Submitted by captainquirk t3_11ymvps in UpliftingNews
Comments
Kitsunebillie t1_jd9em7g wrote
I have a feeling a plant that big doesn't get made before a working small scale prototype.
But who knows. Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm too stoned to tell.
gobblox38 t1_jd9jgbn wrote
The plant already exists. In the article, they say that a portion of the plant is being retrofitted.
The biggest red flag for me is the claim that they'll pull co2 out of the air. That'll require a lot of energy just to pull that off. It would be better to get the co2 from a concentrated source such as a smokestack or exhaust pipe. I don't see how their proposed process will result in a net carbon sequestration unless the energy comes from nuclear power or carbonless renewable energy.
Itsumishi t1_jd9p1xi wrote
It also sounds like the vast bulk of the CO2 reduction comes not from the capture of carbon from the air, but changing the chemical composition of the concrete (using significantly less cement). The downside to their approach is the concrete must be baked on site.
Not to say this is a bad approach, there are plenty of uses for precast concrete, but it also makes this process useless for any concrete which needs to be poured in-situ and allowed to cure (eg footpaths, building slabs, etc.).
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jdb7vrp wrote
It's absolutely a bad approach.
We already have a method of installing CO2 extracting plants that have:
- A higher yield in building materials
- Produce building material with higher carbon storage capacity
- Can pull CO2 out of the air without supplying any power
- Require no construction to install
These incredible high efficiency CO2 extracting plants are called trees. Every penny they spent on this plant would have been more productively spent on literal plants.
Itsumishi t1_jdbdqkj wrote
Do you really think we can replace concrete with timber in all construction?
AaronDoggers t1_jdbecc1 wrote
If looking at this as purely a way to store CO2 from the atmosphere, trees are a going to be much simpler and cheaper
Itsumishi t1_jdboy4i wrote
And as a method to significantly reduce the carbon intensity of concrete, the most widely used building material on earth?
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jdd87yb wrote
Carbon neutrality doesn't require every technology to be low carbon so long as you offset the carbon you produce.
Every extra dollar you spend on low carbon concrete would have been better spent buying normal concrete and using the savings to plant trees.
Itsumishi t1_jdf0n6z wrote
I strongly disagree.
Firstly, I suspect you vastly underestimate how carbon intensive concrete is. We absolutely need to figure out how to drastically reduce the carbon intensity of concrete and/or drastically reduce how much we use of it (almost certainly both). But even if we drastically reduce how much we use its naive to think we can stop using it.
Secondly, carbon offsets can help slow climate change but it can't solve it. Planting trees is great. We should absolutely be reforesting everywhere we can. But a forest is only a useful carbon sink until it gets cut down, or burns in a forest fire at which point almost all the carbon stored in it is released back into the atmosphere. Forests are part of the natural atmospheric carbon lifecycle that is in constant fluctuation.
The idea that we can burn fossil fuels that hold carbon that has been stored in a stable condition for millions of years and offset it by planting a forest which then may be cut down or burnt out in 100 years or a 1000 years is deeply flawed.
But still we need to do it because we need to buy as much time as possible.
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jdfgtri wrote
I think you overestimate how expensive low-carbon concrete is and how much carbon it actually takes to make.
Itsumishi t1_jdfjx2p wrote
I'll assume you meant "underestimate" regarding the expense, and on that I'd just say new technologies are always expensive. The point of pilots projects etc will be to find methods which can be made cost-effective.
On the "how much carbon it actually takes to make" comment... well its not low-carbon if it takes lots of carbon - so that doesn't make any sense.
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jdgsohi wrote
I meant overestimate how much carbon it removes and underestimate how much it costs to remove carbon from the air.
And its not a new technology that can be improved with iteration - CO2 always takes energy to remove and its other ingredients always take energy to create.
Until we get essentially carbon free and cheap energy there's no excuse to waste it on low carbon concrete when we can use those resources more efficiently elsewhere.
