Air Carbon Capture BHP Carbon Engineering Chevron Climate Change co2 emissions Coal David Keith Fossil Fuels Green Jobs Investment Manufacturing Mark Z. Jacobson Natural Gas Occidental Oil Technology Waste Reduction

Chevron’s Fig Leaf Part 4: Carbon Engineering’s Only Market Is Pumping More Oil

Chevron's Fig Leaf Part 4: Carbon Engineering's Only Market Is Pumping More Oil

April 19th, 2019 by Michael Barnard 


Carbon Engineering lately garnered $68 million in investment in its air-carbon capture know-how from three fossil gasoline majors. This is part 4 of the 5 article collection assessing the know-how and the worth of the funding.

The primary piece summarized the know-how and the challenges, and did a bottoms-up assessment to provide context for what Carbon Engineering is actually doing. The second piece stepped by means of Carbon Engineering’s actual answer in detail. The third piece returned to the insurmountable drawback of scale and offers with the sheer volume of air that have to be moved and the size of equipment they have designed for the aim. This fourth article will take a look at the marketplace for air carbon seize CO2 and assess why three fossil gasoline majors is perhaps . The final article will handle the key individual behind this know-how and the skilled opinions of third parties.

There’s zero internet removing of CO2 from the environment if air carbon capture is used for enhanced oil recovery.

As a reminder of what the final article discovered, Carbon Engineering’s answer would require 2-kilometer lengthy, 20-meter high walls of noisy fans to seize four orders of magnitude less carbon than can be useful. It gained’t run off in any other case unused renewable power. It’s unclear where it will be helpful. And its numbers exclude large follow-on costs, so the $100 per ton is just the start of the fee construct up.


There are few mass markets for CO2

There isn’t lots of use for CO2 at anyplace near the size of the issue we are facing. I did the maths a few years in the past for the most important single shopper of commercial CO2 within the USA, the enhanced oil restoration wells in the south. That large operation consumed the output of only 13 coal crops for a yr. And there were lots of of coal crops and then tons of extra fuel crops in the USA.

Want concentrated CO2? Burn some wooden and work with the gases which are produced. A kilogram of wooden turns into 1.9 kilograms of CO2. And the carbon in that got here from the environment and was concentrated naturally without a huge wall of followers over an prolonged time period. The density of the CO2 is far, much larger in wooden smoke than within the environment; it’s already been massively concentrated by nature. Oh, and also you get that waste industrial heat you need for an additional part of the method to scale back general power prices. If Carbon Engineering was using waste wood from the varied lumber mills close to its location in Squamish, BC, and capturing the CO2 produced by burning the wood and sequestering it, that might be one thing extra fascinating. As an alternative, the corporate is pumping loads of fossil fuels into its course of as an alternative of leaving them in the ground.

A workup later on this article posits the standards for air carbon capture to make sense. And it consists of the use case that Carbon Engineering and its fossil gasoline buyers are in all probability considering of.


The buyers are fossil gasoline corporations

The BBC magic bullet article has a really telling level about Carbon Engineering:

It has now been boosted by $68m in new investment from Chevron, Occidental and coal big BHP.

What are those? Are all of them fossil gasoline corporations? Sure, in fact. What might they want with an funding in air carbon capture of certainly one of their products’ main wastes, CO2? One which makes use of large amounts of considered one of their main merchandise? And makes them look good on casual inspection?

Chevron had a income of $159 billion in 2018. Occidental made $17.eight billion. BHP made $43.6 billion. In order that’s $220 billion mixed annual income vs $68 million in ‘investment’. That’s about 0.03% of their annual revenue going to this initiative.

