h a l f b a k e r y"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
In Finland, a company is using various types of sand to store heat from solar and wind at scale.
Solar salt (NaNO3-KNO3) is used to store heat in solar plants. But the linked paper considers the specific heat capacity of "carbonate salt-based nanofluids."
That's convenient, because a Canadian
company is using "potassium hydroxide solution" to "bind with the CO2 molecules, removing them from the air and trapping them in the liquid solution as a carbonate salt."
Thus, in a few steps, we can remove CO2 from the air, trap it as a carbonate salt, and with some finnegling, use that salt as a battery for environmentally generated heat.
Battery in Finland
https://www.euronew...d-energy-year-round
Not a salt [4and20, Mar 12 2024]
carbonate salt-based nanofluids
https://www.science...i/S2352152X21008914
more a salt [4and20, Mar 12 2024]
Salt from air Canada
https://carbonengin...com/our-technology/
[4and20, Mar 12 2024]
Thinking bigger with KOH CO2 removal
Sequester_20CO2_20i...kali_20salt_20flats
[bs0u0155, Mar 13 2024]
Targetted CO2 capture?
https://www.bnnbloo...akthrough-1.1716997
[4and20, Mar 14 2024]
[link]
|
| |
There's much better ways to use CO2 as energy storage vs making salt and storing heat in it. If you're storing heat, you just need mass, some conductivity and have it be relatively benign. Rock is pretty benign and it's everywhere. Sand too. |
|
| |
Attempts at "Direct Air Capture" - I feel dirty typing it out, are so mind-numbingly stupid I really worry for the state of the world. |
|
| |
First, why would you want to capture CO2 from the least concentrated source? If you're really into capturing CO2, do it from a power plant or sewage plant where it's 50-95% vs 0.035%. You can just take combustion gases, pressurize them and the water will liquify pretty quickly, drain that off and you have pretty pure CO2 and you can keep pressurizing that to a liquid if you feel the need. |
|
| |
Second, spending ENERGY doing it is staggeringly stupid. I'm sure there will be a justification regarding sourcing it from renewable blah blah... but if you're using that, that energy is then removed from the whole energy market equation where it will likely be replaced by conventional energy with 25%-50% efficiency in terms of CO2, so all you've done is double/quadruple the problem. |
|
| |
Third, why not use a more elegant alternative? Take, for example, the tree. It's a self-assembling solar plant that turns CO2 into construction materials with minimal intervention. You can put them right in people's back yards or in vast installations covering thousands of square miles. No matter what your environment, there's likely an off-the-shelf variant ready to go. |
|
| |
[bsOu155] But trees are already fully baked and therefore are not pertinent here. I’m going with the trees anyway. |
|
| |
I did flinch when that last link mentioned the addition of energy. But it's pretty dismissive of trees too. I think I saw a news article which said Bill Gates was an investor. |
|
| |
Why has no one mentioned making islands out of plastic and planting mangroves? Bill? |
|
| |
Well, like all of us, you're half right. |
|
| |
"However, trees in the 50%-plastic cover treatment proved surprisingly resilient and were able to maintain their canopy over the course of the experiment," |
|
| |
Bloomberg news says that Bill Gates has invested in a competitor for direct air capture, Verdox, which uses some MIT tech to improve C02 capture efficiencies. |
|
| |