CCS Redux: Carbon Engineering’s Diesel? Simply Put Electrical energy Into Tesla Semi As an alternative – Insta News Hub

Join daily news updates from CleanTechnica on e mail. Or follow us on Google News!

Carbon seize and sequestration in all of its numerous ineffective, inefficient, and costly kinds is having one other run up the hype cycle. Nothing has actually modified. The issues nonetheless exist. The alternate options are nonetheless higher. The potential to be used remains to be minuscule. And so, the CCS Redux sequence, republishing outdated CCS articles with minor edits. The Carbon Engineering evaluation sequence that this text was from was collected right into a full case research with a foreword by Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford: Chevron’s Fig Leaf: A Case Study of Carbon Engineering’s Direct Air Capture Plan.

The 5-part series on Carbon Engineering’s method retains bearing fruit. After the 7th and what we thought was last evaluation was printed, an impartial power researcher, one Leon di Marco, challenged our evaluation. He’s spent a average period of time publishing and speaking about artificial fuels, so we thought a follow-up article was warranted. Di Marco’s Nineteen Seventies schooling was in electronics and solid-state physics and his profession was in semiconductors and communications, however his present focus is on large-scale solar energy and artificial fuels.

If Carbon Engineering is making e-diesel, driving the identical distance in a freight truck would price not less than 6.5 occasions as a lot and have 16 occasions the CO2 emissions as simply utilizing electrical energy in a Tesla Semi.

For those who’ll keep in mind from components 6 and seven, we labored up a mannequin the place Carbon Engineering would flip CO2 captured with its pure gas-powered 2 kilometers of followers and 900 diploma Celsius temperature gadget, and hydrogen electrolyzed from water utilizing BC hydro electrical energy, then transformed it into methanol or wooden alcohol. We in contrast and contrasted that with simply utilizing electrical energy immediately in an electrical car to evaluate how odd this case was.

We arrived at two abstract tables which highlighted the comparisons. This primary was the power, CO2, and value workup for creation of methanol.

The second was the comparability to utilizing the methanol as a gasoline additive or changing it to gasoline utilizing one in every of a number of processes in comparison with simply utilizing the electrical energy in an electrical car.

That evaluation, which was extremely beneficiant to Carbon Engineering’s course of and ungenerous to electrical automobiles, discovered at greatest its gasoline can be 25x the price and 35x the CO2 emissions of simply utilizing an electrical car with the identical power.

Di Marco’s assertion is that Carbon Engineering is utilizing a Greyrock Power Inc. patented course of to remodel CO2 and hydrogen immediately into an artificial diesel or an artificial jet gasoline. How he is aware of that is unspoken, however he’s printed within the house and has contacts. Carbon Engineering has been silent on this sequence, so we’ll take di Marco at his phrase, plug in what we see and learn the way Carbon Engineering’s answer would stack up.

How does Carbon Engineering’s freight diesel choice stack up?

Let’s take a look at diesel first. The Greyrock patent asserts that it has an efficient course of for creating a wide range of heavy hydrocarbons, relying on catalysts and course of, in a less complicated method than massive scale refineries use. Diesel’s common chemical formulation is C12H24. Evaluating to methanol’s CH3OH, this doubtlessly bodes nicely for Carbon Engineering as there are half the hydrogen atoms to carbon atoms required, 2:1 not 4:1. That signifies that given a ton of CO2, we solely want about 48 kg of hydrogen so as to add to the 272 kg of carbon (remembering the 5% hit on hydrogen that’s misplaced to the method). That may avoid wasting cash, power, and CO2.

And it’s direct-to-diesel, as an alternative of going by an middleman, until you rely the processes associated to components. Meaning no losses for an additional step of conversion from an interim drop-in gasoline to an precise gasoline. And it’s diesel, which is a little more power dense than gasoline, in order that bodes nicely too. Nevertheless, there’s much less hydrogen, so extra of the power is coming from burning the carbon, so the ratio of CO2 must be attention-grabbing to evaluate.

To be much more honest, we have to examine this to freight automobiles that use diesel for this level, fairly than to passenger vehicles.

Chip in just a few {dollars} a month to help support independent cleantech coverage that helps to speed up the cleantech revolution!