Let’s examine this to another current Chevron-related headline: Chevron to buy Anadarko in $33-billion guess on shale oil and LNG — the most important power deal in four years. That’s from Canada’s Nationwide Submit, nevertheless it’s repeated in numerous varieties in enterprise retailers globally. How a lot greater is $33 billion than $68 million? Virtually 500 occasions greater. That’s 20% of Chevron’s annual revenue. That’s a real investment in actual enterprise for Chevron. The $68 million cut up between three corporations is promoting dollars. It doesn’t even rise to the extent of a aspect guess. You’ll be able to think about it being handled by the chief in command of advertising, or maybe someone’s government assistant.

As with virtually all carbon capture approaches, the one group which nonetheless thinks it has benefit is the fossil gasoline business. They spend a tiny fraction of their money so that they will tout the wonders of their know-how all over the world while persevering with to supply gigatons of CO2e yearly.

In reality, this know-how would use 70,000 households’ value of pure fuel to be able to seize one million tons of CO2 a yr. It’s extra a new market for pure fuel than a solution for local weather change.

That’s a really thin slurry of green paint over a tailings pond.


The place might air carbon seize make sense?

Air carbon capture which is actually a local weather answer is sensible underneath the next circumstances:

  • It’s co-located with an industrial website which requires CO2.
  • The location needs tons of CO2 as feedstock per day, maybe for concrete.
  • The location doesn’t have access to a number of biomass because it’s already a concentrated source of carbon which you’ll be able to bind with oxygen cheaply and simply. Greenhouses in all probability don’t need it.
  • The location generates loads of waste industrial warmth or biomass to faucet for power so that you simply don’t need to burn numerous fossil fuels for processing.
  • The location has access to loads of very low cost electricity that’s also carbon neutral to power followers.
  • A pipeline for CO2 to the location isn’t viable. CO2 is a purchasable commodity. Per one supply it costs about $40 per ton to get it trucked in. When you’ve got a pipeline, then it really works out to $0.77 per ton per mile and $1.50 per ton, but with one other massive capital value. That’s on prime of the commodity worth for industrial CO2 of $30 to $50 per ton, if reminiscence serves. Smaller volumes are rather more costly. Once you begin seeing $90 per ton delivered, you’ll be able to see that there is perhaps some circumstances by which $100 per ton could be value doing, and that for those who can remove power prices it turns into affordable. That’s if the capital value wasn’t going to be absurd; you need an terrible lot of CO2 in an effort to justify hundreds of thousands in capital costs.

But even then, let’s take a look at that greenhouse instance. For greenhouses, you only need concentrations at three–four occasions atmospheric ranges. That’s pretty straightforward to handle with an easier tech than the Carbon Engineering ‘magic bullet’. Simply burn some biomass, in all probability dried waste stems, and capture the CO2 from the biomass smoke which has rather more density, as soon as once more. Only one of the three CO2 seize mechanisms Carbon Engineering makes use of can be required. Oh, and get some waste heat for warming the place as mandatory.

So what sites may truly be helpful for Carbon Engineering’s answer as it’s designed? Let’s return to the 2012 paper the principals revealed within the Royal Society journal:

an AC facility working on low-cost ‘stranded’ pure fuel that is able to provide CO2 for enhanced oil restoration at a location with out different CO2 sources could be aggressive with post-combustion seize in high-cost places comparable to Canadian oil sands operations.

Years ago, the principals in Carbon Engineering realized that their market was possible the fossil gasoline business. From their new buyers’ perspective, this can be a great know-how. It uses a number of one among their merchandise, probably even a reserve that they haven’t any economic use for at the moment. It permits them to get more of one other of their merchandise, oil, out of tapped-out wells. And it provides them a nice huge advertising win in headlines that they are saving the planet from international warming.

That’s a trifecta of goodness for the fossil gasoline corporations. Not so much for the rest of the world. That 10% tax of emissions on the natural fuel isn’t wanting so good now.

What would internet emissions for using CO2 for enhanced oil recovery appear to be? Per a high-citation 1993 research on the topic:

For every kilogramme of CO2 injected, approximately one to at least one quarter of a kilogramme of additional oil will probably be recovered.

