Thứ Tư, Tháng Sáu 12, 2024
Google search engine
HomeSorted by levelC1 - AdvancedMaybe we can afford to suck CO2 out of the sky after...

Maybe we can afford to suck CO2 out of the sky after all

[Reading level: C1 – Advanced]

A new analysis shows that air capture could cost less than $100 a ton.

 

While avoiding the worst dangers of climate change will likely require sucking carbon dioxide out of the sky, prominent scientists have long dismissed such technologies as far too expensive.

 

But a detailed new analysis published today in the journal Joule finds that direct air capture may be practical after all. The study concludes it would cost between $94 and $232 per ton of captured carbon dioxide, if existing technologies were implemented on a commercial scale. One earlier estimate, published in Proceedings of the National Academies, put that figure at more than $1,000 (though the calculations were made on what’s known as an avoided-cost basis, which would add about 10 percent to the new study’s figures).

 

Crucially, the lowest-cost design, optimized to produce and sell alternative fuels made from the captured carbon dioxide, could already be profitable with existing public policies in certain markets. The higher cost estimates are for plants that would deliver compressed carbon dioxide for permanent underground storage.

 

Making direct air capture as cheap as possible is critical because a growing body of work finds it’s going to be nearly impossible to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 ˚C without rolling out some form of the technology on a huge scale. By some estimates, the world will emit enough greenhouse gases to lock in that level of warming within a few years. At that point, one of the only ways to reverse the effects is to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, where it otherwise persists for thousands of years.

 

David Keith, a Harvard physics professor and lead author of the paper, says the findings should shift the perception of direct air capture from “vaporware” to “something that can be built with current industrial technologies now.”

 

Keith is also the founder of Carbon Engineering, a Calgary-based startup that has spent the last nine years designing, refining, and testing a direct air capture pilot plant in Squamish, British Columbia. The study, partially funded by the US Department of Energy, simulates a scaled-up version, based on the facility’s actual performance and cost data.

 

The demonstration facility is already producing small amounts of synthetic fuels. – Cơ sở mô phỏng đã sản xuất một lượng nhỏ nhiên liệu tổng hợp.

“I hope it’s a real change in the community’s view of the technology,” Keith says.

 

In 2011, a pair of influential papers all but sounded the death knell for direct air capture, concluding that the approach would cost nearly an order of magnitude more than capturing the greenhouse gas from power-plant stacks.

 

“It’d be such a great solution – if it were real,” MIT Energy Initiative senior researcher Howard Herzog, who coauthored the study that found costs could top $1,000 a ton, said at the time.

 

In an interview this week, Herzog complimented the detailed analysis in the new study, but said he remains skeptical of some of its financial assumptions. He expects that Carbon Engineering will face higher costs and challenges than it anticipates as the company moves to build larger plants.

 

“Until you really can confirm the costs and performance at scale, you’ve always got to take those costs with a grain of salt,” he says. “I still think a final number could be several times as much.”

 

The cost differences from the earlier studies arise mainly from different design choices. Those include the use of horizontally rather than vertically stacked structures, lower energy demands due to improved heat integration in the process, and the power sources selected to run the plant.

 

Carbon Engineering plans to combine the carbon captured at its plants with hydrogen to produce carbon-neutral synthetic fuels, a process the pilot facility has already been performing. Such fuels are more expensive than standard gasoline and diesel, so the size and stability of the market for them will depend largely on whether subsidies are in place.

 

Following successful tests at the pilot plant, Carbon Engineering is now planning to build a larger facility to sell fuels. – Sau khi thử nghiệm thành công tại nhà máy thí điểm, Carbon Engineering hiện đang lên kế hoạch xây dựng một cơ sở lớn hơn để bán nhiên liệu.

Carbon Engineering has secured $30 million to date. It’s currently seeking additional funds to build a larger facility that will begin selling fuels, though still on a relatively small scale.

 

But those carbon-neutral fuels won’t directly help to reduce carbon in the atmosphere (unless they’re used in systems that capture carbon as well). To make real gains in removing greenhouse gases, the world may eventually need to permanently store massive amounts of captured carbon dioxide, rather than releasing it again when synthetic fuels burn. Doing that on a large scale would almost surely require significant cost reductions, a high price on carbon, or other public policy support.

