Capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and burying it in the ground strikes me as sophomoric. Besides sequestering twice as much oxygen as carbon, reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by such artificial means would only encourage additional emissions of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels by creating a perception that the CO2 problem is not all that bad. The only sensible solution is to stop emissions of CO2 by using renewable energy, including nuclear energy.
Seafuel is a common-sense solution to the CO2 emissions problem. Instead of treating CO2 as a "bad" compound to be got rid of, Seafuel uses CO2 as a useful compound for energy transport, storage, and use, resulting in net zero emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. The planet could recover to pre-industrial levels of CO2 within a few decades of ending CO2 emissions.
If we captured and buried 100% of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, it would not make a dent in the water. There is ~.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2, while water vapor is .4% of the atmosphere. IOW, there is 10x the amount of water in the atmosphere.
And water vapor in the atmosphere is less than .01% of SURFACE water.
And we now know that the oceans is less than what is inside our crust (though it is unknown exactly how much is in there).
Gen III+ nuclear power plants (NPPs) can provide all the base load electricity a nation needs. But they can also be paired with PEM electrolysers to load follow electricity demand in milliseconds, for diurnal load following, without the need for any form of storage.
This combination allows the NPP to operate at 100% availability and may qualify for up to 4 revenue streams such that the greener-than-green hydrogen, nuclear enabled hydrogen (NEH) manufactured can be sold into existing markets, with an odds-on chance plenty of customers will be willing to pay a premium.
Seasonal load following is met with planned maintenance and refuelling outages. A perfect Occam's Razor solution to the generation of fossil fuel-free electricity network.
Dedicated Gen III+ NPPs can also supply steam at 850C and be paired with SOEC electrolysers with an efficiency measured by 1 MWh[equivalent] of nuclear energy in gets 26.66 kg of NEH out, with an energy content of 889 kWh.
A NEH-economy can only work if the NEH is piped to point of use for compression or liquefaction (except in special circumstances such as bowser delivery to [off grid] building sites, etc.). In the UK, for example, there should never be a reason to pipe NEH more than 500 km, particularly if there is a preference for Gen III+ small modular reactors (SMRs) such as the Rolls-Royce 470 MW UK SMR.
The NEH used to pipe the 500 km is 5% of the gas volume. That's 5% of 889 kWh thus getting 845 kWh to the point of use. Compression to 750 bar for road, rail, etc. transport uses 6.11 kWh of energy per kg, which tots up to 163 kWh for the 26.66 kgs with a NEH energy content of 681 kWh.
This is a far cry from the 70% to 80% energy loss so beloved by those so opposed to a hydrogen economy.
The technologies for Type IV and Type V, 750 bar hydrogen fuel tanks are well developed and scalable. There is no fundamental reason why the huge expense of carbon capture and the manufacture of synthetic fuels is needed for most, if not all, transport applications, including aviation.
This is: "How Nuclear Enabled Hydrogen (NEH) Will Save The Planet...":
And, if these figures are correct a world powered by Gen III+ NPPs and NEH will pay for itself 10X over with the 'collateral benefit' of preventing millions of premature deaths/vile illnesses every year:
Right now, making seafuel is probably a mistake, with the exception of having aircraft carriers/support ships manufacture it for aircraft and other ships. Competing head-on with O&G is a mistake until we quit burning O&G, and perhaps more importantly, until the industry is re-directed to geothermal energy.
However, there is no need to use pH to pull the CO2. As you pointed out, sea water holds more CO2 than the atmosphere. In fact, COLD sea water holds 26-28x what atmosphere holds. However, when it is heated to just under boiling, it holds less than 1x. Simply pulling off the gases when seawater is being used for cooling the reactor will give you the gases that you need, with CO2 being the largest amount there. From there, simple fractional distillation will do the trick.
Capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and burying it in the ground strikes me as sophomoric. Besides sequestering twice as much oxygen as carbon, reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by such artificial means would only encourage additional emissions of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels by creating a perception that the CO2 problem is not all that bad. The only sensible solution is to stop emissions of CO2 by using renewable energy, including nuclear energy.
