Technology is connected to the "tailpipes" of these facilities and is used to remove CO2 from the plant exhaust.
What is carbon capture? And how does it work?
While carbon capture is regularly discussed in the media, no one really ever explains what it is.
Below is a quick thread discussing the technology behind traditional carbon capture 👇
Technology is connected to the "tailpipes" of these facilities and is used to remove CO2 from the plant exhaust.
This step is called "sequestration" and is why experts often talks about "carbon capture and sequestration" or "CCS".
Currently, one of the most economic forms of carbon capture is called "amine-based" capture.
An "amine" is a special liquid chemical which selectively grabs on to CO2 molecules.
The exhaust bubbles up through the column, and the amine drips down.
The liquid amine and gas exhaust mix in the column.
The amine with dissolved CO2 is sent into a second column where it is heated.
In the second column, the CO2 pops out of the amine.
Now, we have separated the CO2.
Below is a picture of an amine plant used for CO2 scrubbing.
The CO2 is injected into a well for permanent storage underground, usually a few hundred yards away.
What I've described is called "point source capture" because it captures CO2 from a single plant exhaust
With new advances in technology, CO2 can also be captured directly from the air we breathe
More from Science
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?