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.
Iceland has about 383K people and most of its energy is geothermal and hydroelectric power. Doesn’t make much sense for that nation to invest in carbon capture even climate change is a threat the planet, which of course it ain’t.
Virtue signaling pays well too. Follow the $$$. That’s all this silliness is.
The theory is that you would do a ton of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, etc, and only need a bit of gas and oil for small niche uses.
Then use these systems to cancel out just that last little bit of emissions.
They’re controversial in the energy and emissions modeling communities too. Some modelers prefer to use more biomass or other approaches. None of the options are good.
But, but, but think of all the millions of good paying green union jobs that will be created.
/sarc
I used to live in Iceland and they have numerous geothermal plants. These plants vent steam into the atmosphere constantly. This CO2 capture plant is defeated by the H2O put out by the geothermal plants.
I have visited on of those plants ad they have a very loud roar from the steam.
https://www.landsvirkjun.com/powerstations/bjarnarflag
Bonus: it would reduce crop yields and return arid land reclaimed by plant growth to desert.
Yes! We must save the deserts!
I enjoyed the article since I had not followed this particular tragedy.
I looked up the methods of this company. They are planning ‘PERMANENT’ removal of CO2 by reaction with silicate rocks (the basalt under their feet). Details are lacking, but one can ask whether the principals understand chemistry at high temperatures and pressures?
Volcanoes emit copious amounts of CO2, which is the inverse of what they propose.
Why is that?
Under Iceland’s thin surface lies wet hot rock and magma sitting on a mid-ocean ridge. Inserting CO2 into it may be a short round trip. At high temperature, the carbonates weaken the basaltic rock, aiding fault slippage, and thus earthquakes, eruptions, and surface lava flows.
Airborne CO2 is not a problem, in any case. Airborne CO2 each year is a little less than half of the emitted CO2, ~18 BT, at present. Photosynthesis on land and in the mixed layer in the ocean take up the remainder of the added38 BT of CO2, resulting in the well-known ‘greening of the planet’
AND at no cost.
On the contrary, it is to the benefit of humanity, providing food for billions and the planet is beautifully green and luxuriant.
When the bill is rendered for this boondoggle at scale, it will disappear like ‘wind’ in a strong wind. Virtue signaling has its limits. Removal of atmospheric CO2 by means other than photosynthesis is one such limit. A low estimated cost is 150 $per ton of CO2 – or 150 $trillion for removal of the CO2 increase since about 1800. That is more than twice the annual global GDP!
It is, however, ironic that CO2 removal is a greater “discovered” energy consumption than even the energy demand for AI. Bill Gates would be pleased. I imagine Mark Mills will add this energy waste to his list of ‘discovered’ energy uses.
GREATLY enjoyed this article and hope for more in a similar vein from Mr.Eschenbach!! Also enjoyed literally all the comments (except for one lol). Fun and lighthearted read with a true + serious foundation – excellent!
Did you account for leap years in your calculation of the amount of time it will take to build those plants?
I posted this to Facebook and it was instantly removed as “spam”.
I have a better idea. Grow wood that’s more dense than water and dump it in the ocean.