Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (@WEschenbach on eX-Twitter)
Perspective is everything.
The world’s largest CO2-capture plant just went into operation in Iceland, built by a company called “Climeworks”. You can read about it at their site.
Here’s a description:
“According to Climeworks’ estimates, Mammoth boasts an impressive annual capacity of capturing 36,000 tons of CO2. To put this into perspective, this is equivalent to neutralizing the emissions from approximately 7,800 gasoline-powered vehicles.”
Sounds impressive, huh? Same as taking 7,800 cars off the road? WOW!
However, to return to the question of perspective, how many giant plants of this size would we need to neutralize the annual global CO2 emissions, which are currently about 38 gigatonnes of CO2?
Why , a mere ONE MILLION EQUALLY LARGE PLANTS would do it … should be no problem, right?
I mean, if we could build one of these suckers per week, that would only take us … hang on, let’s see … carry over what sums to greater than 9, divide by pi, take the square root, allow for Cook’s Factor, this math stuff is tough … that would only take us 19,231 years to complete the project.
And how much energy does it require? The builders are VERY tight-lipped about this, but typically such plants require about 2 MWh of electricity per tonne of CO2 captured. Let’s call it 1.5 MWh per tonne to be conservative.
So to capture all of our emissions would require about 50 petawatt-hours of electricity per year …
… and to close the circle and return to the question of perspective, that’s about twice the current total annual global electricity consumption.
This CO2-capture project is nothing but pathetic climate virtue signaling.
w.
PS—As usual, I ask that when you comment you quote the exact words you are discussing. I’m happy to defend my own words … but I can’t defend your interpretation of my words. Thanks.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If Iceland wishes to reduce atmospheric CO2–why not just stop those volcanic eruptions? Every one of them emits the stuff.
Too many volcanoes, not enough virgins.
Can we use trans-women (male to female version)?
I did my part.
The real question is..
…why would they want to stop Iceland getting slightly warmer !! ??
I have asked the same question in Scotland. Unfortunately, we have a Scottish government which thinks that Scotland is too warm.
That Medieval Warm Period was a nightmare for Scotland.
The definition of climate/insane.
“This CO2-capture project is nothing but pathetic climate virtue signaling.”
__________________________________________________________
Insanity would be more accurate.
It is being very kind to call this nonsense either virtue signaling or insanity.
What it actually is, is massive subsidy farming. How much subsidy underwrites the above CO2 capture facility? Both in the initial capital as well as the ongoing operational costs?
Throw enough money at a “problem”, someone will figure out a way to harvest it.
Although to be fair to Willis – Thorstein Veblen coined the types of goods and services that wealthy people use to advertise their wealth, a new type of spending: the Veblen good. Consider climate nonsense to be the sovereign nation equivalent.
The problem is: the West is not getting wealthier compared to the rest of the world…quite the opposite.
We need someone to study and name this new phenomenon: Veblen good spending by downshifters.
The IEA summed up the problems relating to what they call ‘Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage’ (CCUS) in
‘CCUS Policies and Business Models:building a commercial market’ (Oct 2023)
“For all CCUS applications economic viability remains a significant hurdle as costs can be prohibitively high compared to unabated technologies. In addition long lead times for project development and implementation can further impede progress, particularly related to CO2 storage development”
My shorter summary – CCUS Completely Crazy Utterly Stupid
What a friggen waste of money!!
China builds one 1000 MW USC coal plant, and you would need 100 of those f.rs to remove that CO2, which would be far more costly than the coal plant that would last 60 years.
Oh Lord, when will lightning strike these people to put them out of their misery?
When will we vote to put us out of this misery?
Err…..remind me how “we” got into this insanity. Yep ,it’s all about how you vote. Something is wrong..
The UK had no alternative to a vote for Net Zero until very recently.
