
China begins first of eight large-scale carbon capture projects - doener
http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/china-begins-first-of-eight-large-scale-carbon-capture-projects/article/495362
======
ratpik
Carbon Clean Solutions built a plant in Tuticorin in southern India that
captures carbon dioxide from its coal-fired boiler and converts it into soda
ash (a chemical cousin of the baking soda you buy in a grocery store). And, in
what Sharma says is a world’s first, the commercial-scale plant set to capture
60,000 tons of CO2 annually does it so cheaply that it did not need any
government subsidies.

Before Carbon Clean Solutions came along, the Tuticorin chemicals plant used
to buy carbon dioxide to make its soda ash. It also bought coal to fire up its
boiler. Now, instead of wasting carbon dioxide that burning coal produced, the
plant is capturing it and saving the money on buying any more carbon dioxide.
As a plus, the CO2 supply is also more reliable than before.

“I am a businessman,” Ramachandran Gopalan, the managing director of the
Tuticorin plant, told the BBC. “I never thought about saving the planet. I
needed a reliable stream of CO2, and this was the best way of getting it.”

[https://qz.com/878674/two-indian-engineers-have-
drastically-...](https://qz.com/878674/two-indian-engineers-have-drastically-
reduced-the-cost-of-capturing-carbon-dioxide-emissions/)

~~~
pm90
Amazing article. And a great way to show that being environmentally friendly
and business friendly don't always have to be mutually exclusive.

------
spodek
Capturing carbon is a valuable step, but only as part of a process that net
removes it from the atmosphere. This project doesn't seem to have that goal.

> " _China 's new CCS project will remove CO2 from two coal gasification
> (syngas) plants and re-inject the gas into previously exhausted oil
> fields._"

> " _CCS "is an important set of technologies for reducing emissions from
> fossil fuel use, while enabling important resources such as coal to continue
> to contribute to energy security and economic objectives."_"

They aren't net taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. They're using it to pump
more oil out of the ground and using it to argue to burn more coal. The CO2 in
the ground won't likely stay there forever but much of it will seep back into
the atmosphere.

> " _the world 's first commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant
> opened in Zurich, Switzerland with the goal of selling compressed CO2 gas to
> industry, basically re-purposing the gas._"

The Switzerland plant isn't taking CO2 out of the atmosphere either.

The article doesn't mention how much energy the plant uses to capture the
carbon. If not powered by renewables, the process itself may not even be
carbon neutral.

Let's hope others find ways to sequester the carbon, and maybe this step may
help that process, but I don't see it offering much hope.

Meanwhile, almost no efforts put into changing people's behavior to reduce
their emissions.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
> Capturing carbon is a valuable step, but only as part of a process that net
> removes it from the atmosphere.

The IPCC, the IEA, and a boatload of scientists disagree. _We cannot prevent
catastrophic global warming without doing the type of CCS you describe as
useless._ Sure, we also want to be doing stuff that's net carbon negative, but
that's a long way into the future.

And CCS from power generation is only one aspect. CCS from cement plants,
steel furnaces etc. is another thing we need - those processes will inherently
emit large amounts of CO2 even if electric power is 100% renewable.

Finally, when it comes to capture from air, I think stuff like "biomass ->
syngas -> water shift -> separation of CO2 captured and stored, H2 produced
for energy" is much more likely to be successful, because you can make it net
CO2 negative _and_ it produces something valuable as a byproduct. Capture from
air is a whole 'nother matter, starting from a very low CO2 partial pressure
and thus very inefficient.

(I work in CCS, happy to answer questions.)

~~~
BrandonMarc
> Sure, we also want to be doing stuff that's net carbon negative, but that's
> a long way into the future.

Isn't refusing emitted carbon (net negative) the entire point? That wouldn't
be an "also" then, and newfangled ideas that don't give such a result are
nothing to be excited about.

Seems to me capturing from the air is a wholly separate matter, whereas
capturing at the source (i.e. power plant) should be the focus.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
I guess "net negative" can be interpreted different ways. I was thinking of
"net negative" to mean "capturing CO2 that's already been emitted", as opposed
to "capturing CO2 before it is emitted in the future".

I agree any CCS scheme _must_ be "net negative" in the sense that it doesn't
produce more CO2 than it captures. But all the technologies in the pipeline
today fulfill this.

------
throw2016
On one hand there is much concern and awareness about the environment and our
carbon footprint. Businesses globally are under pressure to become greener.
Individuals are trying to do their bit. There is activism and global concern.

On the other hand bitcoin and other crypto currencies continue to encourage
millions to waste power for no useful reason beyond speculation without a care
in the world, and without being called out on it. Can future designers of
crypto currencies consider the waste of power?

A lot of concern begins to look self serving and mere finger pointing at
others if whenever there is self interest and potential gain at stake all
concerns go flying out, things are allowed to coast below the surface and hand
waved away.

Are business that adopt crypto going to be boycotted for encouraging the
needless waste of power?

~~~
undersuit
It's it fair to attack cryptocurrencies for being wasteful when far more
resources are being "wasted" on entertainment? How about we go after
vacations? Cruises, airplanes, hotels sitting mostly vacant, RVs, snow mobiles
in the winter, boating in the summer. How are these not wasteful?

Or rather why are you calling out Bitcoin instead?

~~~
throw2016
Consider this, you have this huge truck consuming gallons of fuel and
expending pollution and you have to drive it up and down a 1km road 24/7 to
get some tokens. And that's it, just drive up and down. Do you think this is a
proper use of scarce resources? Is this defensible?

You point to other trucks on the road, they are transporting goods and
providing essential services to society and both truck manufacturers and users
are under pressure to increase efficiency and reduce waste and pollution.

In this context how would you judge an individual who introduces a token that
simply requires trucks to drive up and down 24/7\. Would it be fair to say
this is an act of utter recklessness and irresponsibility?

~~~
undersuit
>Do you think this is a proper use of scarce resources? Is this defensible?

Oh come on, you going to make an analogy about doing nothing and completely
ignore my argument that vacations are nothing. Humans don't need vacations.
Humans probably also didn't need cryptocurrencies.

>You point to other trucks on the road, they are transporting goods and
providing essential services to society

And you ignore all the vehicles on the road transporting humans and their toys
to the distant destinations where they are going, not to do work, no they are
avoiding work.

>Would it be fair to say this is an act of utter recklessness and
irresponsibility?

Would it be fair to say I never said Bitcoin was not that, just the we might
have more egregious actions that we perform that are accepted as a part of
daily life.

------
ksec
Silly questions. Assuming someday we have an abundance of electricity, could
we not just Capture x% of the Carbon from atmosphere and store them as
Diamond?

~~~
gozur88
You could, but where would all that power come from? Fusion is the only thing
I can see that fits the bill, and we're decades from commercialization.

------
armandtamzarian
Naive question: if the CO2 is being repurposed and used, is there actually a
net benefit in terms of CO2 in the atmosphere?

~~~
Semiapies
Good question, I think. If that industrial CO2 ends up in the atmosphere after
use, then there's no benefit. And, since it took energy to capture that CO2,
presumably that generated even more.

------
ams6110
Does this offset the hundreds of coal generating plants they have brought
online in recent years and continue to build?

~~~
ebcode
Obviously not, but it will give them experience in building carbon-capturing
devices. That's not nothing.

