Valerie wrote:
This sounds too good to be true. I am not a chemist or a physicist and cannot make any comments, but I will be very happy to hear what other CACOR members have to say. I might then be in a position to form an educated opinion. Thank you for sharing this.
Val
Art replied:
Valerie:
Let me try to respond to your message.
- The company website is Carbon Engineering | Direct Air Capture of CO2 | Home
- The oil companies have been and still are investing big money into direct air carbon capture and storage to justify burning more fossil fuels with impunity. I suspect they have been backing the 12 years of development at Carbon Engineering.
- The only company I am aware of that has had any success at this is in Iceland.
They are successful as they have a real means of storage of the captured CO2. Carbon Engineering Saying “we just bury it in the ground” is naïve or an outright lie. CO2 is very difficult to store permanently.
The Iceland articles are reliable whereas company promotional material (like that of Carbon Engineering) is almost always an incredible exaggeration of performance. They make claims but there is no evidence they can deliver what they claim. Iceland has given evidence.
There are many technological claims made by companies and researchers but few of them lead to anything of value. Exceptions most certainly exist, and Tesla/SpaceX are two clear examples of what is possible.
Laboratory discoveries lead to patents that stimulate the dreamers. The difficulty is always taking a lab test and repeating it in many places and having a very firm understanding of the physics involved. This often takes many years. Then there is the next step in building a pilot facility to verify one can scale up. Then comes a long period of verification of the performance of the pilot facility and many design changes, driven by market requirements, to reach a level ready to seek regulatory approvals. This process is NOT easy. Safety, economics, and performance all blend together to get certified and available for use by households, industries or agencies. The military are the most advanced at being able to do this. Of course, the US Military and NASA are very closely linked. Getting past this point in a development program takes a massive amount of money and time.
This is where I ask companies to provide proof that they have a product that will do the job they claim. Most cannot do this as they never get this far. This is where Carbon Engineering is now. Making claims but unable to prove it. They may get there eventually but they have a big problem with CO2 storage that will not be easy to solve economically, safely, at scale and still meet al the regulatory requirements for that industrial sector. For 30 years I have worked with companies who build commercial products for use by clients (households, architects, builders, food industries, medial sector, etc.) and they are only doing incremental changes to existing products. Laboratory and field testing is demanded by the regulatory agencies and then even then, the UL and CSA laboratories want to have a test unit so their engineers can test it without the interference of the designers. Carbon Engineering are many millions of dollars away from this point in the development spectrum.
Then, the next step is to build a factory of substantial size to produce other robotic machines or products for sale to the world. Once released, there is a massive issue of product support and scaling up manufacturing. Both are NOT easy either. Even after 20 years or more may have lapsed, supply chain issues, competition (price and performance) and the impact of material aging (wearing out) are a constant issue.
I hope this little note helps your understanding of the many claims being made over the internet and how reality is always there. Investors are very much aware of this process and the challenges/risks. Those with deep pockets can take the most risk and eventually some of these innovations happen to make it to the marketplace.
Ian looks at these things from a very fundamental point of view, which I also fully support. Stop consumption of fossil fuels, Earth’s resources (rocks and logs), stop killing for food, stop flames for energy, and become one with nature. From my perspective, this does not mean reverting to living like a caveman, but it certainly means giving up comforts, convenience, complex living standards, consumption, world travel to check off a bucket list, and seriously adjusting to the cycles of nature. My energy system is 100% in compliance with nature. I make electricity when the sun shines. I extract heat from the ground without a flame. I have transportation with an Electric Vehicle (that I mainly charge at home with my free electricity), I repair and build most things in my workshops (cabinet building, electronics, software, some metal works). Recycle, repair and repurpose can be done by most people and I see signs of that happening more frequently. However, I see a family of 4 living in a house that can accommodate 8 or more. In fact, the same size house often has only 2 people living in it. Reducing consumption in a society where advertising is so powerful is not easy. However, it is not impossible either. You have control over your diet and your lifestyle. As one of our Zoom speakers always says, “More fun, less stuff.” Some suggest going back to living like we did in the 1950s. I remember those days and as a kid when I had a great deal of fun with a lot less stuff. I now live a lifestyle with a lot less stuff and get great enjoyment out of my hobbies. I know neighbours are going back to making things (cooking, clothes, furniture, pottery, crafts, greeting cards) and bartering or giving away while accepting gifts of similar crafts. I just don’t understand why people have to have a membership in some exercise organization with a bunch of machines when running around the streets and doing stretching, weightlifting and yoga at home will do the job far cheaper.
More fun, less stuff. Simplify your life. Be frugal. Invest wisely.
Art
Leave a Reply