Vote Trump in by a landslide for 4 years, and
vote Vance in by a landslide for 8 more years, and
eliminate all subsidies of any kind to all industries, and
stop subsidies for all so-called CO2 reduction schemes, and
stop the export of our fossil energy, and
drill, baby drill, and
bring two infantry divisions from abroad to help build the north and south wall, and
station them on the OUTSIDE of the completed wall, with tear gas and tasers, so not a mouse can cross our border, and
deport millions of recent illegals each year for the next 4 years to completely offset the illegal Biden/Harris vote importing scheme
That will immediately reduce the budget deficit, and
lower US energy prices by 50%, and
reduce ALL OTHER PRICES, and
have a 100% tariff on all imports from anywhere, and
attract industrial plants from all over, and
provide millions of high-tech, community-building jobs with god benefits
Yes, yes and yes!!!
I think a double wall, with a nice wide minefield in between, would be very effective and save a ton of manpower. And no cleaning up the bones.
Musks robots could dig a 3000-mile trench and bury them
36,000 tons of CO2 is approx. 36 MW-Hours from a standard coal plant.
So this plant would remove about 2 minutes of CO2 generated in 1 hour from that plant.
If they’re so convinced that this needs to be done, why pick the least effective and most expensive method? Right now all around the northern hemisphere, billions of tons of leaves are falling off trees, all sorts of other flora are dying back at least above ground, and all that vegetation will be decomposing over the next few months into CO2 and methane. Why not gather it all up and stuff it into a disused mine somewhere and seal the entrance? I feel sure Ed Milliband will fund such a scheme.
I spoke to an operator in the plant, saying that the massive amount of steam venting to the atmosphere is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Suddenly the penny dropped, and he said that it was more about removing noxious gases like H2S.
I think they inevitably will encounter problems with formation of heat stable salts, something they likely would not have anticipated in design modeling.
I suspect it is more about somebody, somewhere, making a profit out of thin air.
Making a profit out of thin air. That is exactly what the Climate Syndicate is all about.
“Why not gather it all up and stuff it into a disused mine somewhere and seal the entrance? I feel sure Ed Milliband will fund such a scheme.”
A much more cost-effective method would be to —
Stuff Ed Milliband into a disused mine somewhere and seal the entrance !!
Along with all members of the Climate Change Committee.
Clearly my post was meant in jest, but my god man! You have come up with a workable solution!
When will this insanity end? When the money runs out? A real global crisis that truly affects millions of the affluent western world? Megaquake? Volcanic Eruption via a crustal hot spot? This frivolous spending can’t go on. There’s not enough printed money to keep these perception, not actual, climate savior mechanisms going.
We’re already screwed, there isn’t any money left for a nuclear renaissance, the only thing that could have ended the insanity
Copilot/Bing/Microsoft
As of 2023, the total global debt has reached a record $307 trillion. This includes borrowing by governments, businesses, and households across the world1. The high levels of debt, combined with rising interest rates, are indeed contributing to economic challenges, including stagflation.
Stagflation, characterized by slow growth, high unemployment, and rising prices, is a difficult economic condition to manage because traditional policies to combat inflation can worsen unemployment, and vice versa. The current global debt crisis is a significant factor in this situation
I’ve always wondered who is lending the money that makes up the global debt, or is it all smoke and mirrors?
China and the Arabs.
“This ……. is ……. but ……..”
SOURCE!!!????
wow, what drivel.
No clue what this means, JBP. This is a prime example of why I ask people to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING!!!
w.
I’m going to guess this
This CO2-capture project is nothing but pathetic climate virtue signaling.
I’m not sure why someone would ask for a source on that, though. A very dry sense of humour?
Drivel indeed.
Harold the Old Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Everyone
RE: CO2 Does Not Cause Warming Air
Shown in the graphic (See below) are plots of temperatures in Death Valley
from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was 303 ppmv
(i.e., 0.595 g/cu. m.), and by 2001 it had increased to 371 ppmv
(i.e., 729 g/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in the temperature of the dry desert air.
Thus, on the basis of the empirical temperature data, I have concluded that C02
does not cause warming of global air. The reason is quite simple: there is too little CO2 in the air.
At the MLO in Hawaii. the concentration of CO2 is 422 ppmv in dry air. One cubic meter of this air contains 0.829 g of C02 and has a mass of 1.29 kg at STP. This small amount of CO2 can heat up such a large mass of air by only a very small amount if at all. There is no need to remove CO2 from the air.