If you're going to waste energy on physically removin CO2 from the air then you're best bet is giving China and India free solar panels rather than using solar panels to remove CO2 to put in concrete
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jdd8iid wrote
I never said we stop using concrete, just that you will reduce carbon in the atmosphere more effectively if you use normal concrete and cheaply plant trees instead of using more expensive low carbon concrete. As an added bonus you get more building material too.
ncc74656m t1_jdcxa5p wrote
The one thing I can say though is that if they are doing it to sequester carbon from their processes, it might actually be more beneficial than simply planting trees and hoping for the best, especially when the plant in question is located in desert areas.
It depends on how efficient the process is though, because if it's only partial capture, or the concrete suffers in some manner requiring more replacement, etc, then it might not be. But really, we are pretty well way beyond the point of being able to tree our way out of this. We need active sequestration methods and potential active decarbonization of the atmosphere now, and likely still then some weather modification like solar screening via reflective gases or particulate in the atmosphere.
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jddb148 wrote
Your money would be better spent giving india and china free solar cells than this pie in the sky active sequestration shit. That can wait until we actually have cheap and carbon neutral energy to throw at it.
We'd be better off just biting the bullet and going for ocean fertilization or dumping sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere if we're that desperate.
ncc74656m t1_jddfchl wrote
TBH we probably already need the sulfur dioxide. But also, if we're giving away free solar, we should probably work on finishing ours here, too. But of course, we'll never do that either if our pols are still monetarily beholden to the fossil industry.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is the solution, or even a good final one. Just that it's something we probably need, and on the heavy assumption that it is being done properly and with enough efficiency, it's a step in the right direction. And of course, seeing that this is in AZ, it's quite reasonable to say it should be solar powered to boot.
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jddftg4 wrote
I think it's a waste of time and money and if we're going for pie in the sky like this we and we might as well throw the money at fusion or something instead since that might give us the energy for us to do something like this in the first place.
ncc74656m t1_jddhb6x wrote
Fusion is probably a (very) long term solution, and tbh, unless we're also prepared to supply that to the rest of the world, it's not really a fix. Much of places like India, China, Africa, and South America require socioeconomic change too, but the catch is, most of those problems are either enabled or straight up caused by Western capitalism, and capitalism is quite happy with those results thank you much.
So, really, the best we can do is minimize what we're creating, keep planting trees as you say, and try to capture what remains.
Itsumishi t1_jdf207v wrote
Lower carbon concrete is not remotely as much a pie in the sky proposition as fusion. Not even comparable.
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jdfgym1 wrote
we're talking about sequestering carbon from the air and storing it. Low carbon concrete isn't even carbon neutral.
Itsumishi t1_jdflgn0 wrote
Sequestering carbon from the air is only a small element in this particular trial (and to be honest I suspect that's a journalistic error).
The bulk of carbon emissions in the manufacture of concrete come from the processes which occur during the creation of cement. There's two elements to this:
- Current methods of creating cement involve heating limestone and clay to around 1400 degrees Celsius. Its hard to hit these temperatures without large inputs of fossil fuels.
- The chemical process which occurs within the limestone during this baking releases A LOT of CO2. (This is the most carbon intensive bit).
So to achieve lower carbon intensity, we need new methods of producing concrete that use significantly less cement (which is how this trial aims to achieve the bulk of its CO2 reductions); and/or we can capture some of the CO2 from the limestone and embed the carbon back into the concrete.
Pulling it from the air does seem incredibly inefficient when the concentrations will be much higher in the exhaust and waste gasses than the atmosphere. This is where I think the journalistic error occurs. The article says they'll use the AirCapture technology - but I suspect they'll use that technology within a closed system - not just pulling it from the nearby atmosphere.
And yeah - it still won't be carbon neutral, but a significant reduction in a very carbon intensive process is still better than not doing it.
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jdgszyh wrote
>And yeah - it still won't be carbon neutral, but a significant reduction in a very carbon intensive process is still better than not doing it.
In the absence of superior alternatives which should always be pursued first in order of efficiency.
>Pulling it from the air does seem incredibly inefficient when the concentrations will be much higher in the exhaust and waste gasses than the atmosphere. This is where I think the journalistic error occurs. The article says they'll use the AirCapture technology - but I suspect they'll use that technology within a closed system - not just pulling it from the nearby atmosphere.
