Squamish company that sucks up carbon dioxide to make fuel gets $68 million investment

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Squamish company that sucks up carbon dioxide to make fuel gets $68 million investment

Squamish company that sucks up carbon dioxide to make fuel gets $68 million investment29-03-2019 14:03
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/carbon-engineering-investment-march-2019
29-03-2019 19:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	So this machine seems to be getting more popular. They promise to manufacture fuel (essentially crude, as it still needs to be refined) as cheap as $1 / litre (there are 3.785 liters in a gallon). This will put the raw price of the fuel at $3.79 / gallon. Crude oil is currently around $60/barrel, or around 38 cents a liter. Cost wise, this has a LONG way to go to beat 'traditional' methods of obtaining crude oil. This is also not a new process. The Fischer-Tropsche process has been around in various forms since WW2. This is just the latest rendition of it. As far as 'sucking up' CO2, any air liquefaction plant does the same thing to bottle CO2 for welding, fire extinguishers, and soda machines. CO2 is a gas required in the atmosphere to support life. It has no capability to warm the Earth.
01-04-2019 17:52
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Into the Night wrote: So this machine seems to be getting more popular. They promise to manufacture fuel (essentially crude, as it still needs to be refined) as cheap as $1 / litre (there are 3.785 liters in a gallon). This will put the raw price of the fuel at $3.79 / gallon. Crude oil is currently around $60/barrel, or around 38 cents a liter. Cost wise, this has a LONG way to go to beat 'traditional' methods of obtaining crude oil. This is also not a new process. The Fischer-Tropsche process has been around in various forms since WW2. This is just the latest rendition of it. As far as 'sucking up' CO2, any air liquefaction plant does the same thing to bottle CO2 for welding, fire extinguishers, and soda machines. CO2 is a gas required in the atmosphere to support life. It has no capability to warm the Earth. To make that synthetic fuel they'll need lots of hydrogen. If that don't come from natural gas it comes from water. Water is expensive in California.
01-04-2019 19:17
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Isn't the Pacific ocean water... Synthetic will always be more expensive than natural. It also waste energy, since there is always some lost, when you convert it from on form to another. Basically, the fuel produced will always cost more to produce, and less efficient, since the energy used to produced figures in. It's just another CO2 reducing scam, since it's doubtful to pull more CO2 out of the atmosphere, as it puts back when used, plus the CO2 expelled in the process. Won't solve any problems, but looks good enough on paper to land some grant money and eco-investors, who probably seldom venture outdoors.
01-04-2019 21:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: Into the Night wrote: So this machine seems to be getting more popular. They promise to manufacture fuel (essentially crude, as it still needs to be refined) as cheap as $1 / litre (there are 3.785 liters in a gallon). This will put the raw price of the fuel at $3.79 / gallon. Crude oil is currently around $60/barrel, or around 38 cents a liter. Cost wise, this has a LONG way to go to beat 'traditional' methods of obtaining crude oil. This is also not a new process. The Fischer-Tropsche process has been around in various forms since WW2. This is just the latest rendition of it. As far as 'sucking up' CO2, any air liquefaction plant does the same thing to bottle CO2 for welding, fire extinguishers, and soda machines. CO2 is a gas required in the atmosphere to support life. It has no capability to warm the Earth. To make that synthetic fuel they'll need lots of hydrogen. If that don't come from natural gas it comes from water. Water is expensive in California. Did you know California is on the edge of a sea? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

02-04-2019 01:11
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Into the Night wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: Into the Night wrote: So this machine seems to be getting more popular. They promise to manufacture fuel (essentially crude, as it still needs to be refined) as cheap as $1 / litre (there are 3.785 liters in a gallon). This will put the raw price of the fuel at $3.79 / gallon. Crude oil is currently around $60/barrel, or around 38 cents a liter. Cost wise, this has a LONG way to go to beat 'traditional' methods of obtaining crude oil. This is also not a new process. The Fischer-Tropsche process has been around in various forms since WW2. This is just the latest rendition of it. As far as 'sucking up' CO2, any air liquefaction plant does the same thing to bottle CO2 for welding, fire extinguishers, and soda machines. CO2 is a gas required in the atmosphere to support life. It has no capability to warm the Earth. To make that synthetic fuel they'll need lots of hydrogen. If that don't come from natural gas it comes from water. Water is expensive in California. Did you know California is on the edge of a sea? Takes a lot of money to pump water.
02-04-2019 02:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: Into the Night wrote: So this machine seems to be getting more popular. They promise to manufacture fuel (essentially crude, as it still needs to be refined) as cheap as $1 / litre (there are 3.785 liters in a gallon). This will put the raw price of the fuel at $3.79 / gallon. Crude oil is currently around $60/barrel, or around 38 cents a liter. Cost wise, this has a LONG way to go to beat 'traditional' methods of obtaining crude oil. This is also not a new process. The Fischer-Tropsche process has been around in various forms since WW2. This is just the latest rendition of it. As far as 'sucking up' CO2, any air liquefaction plant does the same thing to bottle CO2 for welding, fire extinguishers, and soda machines. CO2 is a gas required in the atmosphere to support life. It has no capability to warm the Earth. To make that synthetic fuel they'll need lots of hydrogen. If that don't come from natural gas it comes from water. Water is expensive in California. Did you know California is on the edge of a sea? Takes a lot of money to pump water. Why pump it any great distance? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Squamish company that sucks up carbon dioxide to make fuel gets $68 million investment:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change	74	13-01-2025 19:01
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems	1045	13-01-2025 18:59
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	453	11-01-2025 21:21
Thomas Mascia NY trooper, caught with a cool million in cash and anabolic steroids	63	11-12-2024 16:20
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands	143	09-12-2024 19:52