
In Texas, a new power plant could redefine carbon capture - okket
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/a-fossil-fuel-plant-that-releases-no-carbon-dioxide-testing-has-begun-in-texas/
======
xelxebar
Regarding energy production and climate in general, the sheer abundance of
data and articles has, overall, left me feeling less informed than when I
started. However, another HNer introduced me to this amazing site:

[https://ourworldindata.org/](https://ourworldindata.org/)

and so far I've found it to walk a great balance between accessible and
rigorous. The articles seem to be well and reliable sourced, which provides
good launching points for further investigation.

Anyway, just wanted to pass it forward, _per se_.

~~~
sergiomattei
Great link! Spent quite a while checking several statistics... Bookmarked.

Super interesting stuff.

------
mirimir
That's a very complicated way to generate electricity from methane. But why do
we want to do that? Isn't it better to get our electricity from PV, and
reserve methane as a chemical feedstock?

~~~
adventured
No. We should very aggressively pursue the use of natural gas until all coal
plants are shuttered. Then we move on to dealing with natural gas after that.
Anything that makes natural gas better in the meantime, is a plus to the
process.

China for one example is getting an extraordinary amount of their electricity
from coal. They're consuming more coal than the rest of the world combined.
You are largely not going to be able to fully replace that with PV in the next
20-30 years. It can potentially be replaced with natural gas, nuclear and a
combination of traditional renewables.

The US is in the same boat, albeit with a much lower level of coal consumption
and a vast domestic supply of natural gas. All coal plants should be shut down
in the US by continuing to transition to natural gas, while we keep building a
lot of wind and solar, and at least maintaining our nuclear output (ideally
we'd double that, but...).

~~~
donarb
> We should very aggressively pursue the use of natural gas until all coal
> plants are shuttered.

The administration is now proposing that grid operators be forced to buy
electricity from coal and nuclear plants that are now in the process of being
shut down. The excuse is "national security".

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-01/trump-
sai...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-01/trump-said-to-
grant-lifeline-to-money-losing-coal-power-plants-jhv94ghl)

------
gwbas1c
Regarding these kinds of plants that operate by burning: We don't know what
"stockpiled" solar energy will be. Some people think it'll be hydrogen. Other
people think we'll figure out how to generate flammable gasses like methane,
propane, natural gas, ect, from sunlight.

Historically, steam turbine plants get retrofitted to run on different fuels.
I think there's a good chance we'll figure out how to stockpile a flammable
gas from solar energy, and then retrofit these kinds of plants to use it.

In this particular case, capturing CO2 is interesting, because stockpiling
solar energy to a flammable gas may require a source of pure CO2. Thus, this
plant could stockpile CO2 in the winter when sunlight is less abundant, and
then stockpile fuel in the summer when sunlight is more abundant.

~~~
Retric
Carnot efficiency limitations means the winning solution _can 't_ use burning
CO2.

Batteries and hydro can both break 90% round trip efficiency while having very
low costs. To win something needs to be better than that or _very_ cheap, and
burring stuff is not cheap.

~~~
gwbas1c
Maybe, but keep in mind that batteries are expensive and energy intense to
manufacture. When a battery goes through many cycles in a year, the cost and
energy investment are marginal.

The problem is stockpiling. If we have a lot of solar, we will need to
stockpile energy in the summer for the winter.

Buying a giant battery that charges in the summer so I can run an electric
heater in the winter is probably more expensive than figuring out how to
manufacture a flammable gas. If I use it for 20 years, and take into account
the energy used to manufacture, I wonder what the "true" efficiency is?

It's still very affordable to heat with wood, (which captures CO2 from the
air,) so I'm rather confident we can figure out how to do this at scale.

~~~
Retric
For home heating solar hot water heaters still beat buying wood pellets +
stove over 10 years while lasting longer than that at least in the continental
US. Wood is a larger pain to use and less efficient causing scaling issues.

Also with solar + wind their is no need for seasonal storage just have extra
capacity and move it from other areas. 30-50% daily grid storage is about the
useful limit above that and you're better off with more capacity.

PS: It's a different story if you say live on an island above the attic
circle, but that's not a huge market.

------
gameswithgo
This doesn't seem to keep co2 out of the atmosphere, it just lets them sell it
before its released.

~~~
saas_co_de
"The mostly pure CO2 can then be sold to oil fields for use in enhanced oil
recovery"

The CO2 is pumped under ground to force oil out.

"In these applications, between one-half and two-thirds of the injected CO2
returns with the produced oil and is usually re-injected into the reservoir to
minimize operating costs."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery#Liquid_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery#Liquid_carbon_dioxide_superfluids)

Since this oil will be burned creating more CO2 the total atmospheric CO2
increase is probably greater than just a plain power plant with no capture.

~~~
gameswithgo
I imagine it doesn't stay trapped in the ground forever either, at least not
always.