And it is incredibly inefficient but as marketing it works - the comments here are proof of it.
gobblox38 t1_jddbxx1 wrote
Trees are a temporary reservoir that'll hold the carbon for about 50 years +/- a few decades. There's entire regions where trees are dying because the climate has changed too quickly for them to adapt.
The true natural carbon sequester is algae in a high sediment deposition area. If the algae is buried before their bodies decay or are eaten, the carbon can be captured indefinitely. This is the first step in how oil is formed.
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jddf3e9 wrote
Yeah, further up I said we're better off fertilizing the oceans or dumping sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere than doing this active sequestration shit when we don't have cheap abundant energy.
You might as well just give china and india free solar panels instead.
gothling13 t1_jdagipg wrote
I don’t know anything about this particular company, but I did hear about this idea about 10 years ago as a civil engineering student. The idea was meant for concrete companies and involved redirecting the exhaust through this system, not just sucking random air with a vacuum. The concept as it was explained to me was to filter the exhaust through brine. CO2 combines with calcium in the brine to create calcium bicarbonate. I think, that was 10 years ago.
gobblox38 t1_jddb7ts wrote
It's been a few years since I've studied carbon sequestration as well. It was for my geologic thermodynamics class. And you're close, it's calcite (calcium carbonate, CaCO3), either that or you're correct, lol.
In the article, they discussed capturing exhaust, but they also talked about pulling the carbon gasses directly from the atmosphere. That's the part I'm most skeptical about.
Tobias_Atwood t1_jddmo8v wrote
We gotta make ot work somehow, though. Even if we 100% stopped production of greenhouse gasses today we're still looming on the edge of climate disaster with the CO2 already in the atmosphere. The normal biological and geological processes that sequester CO2 move too slowly to save us.
We gotta scale that shit up.
gobblox38 t1_jddqm67 wrote
I agree that we are facing the greatest crisis that humanity has ever faced, and we're sprinting towards that cliff.
I'm all for investing into large scale production of technology that pulls carbon gasses from the air. I just want to be sure this technology works as advertised and results in a net negative of atmospheric carbon. The last time we need to do is scale up something that doesn't work.
There's a lot we can do to mitigate the upcoming climate crisis, but most of the biggest impacts we can make (such as reducing carbon emissions) gas a lot of resistance. I'm not very optimistic that humanity as we know it will survive past this great filter.
xxxBuzz t1_jdb42mv wrote
Dunno what they pull it from but know people working on a pipeline that will take CO2 from one state and sell it to another to store or some shit to get credits. Apparently it’s BIG business. I
I think that kinda bullshit should immediately end the incentives and just tell them to cut it out. It’s already went from a potential positive thing to another way to exploit dumb shit for ridiculously sums of money.
tipsyBerbVerb t1_jdbg5qf wrote
Which if you’re going to pull from a smokestack I feel it be way more economical to turn that into graphene
SnooCauliflowers8455 t1_jdbk6lc wrote
Both carbon capture and sequestration and something like direct air capture are going to be needed to reduce emissions and CO2 concentrations enough to… not die, imho
gobblox38 t1_jddgbul wrote
There's real scientific research going on with carbon sequestration. It's been a few years since I've studied the practice, but there's major thermodynamic hurdles to overcome. These methods can't be applied just anywhere, the underlying geologic is the primary factor. Carbon gasses can only be shipped so far before the net capture goes to zero.
I don't think direct capture from the air will ever be feasible. The energy requirements alone means that more carbon would be produced than collected. Thermodynamics is harsh.
SnooCauliflowers8455 t1_jddxm63 wrote
Energy generation doesn’t necessarily produce carbon that’s the whole point of the sustainable energy transition
gobblox38 t1_jde0oq9 wrote
The vast majority of energy produced in the US is from fossil fuel. After about a decade of heavy investment into renewables, they only make up about 20% of current production.
Granted, we can and should continue investing into renewables. If we want to get serious about getting off fossil fuels, we need to invest in nuclear power.
SnooCauliflowers8455 t1_jdgfow3 wrote
You’re not familiar with the topic. The sustainable energy transition is well under way. You may only have a mainstream view of the issue which, granted, I don’t really see very nuanced coverage in mainstream news sources, but inside the energy industry, there’s no long term projection that doesn’t account for massive decline of fossil fuel emissions. Nuclear has its own issues. wind and solar have come to dominate renewable energy because of their favorable LCOE. if you’re interested in learning more, you can start with that search term.