Greyrock makes no financial claims in its patent besides to say that that is an acceptable know-how for on-site, comparatively small-scale era of diesel the place transport prices are prohibitive, and that it might scale. That’s not promising. Let’s make an assumption that its one-step course of to diesel prices the identical because the one-step course of to methanol within the absence of different data.

How a lot diesel can be created by this course of? As soon as once more, that’s straightforward. The 272 kg of carbon will mix with roughly 46 kg of hydrogen to create 318 kg of diesel. Hmmm, that’s quite a bit lower than the 730 kg of methanol that will be created.

Fascinating up to now. You get half as a lot gasoline for half the price with nearly the got here CO2 debt, however the power depth is increased. How does that examine to an electrical car as an alternative of a diesel car? Nicely, let’s take a look at the Tesla Semi, as a big portion of diesel is utilized by freight vehicles and related automobiles.

318 kg of diesel is about 82.2 gallons. Freight vehicles within the USA had been averaging 6.4 miles per gallon in 2010 (down from 9 miles per gallon in 1949, oddly). Meaning a freight truck might journey about 526 miles on the e-diesel created by this course of.

How would the Tesla Semi do on the 5 MWh equal of power? Nicely, the corporate asserts the consumption at lower than 2 kWh per kilometer, which we’ll spherical as much as 3.2 kWh per mile. As soon as once more, being beneficiant to the air-to-fuel and not-so-generous to the electrical car, the Tesla Semi would journey 3 occasions as far on the identical power. And as soon as once more, it will journey additional on simply the electrical energy inputs to the method excluding the pure gasoline inputs than the e-diesel answer would drive a truck.

So, for a similar power inputs you may journey 3 occasions as far for a fifth the CO2 emissions and nicely underneath half the price in an electrical truck. For those who needed to drive the identical distance, it will price you 6.5 occasions as a lot earlier than distribution, storage, and markup of the e-diesel, and have 16 occasions the CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions are higher than customary diesel however 50% of unhealthy remains to be unhealthy, and it prices not less than twice as a lot for e-diesel from Carbon Engineering when the choice electrical Semi is 1 / 4 the price per mile and has a fraction of the CO2 emissions as nicely.

Per the American Transportation Analysis Institute, gasoline represents about 21% of the prices of freight trucking. Tesla and different electrical vehicles are promising to scale back that to about 6%, whereas Carbon Engineering’s answer would enhance it to not less than 34%. Which is the freight trade going to be considering?

Clearly, that’s not a viable market until your technique is continuation of the interior combustion engine. I ponder who advantages from that? Definitely not the trucking trade which has to pay for the gasoline, the customers who should pay for costlier transport, or the world which has to pay for the upper than required CO2 emissions. That’s a really costly 50% CO2 emissions discount when a really low cost 90% discount is accessible.

What about jet gasoline for air journey?

Thus far, we’ve eradicated gentle vehicles, vehicles and bikes, different vehicles, and (city) trains and buses from the combination. Clearly pipeline gasoline and lubricants aren’t nice decisions for this both. That’s eradicated about 84% of the US marketplace for Carbon Engineering’s air-to-fuel method. However that also leaves 16%, proper? Perhaps there’s some gold there?

Let’s take a look at different use instances for petroleum transportation. Plane devour roughly 8% of petroleum per the US EIA, half of the remaining market. The Carbon Engineering course of could possibly be used to make an alternate aviation gasoline. What do the massive majority of jet and propeller planes use? Blends of kerosene which are available numerous flavors with carbon atoms within the 10-16 per molecule and a large variance of hydrogen. The only is C10H8, however that is simply the beginning.

Aviation fuels aren’t outlined by particular chemical compounds, however by traits of efficiency. In consequence, something Carbon Engineering might create can be feedstock for aviation gasoline, not an aviation gasoline in and of itself. That stated, let’s work out the identical comparability.

Two fewer hydrogen within the ratio means much less electrical energy to supply the hydrogen. Let’s assume but once more that generously a variant of the Greyrock course of makes use of the identical power to make kerosene.