Seafuel is a common-sense solution to the CO2 emissions problem. Instead of treating CO2 as a "bad" compound to be got rid of, Seafuel uses CO2 as a useful compound for energy transport, storage, and use, resulting in net zero emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. The planet could recover to pre-industrial levels of CO2 within a few decades of ending CO2 emissions.
Keep things in perspective:
If we captured and buried 100% of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, it would not make a dent in the water. There is ~.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2, while water vapor is .4% of the atmosphere. IOW, there is 10x the amount of water in the atmosphere.
And water vapor in the atmosphere is less than .01% of SURFACE water.
And we now know that the oceans is less than what is inside our crust (though it is unknown exactly how much is in there).
I'm not sure if it's better to reduce iron ore with hydrogen or with electrolysis, as Boston Metal is pioneering.
Gen III+ nuclear power plants (NPPs) can provide all the base load electricity a nation needs. But they can also be paired with PEM electrolysers to load follow electricity demand in milliseconds, for diurnal load following, without the need for any form of storage.
This combination allows the NPP to operate at 100% availability and may qualify for up to 4 revenue streams such that the greener-than-green hydrogen, nuclear enabled hydrogen (NEH) manufactured can be sold into existing markets, with an odds-on chance plenty of customers will be willing to pay a premium.
Seasonal load following is met with planned maintenance and refuelling outages. A perfect Occam's Razor solution to the generation of fossil fuel-free electricity network.
Dedicated Gen III+ NPPs can also supply steam at 850C and be paired with SOEC electrolysers with an efficiency measured by 1 MWh[equivalent] of nuclear energy in gets 26.66 kg of NEH out, with an energy content of 889 kWh.
A NEH-economy can only work if the NEH is piped to point of use for compression or liquefaction (except in special circumstances such as bowser delivery to [off grid] building sites, etc.). In the UK, for example, there should never be a reason to pipe NEH more than 500 km, particularly if there is a preference for Gen III+ small modular reactors (SMRs) such as the Rolls-Royce 470 MW UK SMR.
The NEH used to pipe the 500 km is 5% of the gas volume. That's 5% of 889 kWh thus getting 845 kWh to the point of use. Compression to 750 bar for road, rail, etc. transport uses 6.11 kWh of energy per kg, which tots up to 163 kWh for the 26.66 kgs with a NEH energy content of 681 kWh.
This is a far cry from the 70% to 80% energy loss so beloved by those so opposed to a hydrogen economy.
The technologies for Type IV and Type V, 750 bar hydrogen fuel tanks are well developed and scalable. There is no fundamental reason why the huge expense of carbon capture and the manufacture of synthetic fuels is needed for most, if not all, transport applications, including aviation.
This is: "How Nuclear Enabled Hydrogen (NEH) Will Save The Planet...":
https://substack.com/@colinmegson/p-121228909
And, if these figures are correct a world powered by Gen III+ NPPs and NEH will pay for itself 10X over with the 'collateral benefit' of preventing millions of premature deaths/vile illnesses every year:
https://substack.com/@colinmegson/p-146111400
BTW, that cheap green H2 is absolutely wonderful for steel making and slowly replacing nat gas in our pipelines. Sad that we are not pushing this.
Right now, making seafuel is probably a mistake, with the exception of having aircraft carriers/support ships manufacture it for aircraft and other ships. Competing head-on with O&G is a mistake until we quit burning O&G, and perhaps more importantly, until the industry is re-directed to geothermal energy.
However, there is no need to use pH to pull the CO2. As you pointed out, sea water holds more CO2 than the atmosphere. In fact, COLD sea water holds 26-28x what atmosphere holds. However, when it is heated to just under boiling, it holds less than 1x. Simply pulling off the gases when seawater is being used for cooling the reactor will give you the gases that you need, with CO2 being the largest amount there. From there, simple fractional distillation will do the trick.
Hmm. Actually 130x the volume density. Heating ocean water should work if MEs can figure out how to recover the heat and reuse it. Interesting.
Good article!
You might like this CCS article on the use for enhanced oil recovery
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/carbon-capture-green-grift-and-taxpayers
Read the Seafuel chapter linked in an earlier post, https://hargraves.s3.amazonaws.com/Seafuel+chapter.pdf
Thorcon steam is 550°C, and its electric/thermal efficiency is 46% with 30°C ocean cooling water for the condenser.