CO2 Capture to Low Carbon Fuel - Merritt

[Jlabute]

This new CO2 capture planned for Merritt will be built by the same company "Carbon Engineering" that built the Squamish plant. As far as I know, the Squamish plant is currently an expensive and unproductive part of our economy. Perhaps pellets from the Squamish plant will be useful in Merritt? Not sure. The Merritt plant will require 315MW of power and 35,200 tonnes of hydrogen which in the way hydrogen is made, creates CO2 and needs lots of energy.

Last I saw, 315MW is 1/3rd the capacity of Site C and one third the cost of Site C is more than 5B dollars, sucked up by a non-beneficial CO2 capture plant. What an enormous waste. Not as though we are going to make 50,000 of these CO2 capture plants let alone 5 of them. Our NDP government believes in unicorns.


https://www.castanet.net/news/Kamloops/ ... or-Merritt

[spooker]

So you're assuming that they'll be using the steam-methane reforming method to provide the hydrogen for the project? Considering the amount of electricity they're supposed to need wouldn't it be simpler to assume electrolysis?

[SamSam3]

Something doesn't add up. If it is going to use up 250,000 tonnes of carbon, that's 250,000,000kg. It's going to make 103 million litres of fuel. So that means each litre they make will contain 2kg of carbon???? Impossible! A litre of gas doesn't even weigh 1kg.

[Jlabute]

So you're assuming that they'll be using the steam-methane reforming method to provide the hydrogen for the project? Considering the amount of electricity they're supposed to need wouldn't it be simpler to assume electrolysis?

Steam reformation is my assumption, considering the amount of hydrogen. How else can you get 35,200 tonnes of hydrogen? Electrolysis requires a huge amount of power and would only be a small portion of the entire process. Will they make it and store it themselves? We will have to wait and see when they publish their process diagram. Either way, 315MW of power is like... holleee dam Batman.

[spooker]

So you're assuming that they'll be using the steam-methane reforming method to provide the hydrogen for the project? Considering the amount of electricity they're supposed to need wouldn't it be simpler to assume electrolysis?

Steam reformation is my assumption, considering the amount of hydrogen. How else can you get 35,200 tonnes of hydrogen? Electrolysis requires a huge amount of power and would only be a small portion of the entire process. Will they make it and store it themselves? We will have to wait and see when they publish their process diagram. Either way, 315MW of power is like... holleee dam Batman.

And to think all we'd need to do is take 98,000 cars off the road for a year to save 103MM litres of fuel and that would also translate into 176,000 tonnes of CO2 not being produced ... we humans don't like to do it the easy way ...

[Sparki55]

And to think all we'd need to do is take 98,000 cars off the road for a year to save 103MM litres of fuel and that would also translate into 176,000 tonnes of CO2 not being produced ... we humans don't like to do it the easy way ...

You first? I still need a car to make money to buy food. I like food.

[Glacier]

Something doesn't add up. If it is going to use up 250,000 tonnes of carbon, that's 250,000,000kg. It's going to make 103 million litres of fuel. So that means each litre they make will contain 2kg of carbon???? Impossible! A litre of gas doesn't even weigh 1kg.

I've read it 10 times trying to figure out their math. The only thing I can think is that they will use Hydrogen and electricity to capture CO2 from the air, and take the O2 out and use it as fuel while the carbon will be disposed of in solid form. Or maybe they will be using the hydrogen for fuel, so they'll produce hydrogen and oxygen gas for fuel. They really aren't giving much information.

[spooker]

And to think all we'd need to do is take 98,000 cars off the road for a year to save 103MM litres of fuel and that would also translate into 176,000 tonnes of CO2 not being produced ... we humans don't like to do it the easy way ...

You first? I still need a car to make money to buy food. I like food.

It's all about the choices ... I'm the only one in the office that has never required a parking pass ... there's a Modo car within walking distance that I use when needed ...

I've read it 10 times trying to figure out their math. The only thing I can think is that they will use Hydrogen and electricity to capture CO2 from the air, and take the O2 out and use it as fuel while the carbon will be disposed of in solid form. Or maybe they will be using the hydrogen for fuel, so they'll produce hydrogen and oxygen gas for fuel. They really aren't giving much information.

Based on the other articles about the company they talk about using "green hydrogen" which most likely means they will be using the electricity to produce the hydrogen ... they capture CO2 also using electricity then use it in a process to form hydrocarbon molecules which will be the basis for the fuel they sell ...

https://biv.com/article/2021/10/carbon- ... ed-merritt
https://e360.yale.edu/features/using_co ... een_energy

[Sparki55]

It's all about the choices ... I'm the only one in the office that has never required a parking pass ... there's a Modo car within walking distance that I use when needed ...