That’s fascinating. How a lot CO2 is created from a zero.25 kg of oil, properly to wheels? Properly, just burning oil produces about 3.2 occasions the CO2 by weight excluding processing. Processing is a 10% to 20% hit relying on the standard of the crude. So that 0.25 kg of CO2 turns into about zero.8 kg of CO2 and processing adds another chunk, bringing it perhaps to 90%. With the 10% emissions tax on the natural fuel, that signifies that there’s zero internet removing of CO2 from the environment if air carbon seize CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery. And that’s at a price of $94 to $232 for the air carbon capture portion alone. All the damaging externalities of fossil fuels persist indefinitely.


That’s part 4 of the collection. Carbon Engineering’s answer is simply useful in tapped-out oil wells and as greenwashing for fossil gasoline corporations. No marvel three fossil gasoline corporations invested an infinitesimal fraction of their annual income in it.

The fifth and ultimate article within the five-part collection appears at who’s behind this increasingly odd wanting non-solution to climate change, Dr. David Keith, and offers further skilled perception into carbon capture generally.


References and Links:

[1] Carbon Engineering: CO2 capture and the synthesis of unpolluted transportation fuels

[2] Capturing Carbon Would Value Twice The International Annual GDP

[3] No, Magnesite Isn’t The Magic CO2 Sequestration Answer Both

[4] Air Carbon Capture’s Scale Drawback: 1.1 Astrodomes For A Ton Of CO2

[5] Carbon Seize Is Costly As a result of Physics

[6] Mark Z. Jacobson – Wikipedia

[7] Local weather change ‘magic bullet’ will get increase

[8] Low-Emitting Electrical energy Production

[9] A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Environment

[10] Joule

[11] Web page on cbc.ca

[12] An air-liquid contactor for large-scale capture of CO2 from air

[13] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Bodily and Engineering Sciences

[14] Elements Sales Fill

[15] How a lot air, by mass, enters a mean CFM56 turbofan engine cruising per minute?

[16] An air-liquid contactor for large-scale capture of CO2 from air

[17] International Thermostat

[18] Graciela Chichilnisky – Wikipedia

[19] Earth and Environmental Sciences

[20] Europe Shops Electricity in Fuel Pipes

[21] The Physical CO2 Market

[22] DigiTool Stream Gateway Error

[23] How a lot CO2 produced by burning one barrel of oil – Pyrolysium.org since 2011

[24] https://www.energy.ca.gov/2007pu…

  
 

 

Tags: Air Carbon Seize, BHP, Carbon Engineering, Chevron, David Keith, Mark Z. Jacobson, Occidental


Concerning the Writer

Michael Barnard is Chief Strategist with TFIE Strategy Inc. He works with startups, present companies and buyers to determine alternatives for vital bottom line progress and price takeout in our quickly reworking world. He is editor of The Future is Electrical, a Medium publication. He commonly publishes analyses of low-carbon know-how and policy in websites including Newsweek, Slate, Forbes, Huffington Publish, Quartz, CleanTechnica and RenewEconomy, and his work is repeatedly included in textbooks. Third-party articles on his analyses and interviews have been revealed in dozens of stories websites globally and have reached #1 on Reddit Science. A lot of his work originates on Quora.com, where Mike has been a Prime Writer annually since 2012. He’s out there for consulting engagements, speaking engagements and Board positions.



(perform(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

About the author

Tejas Sachdeva

Tejas Sachdeva

The technical guru, with over 2 years of experience in web designing and coding. Undoubtedly the greatest technical asset present at VerfiedTasks. His work ethics are second to none, an honest guy with a huge heart who is always willing to help others. He discovered the Blockchain world at the very start and being his usual self who is always ready to explore and learn, he began doing his own research which has provided him with a ton of knowledge in this department. His helping nature is what motivated us to start this small initiative known as VerifiedTasks.