Bowfinger_Intl_Pics t1_jdcebn1 wrote
That’s the problem with that sort of greenwashing; it’s very energy-intensive.
Air-entrained concrete is a thing; helps prevent spalling as a result of ice melter (usually salt.)
But this doesn’t sound terribly practical or large-scale.
bandanajack t1_jdb3gw3 wrote
I do see a bunch of solar panels
gobblox38 t1_jdddwse wrote
It's been a while since I've done serious study on this subject, but the process needs a lot of power. The panels in this picture won't be enough.
destrux125 t1_jdd2d6r wrote
Well, their prototype facility did use flue gasses for the CO2 source and their Alabama facility will also use flue gasses from another industrial facility as the CO2 source.
I don't see why they would bother with direct air capture at that one facility and not use some type of zero emissions power for it.
gobblox38 t1_jddhcwq wrote
Maybe the reporter just added in the past if direct air capture because:
- they didn't understand what the interviewee was talking about.
- they thought it sounds cool.
mark-haus t1_jdugyom wrote
I can't verify their claims in this article but "pulling CO2 from the air" shouldn't be a red flag. You don't need to go direct air capture to do this, it could be as simple as a chemical process to cure the cement in ambient air that reacts to CO2.
GenBlase t1_jdyyaob wrote
Well.... the curing of any concrete takes co2 out of the air directly. Not sure about this plants claims tho....
[deleted] t1_jdah2lk wrote
[deleted]
FnB8kd t1_jdcozbf wrote
Pfft stoners sheesh.
NunWrestling t1_jdabxes wrote
It’s just a way to justify continually pumping CO2 into the atmosphere then actually solving the problem
Hippiebigbuckle t1_jdbnilt wrote
This is capturing the air that comes directly out of the concrete plant. The production of concrete generates quite a bit of co2 so presumably this is actually solving the problem that making cement previously caused. Potentially anyway, we’ll see how this goes.
Lesas t1_jdbqqbi wrote
I've had to recently read into CCS systems for Uni and the most common issue i read about with most systems is 1. Whether they're actually able to reduce and store CO2 long term effectively and 2. The amount of energy required to do so (and how much CO2 is needed to produce that energy)
Also without any monetary incentive it is unlikely for someone to build a factory like that, the price for emissions needs to be high enough for it to make sense to build a facility that reduces it (or there needs to be another advantage)
But yes, considering that after Energy and Transportation the Cement industry is one of the leading emitters on a global scale this could be an interesting development
gobblox38 t1_jdddk09 wrote
I remember hearing that a gas powerplant would have to consume a quarter of the power produced just to capture the carbon gasses. Then the gas would have to be transported to the injection site. I think the best possible scenario, that the injection site is right by the powerplant, the net capture would be about 60%.
[deleted] t1_jdapnh5 wrote
[removed]
PartyYogurtcloset267 t1_jdbv2f3 wrote
But nobody wants to address the problem. Try to mention reducing consumption on reddit. You'll be downvoted to oblivion. People want large companies to cut emissions without realizing that this would directly impact their ability to buy more shit whenever they feel like. It's always someone else's problem.
gobblox38 t1_jddd1ck wrote
I wouldn't go that far. I'm sure the people trying this genuinely want to be the ones that contribute to solving the climate crisis. I just don't see how this method will actually work.
I've been watching a scientist work on a possible solution for over a decade now. It involves using sodium in a combustion engine. It sounds like it might help, but I'm not sure how we'd source the sodium without a lot of excess chlorine gas.
FlameBoi3000 t1_jdaqfey wrote
I've been reading about this for 5+ years at least. No one in the actual construction industry has ever heard of it nor used it.
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jdb6hzo wrote
It's proven science, it just requires space, material, manpower, and energy that makes it either unjustifiably inefficient at best or a net loss. You gotta read the fine print with optimism blindfold.
