this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
121 points (93.5% liked)

Technology

59654 readers
2575 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
121
A New US Plant Will Use Captured CO2 to Make Millions of Gallons of Jet Fuel (singularityhub.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A New US Plant Will Use Captured CO2 to Make Millions of Gallons of Jet Fuel::Replacing half of a plane’s regular fuel with CO2-derived fuel can result in 90 percent fewer lifecycle emissions.

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] casualbrow 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn’t the point of carbon capture to remove emissions from the atmosphere? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but this company sounds like it’s taking captured CO2 and guaranteeing that it gets released straight into the upper atmosphere where it’s nearly impossible to recapture. Unless I’m misunderstanding, this doesn’t seem like it’s any better than generating fuel from crude

[–] phoneymouse 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah, though it’s better than releasing new CO2 that is still in the ground. Just re-releasing already released CO2.

It would be nice if a company or government focused on capturing the CO2 and not releasing it again.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

It would be nice if a company or government focused on capturing the CO2 and not releasing it again.

Climeworks and Carbfix do that:

  1. capture atmospheric CO2
  2. dissolve the CO₂ in water – sparkling water of sorts
  3. pump it underground into basalt rock
  4. there it forms solid carbonate minerals via natural processes

I hope techniques like these become included in carbon pricing. They cause negative emissions = they get paid.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Agreed, it's a half step forward. Leaving fossil fuels underground is still progress, even if we aren't sequestering CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm optimistic that building a market like this can drive design efficiency for direct air capture tech. If that efficiency is improved it could make capture and sequestration a more plausible option for govts in the future.

Fingers crossed!

[–] doppelgangmember 1 points 1 year ago

Ahh cant wait to have CO2 cycles like we do El nino and el nina...

Quarterly reports are in, profits are booming! We will be cutting fuel production, hence stagnating metric tons of CO2 in the air until the next quarterly reports!

[–] killernova 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not much else to say except yes you're right. Unfortunately, the average person doesn't care or understand the difference.

[–] Chocrates 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It is an important difference though. Theoretically this could make aviation carbon neutral. We could also find a deep hole in the ground to pump it so it is stored, though presumably we could turn it into something more inert than jet fuel.

[–] AA5B 2 points 1 year ago

Right, I think this is the point others are missing. Yes, carbon capture does not seem like a feasible way to reduce climate change. We all agree.

However, what do we do about aviation? We need to reduce carbon emissions across the board and that definitely includes aviation. However we really don’t have the technology, nor does one appear in the foreseeable future. While there have been some promising experiments with batteries, that’s not going to be useful without some huge improvements in battery tech. impractically huge. It may never happen. We’ve had much better luck with bio-fuel of various sorts but everyone here probably understands those downsides. So what can we do? Harvesting carbon from the atmosphere to create synfuel, at least helps aviation get closer to carbon neutral. I have no idea whether it can actually work or is just another boondoggle, but certainly like to see the attempt.

Yes, we know carbon capture is not a reasonable way to fight climate change, but is it a helpful way to reduce carbon emissions from aviation?

[–] killernova 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Theoretically, it could make aviation almost carbon neutral due to inherent inefficiencies, but what good will that do? We need to be heavily carbon negative in order to even have a the tiniest, faintest glimmer of hope to avert our own extinction if we continue to do nothing about this problem.

Reducing consumption is the only way to achieve this but that requires either a monumental shift in human behavior, or simply less humans. And, since we seemingly aren't making the choice, I wonder which one nature will choose for us...

[–] Chocrates 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't disagree, but the modern world relies on Air Travel and nobody is going to be willing to stop that. We don't yet have energy storage density to a spot where electric flight is "economical". It exists and works well from what I understand but we can't build a passenger jet with it for instance.

You are right though. If we don't make huge shifts then earth is just gonna shed us and recover over a few million years.

[–] killernova 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's definitely better than nothing, I'll agree, but also underwhelming from where we need to be because it makes such little difference. Most greenhouse gasses come from factory farming and the activities of corporations. We should still make these baby steps in green technology even if it's too late to change our fate, because the science of it is or could be valuable for an easier, more comfortable, or slower extinction process - as morbid as that sounds.

[–] AA5B 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We can’t afford to just change farming and corporations: we really need to cut carbon emissions everywhere we can. Let’s go for aviation, AND figure out the other industries

[–] killernova 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We can't afford it? Then we go extinct. What is the higher price? Anyway, it's probably out of our hands by now. Like I mentioned, nature will probably choose for us, and she always takes the path of least resistance.

[–] AA5B 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You missed an important word.

We can’t afford to J U S T ….

[–] killernova 1 points 1 year ago

Oh, gotcha. The word 'only' instead of 'just' would have made the sentence more clear. Anyway, I wish you happiness and good health!

[–] AA5B 1 points 1 year ago

You can’t just say we need to stop flying: no one will do that, but it’s also not the only choice. If this is a practical way to reduce carbon from aviation, let’s do it. I don’t see anything else likely nor do I see giving up flying.

We need to cut carbon emissions across the board quite seriously, but some industries/technologies will work better than others. Maybe this is all we can do for aviation, but it does help. We’ll just need to make it up elsewhere

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Carbon capture technology is fundamentally flawed and is used by corps for greenwash

[–] SupraMario 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You mean carbon credits right? This sounds like legit tech. Do you have info on why it's flawed? I'd love to read up on it.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There are different ways to do it, some decent, some bullshit. And it's only useful if it's powered by renewable energy like wind/solar. But it's largely unregulated, so a lot of corps grossly overestimate the amount of carbon they're capturing. Or just flat out lie.

The main problem is that it's presented as some sort of big solution, when it's more like putting a SpongeBob band-aid on a gunshot wound. Corps use it to justify continuing to fuck the atmosphere with things like....jet fuel, for example.

[–] Chocrates 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Agree mostly. This is an important technology and realistically in the capitalist hellscape we live in, carbon capture is going to need to be part of it. But yes this has the potential problem of letting us ignore the problem because we can just pull CO2 out of the air.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Right, the solution is to DRASTICALLY reduce our carbon output AND ALSO do carbon capture stuff. But without the former, the latter isn't nearly enough to do anything significant. We're currently producing A LOT more carbon than we could ever capture, even with optimistic estimates. Reduction is the most important action here.

[–] SupraMario 0 points 1 year ago

So it's like carbon credits....with more steps and bullshit lol great

[–] plandeka 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Climate Town tackled carbon capture very well in this video. In short, hardcore greenwashing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwP2mSZpe0Q

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=BwP2mSZpe0Q

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] Snowman44 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A plant that captures Co2? So trees? Are we going to use wood as a jet fuel?

[–] PaulDevonUK 3 points 1 year ago

Attach wings to old steam trains?

[–] Chocrates 5 points 1 year ago

Anyone point me at some papers or write ups on how DAC works these days? I think I looked at a high level when the swiss plan opened and it was just "push hot emissions through a filter and magic happens".

[–] MiddleWeigh 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm no longer dumping my trash in landfills, I'm burning it instead.