Potential relevance to BECCS? However, making molecular CO2 from dilute sources 
is still no slam dunk as noted by Tony:
"Tony Marshallsay 11th October 2016 at 12:20 pmAs a CCS skeptic, I have the 
following comments:
1. “claimed” $30/tonne: The proof of the pudding is in the eating
2. “reduce… to $10/tonne by 2018”: Wishful thinking
3. “zero-emission” because captured CO2 reused locally: OK – much better than 
sweeping the dust under the carpet.
4. “20% reduction in energy costs”: Presumably relative to use of another 
(unspecified) solvent in a similar process for the same quantity of capture?
5. “8 times less solvent loss”: I dislike this fashionable expression, which is 
open to misinterpretation. Why didn’t they say so many % reduction, as for 
6. The environmental impact of the lost solvent (unspecified but identified in 
linked article as APBS – a very variable mixture of possibly toxic chemicals) 
is not mentioned.
7. “7 times reduction in corrosion”: See #5 above.
8. Has the cost of regular replacements for corroded parts (together with the 
environmental impact of their production) and of the plant refurbishment and 
downtime (during which I assume capture will be maintained by a standby?) been 
included in the $30 figure?
9. For comparison purposes, what would be the carbon footprint (tonnes of CO2) 
of the manufacture and installation of this proposed CCS plant?"
GR - How much cheaper and safer would it be to make products directly from CO2 
without having to recycle expensive, corrosive, toxic chemicals - e.g. Skyonic, 
AWL, etc.?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to