I have further concluded that the claim by the IPCC since 1988 that CO2 causes global warming is a deliberate fabrication and lie. The purpose of this lie is to provide the UN the justification for the distribution, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, of the donor funds from the rich countries to the poor countries to help them cope with global warming and climate change. The amount of the funds is now many billions of dollars. Hopefully, this fraud can not go on forever.
Unfortunately, Iceland is another victim of the greatest scientific fraud since that of the Piltdown man.
MLO is atop of one of the world’s largest active volcanos and the Kilauea is 10 miles away. MLO moved to a different location 200 miles away with Kilauea started erupting.
I recall reading that NASA went back to MLO site using choppers and restarted some of the instruments.
what happened to the last 20 years of the temperature data you have plotted?
The Death Valley graphic was taken from the late John Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.John-Daly.com.
You should go there. From the homepage, scroll down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on “NA” and then on “Pacific”. Finally, scroll down and click on “Death Valley”.
He found many weather stations around the world whose average annual temperatures showed little or no change through to ca. 2002. Go to Oz, and check out graphics for Brisbane, Alice Springs, and Adelaide. Unfortunately, he died in 2004.
I would really like to obtain the temperature data from 2002 to present, but don’t know to access the various temperature data bases to get it. I am considering asking Anthony to get the data and complete the graphic. Can you imagine the consequences if plots stay flat, i.e., proof of no warming of air by CO2? All this global warming and climate change nonsense would vanish overnight, especially so if everyone learned of John Daly’s website.
Good comment
The purpose of this lie is to provide the UN the justification for the distribution, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, of the donor funds from the rich countries to the poor countries to help them cope with global warming and climate change. The amount of the funds is now many billions of dollars. Hopefully, this fraud cannot go on forever.
There is much more to this.
The EU wants the resources of these African countries.
It bribes politicians, and provides high-interest loans to build EU wind and solar systems, which these countries pay for with their resources priced at low prices, which helps the EU compete; a form of perpetual neo-colonialism.
The EU is doing the same with the US with super-expensive, environmentally destructive, uneconomical offshore wind, saddling the US with high-priced electricity, turning all of the US into dysfunctional EU and dysfunctional California.
The EU has almost all expertise and infrastructures, built over 40 years, so it will dominate that sector, as they do the automobile sector.
Electricity Cost
Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.
Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh
NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 – 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore
A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.
Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People
Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.
Maine is in nor’easter alley. What are these guys thinking? Have they crossed there fingers and hoped the Big One will never strike?
What a great idea. Suck all the CO² out of the atmosphere. What could go wrong?
See my comment below. CO2 will bubble out of the oceans to replace it.
A number of years ago a US politician stated (since suppressed by internet censorship) that what we needed to do is get all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere.
My thought at the time was that he was in for a serious weight loss program.
The stupidity is priceless!
I am afraid not. It comes with a hefty price tag. But probably other peoples money, so…
When the light is shown on these endeavors, most are merely virtue signaling. But the real issue is that there are a lot of jobs, and a lot of people making a lot of money tilting at windmills…Why wouldn’t they? They don’t HAVE to make sense they only have to provide employment. Wind and solar projects have become huge, and employ millions, but they don’t displace so called ‘fossil’ fuels…they merely augment it. And when most efficient, they cost the economy because energy companies are forced to buy it which raises the prices of energy for all of us.
Remember, 95% of the CO2 emitted each year is entirely natural. All human activity only contributes less than 5% of the total. If you could eliminate all human CO2 emissions, earth would not even notice. It already has a 15% (natural) variance from year to year. You can’t even identify them using ‘climate change’ terms. Those trillions of dollars per year are going SOMEWHERE, but it costs US more every year and will for the foreseeable future. There are real problems that that money could solve, but solving an invisible problem with no discernable results works for politicians. They are TRYING…
“…there are a lot of jobs, and a lot of people making a lot of money tilting at windmills…” Those people are not making a lot of money. They are taking money, yours and mine.
Go back and study the history of The New Deal during the great depression.
In particular, note the economic benefits (or lack thereof) and the reason it was terminated (excessive national debt).
Meanwhile, the unmistakable sound of chainsaws tells me neighbors are making firewood for the approaching winter. I wonder how many cords will be used across the country from Washington to Maine. Wikipedia has a page for “Cord”, with photo.