You live near a modo and work in an office... Plumbers, carpenters, out of town workers, farmers, etc can't make the switch so easy.

[Jlabute]

Modo is an option for a few people. Modo is still a car on the road getting used more than most vehicles and I would guess with near zero towing capacity. Not necessarily a practical vehicle for most people, or clean in various ways.

Talk about green hydrogen is certainly different than doing green hydrogen. It is a costly slow process and one has to be over-built to get enough "H". It is why 99.9% of all hydrogen produced is not green. Extracting CO2 from air requires enormous amounts of energy, as well does green hydrogen. At least they admit they need a massive amount of power... 1/3rd of a Site-C. How do you get that much power to a site? Cut down chunks of forest for transmission lines. How many of these insignificant and costly plants can we provide electricity for? Not enough to make any difference. The article says they will be making diesel fuels. This might help industry, since fewer and fewer diesel cars are being made today. I don't think car manufacturers would reverse this because of carbon capture.

Amazing all this is cheaper than pumping CO2 underground. lol. (yes, that is a sarcastic voice). Despite all the talk, this will end as another wasteful futile experiment. Unfortunately, the amount of money spent could had funded a nuclear power plant that could provide greener and cleaner energy for 100 years. I personally see carbon capture as a con.

Imagine spending untold trillions to capture CO2 and turn it in to fuel. If it were the slightest bit possible to make a profit, they would never willingly shut these things off until all life on earth is dead. The green industry wants to make money more than anyone.


https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... e_con.html

[TylerM4]

I agree that it's a very costly exercise.

But let's be honest with ourselves - nobody has a better idea/plan for removing CO2 from the atmosphere and we REALLY need to start doing this.

I'd be willing to dedicate the energy of an entire hydro electric plant to it if needed. The long term outlook for this global warming thing isn't looking good at all.

[Jlabute]

I understand how you perceive the effects of CO2. You and I don't agree on that.

Despite that, BC produced 67.9Mt of CO2 in 2018. This hugely expensive low carbon fuel manufacturer coming to Merritt aims to remove 250kT, or 0.37% of what just BC produces (this may even be an exaggeration). If 1/3rd of Site-C is dedicated (plus the cost of power-lines), and the cost of the plant and all, you're probably at $10B give or take a few "B".

Handling 100% of BC emissions needs 300 of these low carbon fuel plants and 100 Site-Cs costing trillions of dollars. On top of that, I hear we will all be driving EVs by 2035. Not sure what sort of window of opportunity there is but their model of operation is to produce fuels while everyone moves away from fuels.

I say, they are wasting monumental amounts of cash and resources to accomplish nothing. Once we naturally move away from fuels, CO2 will fall naturally. There is no rush.

[GordonH]

If this process works great... if not hopefully not a lot taxpayers money has been wasted.

btw if green vegetation on our planet starts fading, please turn off suction fans.

[foenix]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.forbes. ... oline/amp/

Presently, Carbon Engineering’s Direct Air Capture system can remove a ton of CO2 from the air for about $100. Individual systems would be set to capture about a million tons of CO2 per year, requiring some tens of thousands of systems to keep up with global emissions and reduce atmospheric CO2 to normal levels by 2040.

......and btw.....capacity is not the same as total watts generated per year......it's 315 Mw/year is what the plant requires.

Site C will provide 1,100 megawatts (MW) of capacity, and produce about 5,100 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity each year – enough energy to power the equivalent of about 450,000 homes per year in B.C.

[Jlabute]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.forbes. ... oline/amp/

Presently, Carbon Engineering’s Direct Air Capture system can remove a ton of CO2 from the air for about $100. Individual systems would be set to capture about a million tons of CO2 per year, requiring some tens of thousands of systems to keep up with global emissions and reduce atmospheric CO2 to normal levels by 2040.

......and btw.....capacity is not the same as total watts generated per year......it's 315 Mw/year is what the plant requires.

Site C will provide 1,100 megawatts (MW) of capacity, and produce about 5,100 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity each year – enough energy to power the equivalent of about 450,000 homes per year in B.C.

Total watts generated at Site-C is 1100 MW. Merritt site will use 315 MW. It is ratio-metric. Total generation or use is given per number of hours, so Site-C will be 1100 MW x 8760 hours to give total GWH, but it usually doesn’t run at full capacity. Merritt will be 315 MW x 8760 hours (per year) assuming they do electrolysis and other stuff 365/24h is still the same ratio… but the Merritt site isn’t likely to lower output during night time… giving us 2,760 gigawatt hours… half of site c since site c is not always full capacity. What does 315 MW per year mean to you?

This is the Squamish site. Close to 1.5B, and we get pellets. The Merritt site we are waiting for the real process diagram. As per GordonH, I am glad it is mostly not our money.