For instance, if you took all the money that went into funding this project and instead spent it planting trees you'd remove more CO2. Concrete isn't exactly carbon neutral and neither is the energy spent separating or storing CO2.
gobblox38 t1_jddfiue wrote
Granted, in the five years since I've learned about carbon sequestration methods this might have changed. Yes, it is possible to put CO2 into a superstate and inject it into sandstone or put it in a liquid state and inject it into basalt. There's problems with both and the best possible scenarios have a 60% net carbon capture.
There's a problem with trees that most people don't consider. A tree is a carbon reservoir for less than a century. When the tree dies and decays, that trapped carbon goes right back into the atmosphere. The last time trees captured carbon on a geologic scale was the carboniferous. Fungus have been eating dead trees since then.
Another issue is that climate change is killing entire regions of trees. Even if we could plant trees fast enough and ensure each one lives, we'd never make a dent in atmospheric carbon.
The plant that stores carbon on a geologic scale is algae. The algae has to die, sink to the ocean floor, and be buried before it can be eaten/decay. The problem with this is that it's such a slow process that it only becomes noticeable on a geologic timescale.
yawaworht-a-sti-sey t1_jddg96o wrote
I wish we had the luxury of worrying about 50 years from now.
gobblox38 t1_jddi30f wrote
I, for one, welcome our inevitable doom. May the planet go thorough its usual end mass extinction phase and move on to a new era filled with bizarre (to us) creatures that live in dynamic equilibrium. /s
For real though, I too am worried about what the next few decades will bring.
cbrrydrz t1_jdb0oym wrote
Well, that's carbon capture sequestration you.
tagoean t1_jdbc39i wrote
Agreed this sounds like at best a drup on a hot plate.
PartyYogurtcloset267 t1_jdburrp wrote
Plants already exist that pull carbon out of the air. However they're highly inefficient and extremely expensive to run. The headline makes this sound like a startup making big promises to investors while barely having a working model right now. This technology may one day do what it says, but right now it falls very, very short of its promises.
bob_loblaw-_- t1_jdc6o7n wrote
Plants already exist that pull carbon out of the air. They're highly efficient and cost almost nothing
balazs955 t1_jdbvcbf wrote
The claim (title) is usually the least of the problems. A bunch of stuff works, just not in a big scaly, environmental friendly and economically worthy way.
ATLL2112 t1_jdbxu52 wrote
There was just an article in the NYT about an apartment building in NYC that just installed a device that captures the carbon emissions from it's furnace, which then gets shipped out to a concrete company.
I'd assume the NYT wouldn't have run a story like that unless they verified the efficacy of the device. Not to mention it was installed to avoid fines from the city due to the building's emissions, so there's no point in doing that unless you can show to the regulatory body in the city that you are, in fact, reducing emissions.
gobblox38 t1_jddgts5 wrote
Well, that same news organization ran stories on UFOs.
I'm going to wait for actual scientific research before I buy into this process.
ATLL2112 t1_jdditla wrote
Uhh, just Google carbon mineralization. It's a process that occurs naturally, but can be done artificially as well. You're acting like there's zero scientific research on this topic when there's actually quite a bit.
gobblox38 t1_jddjfvk wrote
lol, I studied exactly that for my geologic thermodynamics class. I can tell you about injecting liquid CO2 into basalt and the chemical alterations that occur.
You're making quite a leap with the assumption that I claim there's zero scientific research on this topic. It's the scientific research I'm aware of that makes me skeptical of the direct air capture claims.
ATLL2112 t1_jddk897 wrote
>I'm going to wait for actual scientific research before I buy into this process.
If you're waiting for "actual" scientific research, is not the implication that there currently is none? Your words there.
gobblox38 t1_jddl3kt wrote
Please show me the actual scientific research on this particular process. I need to see the research and conclusions on direct air capture before I buy into what sounds pretty extraordinary.
FrogofLegend t1_jd8y3nl wrote
So the U.S. even found a way to imprison gas?
I'm KIDDING.
This is pretty neat.
danpaq t1_jda2hzb wrote
oh you mean trees?
[deleted] t1_jdamkb8 wrote
[removed]
CCHS_Band_Geek t1_jdayqcc wrote
Can’t upvote because I’d break 69, but enjoy this comment
e: not nice.