Is that captured in total, annually, monthly? Emitted over how long a period of time? A year’s worth, a lifetime? What are the limits? When will the “storage space” run out?
They don’t say the cost of materials – slaked lime as an absorber, for instance. Or the cost in terms of carbon emissions for making it and getting it to the plant.
Its all smoke and mirrors. Expensive quackery.
bolding mine
The relevant question is, how many tons of CO2 were produced in building it?
One has to accept the ridiculous claim that it operates totally on “emissions free, renewable energy.”
Emitted from “7800 gasoline-powered vehicles” over what period of time. A week, a year, a lifetime? It makes a difference, and the lower the time factor, the less value is the capture facility.
There are around 1.5 billion cars on the road worldwide — that would require just over 90 such plants for just auto emissions for whatever that unspecified time interval is.
But the question Willis posed was how many such plants would
and arbitrarily set the number at a million. Willis’ figures are based a single year’s worldwide CO2 emissions.
At 1 per week, it would “would only take us 19,231 years” to produce a million capture plants. But the ‘million” plants isn’t really enough. 38 Gtons @3,800 tons per plant, you’d need a little over 1.055 million capture facilities to cover this year’s emissions. Willis 19,231 years is just a little over a millenium short.
Yes, I missed the figure. Thanks.
Sat out on the front porch today handing out Halloween candy. The temperature was 74F. Normal temp is 54F. What can I say? Climate change is causing beautiful weather. Oh no we’re all gonna die.
Our Guisers had to survive about 9C perhaps it’ll be a bit warmer for their children.
The last time it was this warm was in 1970 per reports.
Obviously climate change!
/sarc
Well said Willis.
It’s absolutely not about reducing CO2 levels. It’s about pretending to, so that when the Climate Crisis/Breakdown/Collapse doesn’t actually appear, as it won’t, they can claim to have ‘saved the planet’!
Meanwhile, certain people behind certain curtains will be trousering huge wodges of your hard-earned tax dollars.
Very nice Willis. The whole CAGW business is a bad joke.
Why don’t they use windmills for fans and build huge pipes behind them? Generate some electricity too while pushing the CO2 into the plant. If you are saving the earth, then you should at least try to get the best bang for the buck.
If you suck CO2 out of the air, CO2 will bubble out of the ocean to replace it.
What are these guys thinking?
You know that & we know that, but …
They are on a mission, so can’t waste time thinking !!
Reverse perpetual motion. It is not even wrong.
Assuming your calculation is correct (but even if it isn’t) all CCS technology will do is take more energy and run us out of fossil fuels that much more quickly. We’re going to need most of the fossil fuels for the transition as it is…
Not to mention copper. At current use rates we will run out of copper 20 plus years before we run out of hydrocarbons.
A calculation presented on an earlier thread suggested that to meet the bogus net zero target, we will use up copper at a rate of about 10 times the current consumption. Assuming the data and calculations are correct, we could shut down everything 2 years prior to the 2030 deadline.
There are alternatives to Copper and we wont “run out” of Copper, its not consumed and can be recycled/re-purposed. As we go along, I’d expect market forces to direct our use of the various conducting materials rather than simply using Cu for everything. I’d expect us to use more Nickel for example.
While copper can be recycled, not all of it is. Not only that, but we’ll need lots and lots more.
And no, other “conducting materials” like nickel won’t do many of the jobs copper does. Copper is no less than four times as conductive as nickel. There are very valid reasons that we use copper instead of the other materials.
w.
The calculations certainly make sense, but I seems to me that that is indirectly supportive that CO2 is, or could be a problem, which it isn’t. We have to stop fueling this nonsense eco-religion altogether.
Being stuck in hospital with some obscure infection and having nothing else to do I clicked on the link to the company web site.
Good grief.
As far as I can see they say that the recovered CO2 is injected into basaltic rock and within 2 years becomes rock.
Are they in fact making coal?
Pissing in the wind as the saying goes
What is the cost and who is paying for what is a monstrous white elephant?
I am not a betting man but would put $100 on a hundred to one bet this fails within a generation
but I will probably not live long enough to collect. Would the betting shops even take my bet?
“Climeworks”— stupid name!