are correct. The electricity has to be almost free to make DAC work.
CO2 sequestration works from the exhaust of emitters because the concentration for CO2 is 58% to start with. DAC starts with 0.04% CO2 concentration.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 8:34 am to ragincajun03
quote:
Those dac facilities take a shite-ton of electricity and water to run, from what I understand. And what appears to be a bigger immediate issue now than increased CO2? Availability of energy (electricity) and availability of water.
The Climeworks DAC facility in Iceland (which I believe is still the largest DAC facility in operation) is run entirely on geothermal energy. Pretty cool.
LINK
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News