Uninvited_Goose t1_jd90ij6 wrote
This is like when the Ancient Super God is trapped in the earth for millions of years to be released by some archeologists and now he's trying to take over the world.
iceynyo t1_jdas110 wrote
Hexxus
ParticularBox8858 t1_jd9rwkw wrote
It’s easy to be cynical about this, it’s obvious so much more is needed. However you have to start somewhere and we’re seeing stories like this more and more
Silver_Sorbet t1_jda5jze wrote
I think it's less about starting somewhere and more about starting in the right direction.
Collective efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will do way more than trapping CO2 emissions, and at a lower long term cost.
Changing infrastructures to allow people to use less cars, buying food locally, eating less meat and more should be steps that are prioritiesed, but aren't really applied other than being mentioned once and then shrugged off.
Edwunclerthe3rd t1_jdc65e7 wrote
Why not both?
Silver_Sorbet t1_jdc7ekl wrote
The issue isn't that we can't do both, but that blocking CO2 into concrete will do next to nothing if we keep our habbits, since the quantity that's blocked is really small compared to what is released, and it costs a lot to do that (in ressources, not money).
We can't look at that and think of it as a solution right now. Maybe later once we stop putting out as much CO2.
[deleted] t1_jdaorq8 wrote
[removed]
PartyYogurtcloset267 t1_jdbvjvz wrote
The problem with greenwashing is not only that it does very little. It's also that it gives people a false sense of security and distracts them from doing the stuff that could actually have a real impact.
yelahneb t1_jd8z3mn wrote
Love seeing solutions like this though it often feels like some of us are bailing water at one end of the boat while others are actively drilling holes at the other
Scraw16 t1_jdanahv wrote
We need an all of the above approach to climate change. There are some sources that will take a long time to decarbonize, at some level we’ll need carbon capture as one piece of the puzzle.
It’s kind of like The Ocean Cleanup. Yeah there’s way more plastic going in and reducing that should should be first priority, but at some point we have to take some out as well and it’s worth figuring out how to do it at scale
CassandraVindicated t1_jdbouf3 wrote
Especially if you can keep it running with wave, solar, wind power. Autonomous is even better. Schedule them for maintenance runs and garbage collection.
Hayatexd t1_jdagasg wrote
That’s sadly hardly a solution. There’s exactly one solution: don’t use carbon based energy production. „Capturing“ and binding the carbon again will always use significant more energy than oxidizing brought us in the first place. We can’t evade the law of conservation of energy.
VVynn t1_jd9ki73 wrote
The EPA says “In 2021, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,347.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents”.
This plant will claim to remove 500 tons per year. We are going to need a lot more stuff like this to make a difference.
CCHS_Band_Geek t1_jdayx8p wrote
The first step to making a difference is to start somewhere
My_G_Alt t1_jdbaa73 wrote
Is that net reduction? I thought concrete was extremely polluting to manufacture
VVynn t1_jdban99 wrote
They aim to reduce the carbon cost of concrete production by 70%. It’s a baby step, but at least it is something!
TylerDurden626 t1_jdaohtq wrote
I like how this solution doesn’t involve forcing ppl who can’t afford to “go green” in every aspect of their live to foot the bill for climate change.
[deleted] t1_jdael9h wrote
Yeah, this is nice but it’s important to remember this is just a drop in the ocean when you see how much CO2 we produce daily. We cannot carbon capture our way out of this. Reduction of emissions is still our #1 priority.
Dorierc t1_jdb3p3r wrote
We have some similar in Brazil. It captures CO2 and transform into something else. We call it Trees! 🌴🌳🌲
slipko t1_jdb654b wrote
Are you suggesting that these environmentalists who want to remove CO2 are trying to kill trees?
SezitLykItiz t1_jdbpgdt wrote
He's suggesting that we're overlooking an obvious solution.
NouXouS t1_jdadna0 wrote
Kind of like what plants and trees do now…..
motogucci t1_jdb4oml wrote
The amount of carbon that plants can capture is literally negligible.
The amount plants capture is already engaged in what you might term the Carbon Cycle. Which also demonstrates that plants' and animals' direct emissions are literally negligible, because these processes and the plants' recapture are or were exactly equivalent, and balanced.