 

Keith says producing synthetic fuels offers a sustainable business model that could help companies scale up and reduce the costs of the technology, easing the path to that eventual goal.

 

But Herzog, who has also studied the challenges of converting carbon dioxide into fuel, remains skeptical that the numbers will work even for that initial business model.

 

“It’s very tough, and even tougher if the CO2 is from your most expensive source, which is the air,” he says.

 

Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611369/maybe-we-can-afford-to-suck-cosub2sub-out-of-the-sky-after-all/?fbclid=IwAR3I-0stVrE66FkNVFaGzSNcZG4JF0WfYvXmnP91uHeggMzlYumFRUYUc9w

WORD BANK:

prominent /ˈprɒm.ɪ.nənt/ [C1] (adj): hàng đầu

implement /ˈɪm.plɪ.ment/ [B2] (v): thực hiện

compress /kəmˈpres/ (v): nén

permanent /ˈpɜː.mə.nənt/ [B1] (adj): vĩnh viễn

roll out (v): đưa ra

reverse /rɪˈvɜːs/ [C1] (v): đảo ngược

perception /pəˈsep.ʃən/ [C2] (n): nhận thức

vaporware /ˈveɪpəweər/ (n): thiết bị và phần mềm được quảng cáo là tốt nhưng chưa có thật

pilot /ˈpaɪ.lət/ (adj): thí điểm

simulate /ˈsɪm.jə.leɪt/ (v): mô phỏng

death knell /ˈdeθ ˌnel/ (n): hồi chuông báo tử

skeptical /ˈskep.tɪ.kəl/ [C2] (adj): hoài nghi

anticipate /ænˈtɪs.ɪ.peɪt/ [C1] (v): dự đoán

take sth with a grain of salt (idiom): xem xét điều gì đó với sự hoài nghi, không tin tưởng

horizontal /ˌhɒr.ɪˈzɒn.təl/ [C1] (adj): chiều ngang

vertical /ˈvɜː.tɪ.kəl/ [C1] (adj): chiều dọc

integration /ˌɪn.tɪˈɡreɪ.ʃən/ [C1] (n): tích hợp

synthetic /sɪnˈθet.ɪk/ (adj): tổng hợp

subsidy /ˈsʌb.sɪ.di/ [C1] (n): trợ cấp

relatively /ˈrel.ə.tɪv.li/ (adv): tương đối

permanently /ˈpɜː.mə.nənt.li/ [B2] (adv): vĩnh viễn

sustainable /səˈsteɪ.nə.bəl/ [C1] (adj): bền vững

scale up (v): mở rộng quy mô

ease the path to sth (phrase): mở đường đến điều gì

convert /kənˈvɜːt/ [B2] (v): chuyển đổi


ỦNG HỘ READ TO LEAD!

Chào bạn! Có thể bạn chưa biết, Read to Lead là một trang giáo dục phi lợi nhuận với mục đích góp phần phát triển cộng đồng người học tiếng Anh tại Việt Nam. Chúng tôi không yêu cầu người đọc phải trả bất kỳ chi phí nào để sử dụng các sản phẩm chất lượng của mình để mọi người đều có cơ hội học tập tốt hơn. Tuy nhiên, nếu bạn có thể, chúng tôi mong nhận được sự hỗ trợ tài chính từ bạn để duy trì hoạt động của trang và phát triển các sản phẩm mới.

Bạn có thể ủng hộ chúng tôi qua 1 trong 2 cách dưới đây.
– Cách 1: Chuyển tiền qua tài khoản Momo.
Số điện thoại 0886.630.599 (Chủ tài khoản: Nguyễn Thị Phương Thảo)
Nội dung chuyển tiền: Ủng hộ Read to Lead
hoặc
– Cách 2: Chuyển tiền qua tài khoản ngân hàng.
Ngân hàng VIB chi nhánh Hải Phòng
Số tài khoản: 071704060005623 (Chủ tài khoản: Nguyễn Thị Phương Thảo)
Nội dung chuyển tiền: Ủng hộ Read to Lead

RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisment -
Google search engine

Most Popular