←back to thread

MIT engineers make converting CO2 into useful products more practical

(news.mit.edu)
173 points rbanffy | 1 comments | 13 Nov 24 15:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.288s | source
Show context
mchannon ◴[13 Nov 24 16:27 UTC] No.42127456[source]▶
The writer appears to be under the impression that CO2 is not a valuable commodity.

In fact, it is, so long as it's under enough pressure, and in the right place. In Montezuma County, Colorado, sits the McElmo dome, an ancient underground CO2 well. They pump it out, down a 500 mile pipeline, to Denver City, Texas, where it gooses oil wells into pumping more crude out. Other than making more oil and making it cheaper, not really much in terms of greenhouse gas contributions- the CO2 starts underground and ends up underground.

Kinder Morgan won't just let you back up your truck and buy some (it's already spoken for), and even if they would, they'd expect you to pay a pretty penny for what we widely consider to be waste gas.

I think MIT is doing some good work. Just wanted everyone to be mindful of the massive scale under which CO2 is already getting bought and sold.

replies(7): >>42127501 #>>42127714 #>>42127942 #>>42127946 #>>42128043 #>>42128376 #>>42130689 #
ulrikrasmussen ◴[13 Nov 24 16:32 UTC] No.42127501[source]▶
Isn't it also used as input to basically every e-fuel which can replace fossil hydrocarbons?
replies(1): >>42127726 #
analog31 ◴[13 Nov 24 16:56 UTC] No.42127726[source]▶
No. The value of commercial co2 is its energy content -- what it takes to process it into useful form. There is no useful form of co2 for making fuel. The energy has already been extracted.
replies(4): >>42127833 #>>42127856 #>>42127903 #>>42128272 #
1. jvanderbot ◴[13 Nov 24 17:06 UTC] No.42127856[source]▶
You're right (current state of the art), but also wrong (in the spirit of the question as I read it).

If energy prices go down, e.g., from continuing decline of solar, then it may be very cost effective to store energy as hydrocarbons which are synthesized from cheap energy + CO2. E.g., make natural gas from the air and sell it cheaper than it could be extracted and transported.

In this scenario, rather than paying exorbitant fees for CO2, the cheap energy could be used to extract it from the atmosphere where it is abundant.

Before anyone bites my head off - consider the tyranny-of-the-rocket-equation problem of burning gas to transport gas from source (wells, refineries, etc) to consumers. Then consider that the sun shines most places, and CO2 is effectively uniformly distributed. So Synthesis wouldn't have to be cheaper at the source if it can beat the price at the consumer via avoiding huge distribution costs.