Add to this hundreds of billions of tons of carbon from coal, natural gas, and oil, and that's the problem. This amount of carbon was formerly buried, out-of-the-way, below ground. Now it's in the air, and dissolved in the ocean. The plants are preoccupied with the amount of carbon there used to be in the air. This extra amount is beyond them.
But it's also unlikely Arizona is going to make hundreds of billions of tons of concrete, to sequester the difference.
dxdifr t1_jd8bn4g wrote
Will this work on mars?
julie78787 t1_jd8c7hh wrote
There’s no ecological value of doing it on Mars.
This has been tested and shown to produce stronger concrete than concrete made the traditional way. With significant CO2 being produced in the manufacture of concrete, this may be a significant environmental win.
[deleted] t1_jd9n64d wrote
[removed]
dxdifr t1_jd8i2pv wrote
But it's something you can make on earth that will work on mars
CCHS_Band_Geek t1_jdaz2w2 wrote
By the time we have the capabilities to ship concrete to mars, I’m sure we’ll know if this works there or not
dxdifr t1_jdbgf5s wrote
no we can make it from the air. I hear there's an article that explains how a company can make concrete from CO2
jezra t1_jd8dqj4 wrote
probably, but climate change isn't much of an issue on Mars, and there is currently no demand for concrete on Mars
gobblox38 t1_jd8xz6d wrote
I think they are referencing the problem that a biodome had with concrete absorbing oxygen. It was one of those unforeseen problems that would have killed everyone in a Mars colony.
jcoddinc t1_jda9tt2 wrote
But what happens when the concrete is broken up to make new concrete?
morningreis t1_jdanzek wrote
Nothing, the carbon gets mineralized
sendep7 t1_jdarfcm wrote
nice, pass that co2 on to the next generation.
kms2547 t1_jdb686a wrote
This is a front for Ghostbusters. They're trapping ghosts in approved building materials.
internetcommunist t1_jdchcti wrote
This should be a reminder that industry and corporations are responsible for the OVERWHELMING majority of carbon emissions and not the average person. Not saying nor do your part but if the planet plans on surviving we need to go after corporations
kartoonist435 t1_jdaedm0 wrote
Someday won’t that concrete break and just add back into the climate?
Thatsidechara_ter t1_jdaklwk wrote
Maybe, but hopefully by then we'll have transitioned off of greenhouse gases so its not too much of an issue. Right now we just need to be figuring how to keep the planet alive for another few decades before all the super long-term projects come into play
WiartonWilly t1_jdai6tg wrote
Making concrete requires massive off-gassing of CO2 from limestone, plus a gigantic amount of energy (ie fossil fuels). If they can capture some CO2 in their product, great. However, I doubt this can do much to offset the concrete industry’s gigantic carbon footprint. Sorry if I’m being too negative, but I’ve never seen a carbon capture technology that can balance their chemical equations.
c0d3c t1_jdclchc wrote
This borderline greenwashing concrete.
F8cts0verFeelings t1_jdbjpvu wrote
Nuclear power and renewables can power it too. But it's going to take a while for the technology to mature.
AYDMUSIC t1_jdazf1z wrote
What happens when the concrete breaks down?
iOracleGaming t1_jdbjlyo wrote
Remeber that most carbon capture initiatives are funded by fossil fuel corporations since those solutions don't focus on reducing hydrocarbon usage.
De3NA t1_jdbu0df wrote
It costs more energy to capture carbon than to produce so we’re running at a net deficit energy conversion ratio.
KN_Knoxxius t1_jdc1hyt wrote
We've heard this story a million times by now haven't we? Will this be the one? Will it flop like the others? Find out in the next episode of 'Scams from the 21st century'
AutoModerator t1_jd8bdiw wrote
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_jd8nqt9 wrote
[removed]
MorganRose99 t1_jdae8l9 wrote
I feel like something like this would have negative side effects for some reason, but we'll see
Arandomperson5334118 t1_jdal9x9 wrote
Carbon capture is a scam!
meowmeowmelons t1_jdasvlu wrote
I was slightly hoping it was an actual plant.
knucklechunker t1_jdavs1o wrote
JosephMeach t1_jdaxk16 wrote
2042: I will be breaking rocks trying to grow some tomatoes
sevenwheel t1_jdb01l7 wrote
The joke usenet group alt.pave.the.earth is starting to look prophetic!