Maybe fortunately for Carbon Engineering, this isn’t a spot the place electrification is predicted to dominate and a few type of artificial or biofuels will likely be required for the approaching many years. There are definitely small electrical planes commercially obtainable right this moment and many of the majors are engaged on hybrid electrical planes for intercity routes, however vital distances are nonetheless going to require burning gasoline for fairly some time. That stated, they’re competing with low-carbon fuels which have been round for a decade.

This desk is a portion of the concluding prices desk from a 2016 NREL report on various jet fuels. These pathways have been being explored totally by many organizations for 20 years. If Carbon Engineering desires to compete, these are its rivals on this house and the possible economics. The comparable pathway to the one Carbon Engineering is on is circled.

That 307 kg of intermediate-stage kerosene that Carbon Engineering is creating represents about 84.4 gallons at a price of about $6 per gallon. In 2016, equal processes primarily based on biomass had been operating within the $1.9 to $2.5 per gallon vary, nicely underneath 50% of the price that this work is suggesting for Carbon Engineering’s method. Jet gasoline is operating about $1.91 per gallon proper now, so Carbon Engineering is doubly out of the market. It’s costlier than present alternate options which are already in play and not less than 3 occasions costlier than present jet gasoline. For our comparability, we’ll use the intermediate high-end of the vary $2.5, realizing that it’s incomplete, however will not less than give a way of what’s happening.

However what about CO2? In spite of everything, that is purported to be carbon emissions discount know-how. Thus far, it’s not working, however perhaps in various jet fuels it really has a price proposition?

Nicely, not likely. The NREL research additionally does full workups on CO2 depth of the totally different pathways. In precisely the identical house as Carbon Engineering of making liquid hydrocarbon fuels, however utilizing biomass as an alternative of capturing all of the CO2 from the air with large followers, CO2e emissions are 5% of jet gasoline already, and at a value level nicely underneath 50% of Carbon Engineering’s per this workup.

For plane, Carbon Engineering’s answer is 3 occasions as costly (at minimal) and solely eliminates 50% of the emissions of petroleum-derived jet gasoline. It’s 2.3 occasions as costly as present alternate options and has 10 occasions the CO2 emissions.

So the place does this go away Carbon Engineering?

That’s one other 8% of complete market gone. That leaves us with 8% left, half of that are boats and ships and the remainder unfold throughout army, long-distance freight trains, and freight transport. There’s no purpose to go on. The entire identical work will simply present the identical outcomes.

Carbon Engineering’s method of utilizing pure gasoline to drive air carbon seize just isn’t almost as efficient at decarbonization as alternate options, and it’s costlier than present alternate options with no obvious technique to scale back these prices considerably. Its precise analysis worth proposition has been accomplished. Its direct air seize has been prototyped at ample scale to robustly extrapolate prices, power flows, and CO2-reduction worth propositions. And it’s a nasty method.

It has no distinctive mental capital to convey to the desk relating to both hydrogen era or creation of artificial fuels, however goes to bolt on applied sciences licensed from others, and people applied sciences are nicely understood. There is no such thing as a information that’s going to be gained of any significance as the corporate strikes ahead. They’re trodding on paths made by others now.

Additional, the evaluation has proven a number of occasions that it’s a lot better to divert present sources to eliminating fossil-fuel era of electrical energy and eliminating liquid gasoline demand from transportation earlier than attempting to do something with the surplus of CO2 within the air. When deep in a gap you might be digging, first cease digging, then begin filling within the gap. Additional, it’s price stating that Carbon Engineering’s answer is barely decrease carbon when it’s on about as low-carbon a grid as exists. BC’s 15.1 g/CO2e/kWh is among the many greatest on the earth, and even utility-scale wind is 8 g/CO2e/kWh full-lifecycle. Utilizing electrical energy for air carbon seize in any respect solely is smart in slim niches the place there’s a variety of extra renewable electrical energy to absorb at low demand time durations.

Carbon Engineering was doing helpful analysis for an inexpensive value up till not too long ago, and will have been wrapped up when it was concluded. However as an alternative, it’s combating to proceed and develop. And that progress has lead on to it being a fig leaf for Chevron, BHP, and Occidental, fossil gasoline corporations that don’t really wish to repair the issue.

References