KittenKoder t1_jdb0xfr wrote
There is a flaw in this, CO2 trapped in ice isn't the only problem with the ice melting.
Vegan_Harvest t1_jdb1172 wrote
How much co2 does it produce doing this?
Eatthesewords t1_jdb1rdd wrote
So what happens when the concrete breaks down in the future? Co2 goes through the roof
[deleted] t1_jdb39i2 wrote
[removed]
dcvalent t1_jdb5d03 wrote
“Guy breathes on concrete mix”
FireflyAdvocate t1_jdbarvk wrote
Once it is trapped in the concrete would it be released again if the concrete ages? Essentially this is just prolonging the inevitable again.
Philusa t1_jdbbo2v wrote
This process sounds less energy intensive than DACCS. But it’s not a good sign that they refuse to disclose energy usage. Unless it’s hugely less than for DACCS, won’t deploying it at scale before we have surplus clean power just delay net zero?
Phinaha t1_jdbcblb wrote
500 tons of CO2 a year that this plant captures is equivalent to one coast-to-coast return flight of a 250-passenger plane. If this tech was adopted for all the world's concrete, it could do 1.1 million times this, and that would cancel about half of aviation CO2.
Scizmz t1_jdbeq55 wrote
We literally need over a million of these to put a dent in the need that we currently have for CO2 capture.
Wazza17 t1_jdbgril wrote
To get to NetZero 2050 we are going have to try new things some will work others won’t but if we don’t try we will never know
LOAHS t1_jdbgscm wrote
A tree?
vanzini t1_jdbj45j wrote
lol, concrete traps co2 anyway, as it cures. But making Portland cement releases a bunch more
supagirl277 t1_jdbo0zw wrote
You gotta wonder if they had this idea but with ice in the past…
Nofapstronaut6 t1_jdboqzb wrote
Here in New Zealand there is a major CO2 shortage which has effected the large breweries ability to make beer. Please send your CO2
cpthoneydick t1_jdbti0b wrote
I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and taste like orange sherbet.
KragLendal t1_jdburgx wrote
Trees do this on a daily basis..
TiredOfBeingTired28 t1_jdbvzq0 wrote
Have doubts. First concrete production alone makes a lot of co2 from the energy alone needed. Concrete is porest? So how will it hold the co2 in. Concrete isnt forever unless Roman so will it release mozt of the co2 when its eventually torn down.
rachman77 t1_jdbwfyu wrote
Once upon a time when I was an engineer at a concrete company we tried this and not only was the quality of the concrete apparently lower it required more chemical additives to set properly kind of negating the benefits. IIRC there was also an industry presentation at a conference we attended that showed that once the concrete wore down or was broken up which inevitable with any major job it released the CO2.
The production of cement for concrete is still one of the largest contributors to GHG emissions out there and without fixing that portion of the equation the concrete industry will still be a problem
soccersteve5 t1_jdbwpv9 wrote
I mean we could just stop chopping down trees which put it into the soil to be recycled and produce oxygen at the same time 🙃
Kuwing t1_jdcur6f wrote
This is a joke right?
JDoos t1_jdatoqf wrote
>According to the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, each pound of concrete releases 0.93 pounds of carbon dioxide.
I am skeptical this isn't a scam
hikesnpipes t1_jdb7rl3 wrote
We have mycelium for this purpose…
radzak10 t1_jdb7zw1 wrote
Do they know trees need it?
zylstrar t1_jdby9fl wrote
What's the largest sources of CO2? Cow farts and concrete?
Popcorn57252 t1_jdb0c54 wrote
That's cool but what if you put the CO2 into algae farms instead?
bitcoinslinga t1_jdb56m3 wrote
Sad news for people that want to use climate change as an excuse for more authoritarian control.
gobblox38 t1_jd8y3fh wrote
I've seen enough of these to be skeptical of the claim until it's verified by actual scientific research.