Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (13) |
Author: DTB   😊 😞
Number: of 21944 
Subject: Re: OT: Direct Air Capture (DAC) of CO2 and XOM
Date: 04/30/24 10:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 6
OK, thanks, that helps.

2. If it is sequestering the carbon underground, wouldn't it make more sense to just use the smokestack emissions of a big natural gas power plant, where CO2 is a high percentage of (say 50%) as opposed to ambient air that has a concentration of about 0.04% CO2?
====
Smokestack emissions are a mixture of CO2 emissions with nitrogen gases and other combustion products. The concentrations are much lower than 50%, and sequestering them is a far different animal than just CO2. CO2 dissolves, and can be compressed to a liquid. The other components don't. So the CO2 must be separated.

You're right about concentration mattering in cost. The highest concentration sources now are from ethanol production and ammonia production. So these will be immediate targets followed by emissions from cement plants, power plants, and industrial plants such as refineries and petrochemical plants...


Smokestack emissions can be quite high, and there are some attempts to sequester CO2 this way already. Coal generating plants typically have about 13% CO2, which is already 300 times more than what is found in atmospheric air, so it seems a priori like a more sensible place to start. And if you burn methane (natural gas), you can get 25% CO2 if you burn it cleanly enough (combined cycle generators), and even higher (for some reason that I don't understand) if you use ethanol or LNG (thundersaidenergy.com - Co2 concentrations in industrial exhaust streams).

Of course, there are problems with using a dirty mix of hot gases, and for practical purposes, you have to capture the CO2 near where you can bury it, which is not always the optimal place to put a power plant.

Is CO2 really liquefied before it is sequestered? If so, I didn't know that, but this seems to confirm your statement: 1pointfive.com - Geologic sequestration

"Once captured, the CO2 is purified and compressed into a supercritical phase—a state with combined properties of gas and liquid.

Next, this CO2 is injected deep below the surface via a high-integrity well and intoan underground reservoir—often more than 5,000 feet down. Once the CO2 reaches the reservoir, it is securely sequestered through four trapping mechanisms..."

dtb
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to DTB here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 21,448 posts about Berkshire Hathaway. The article-length ones it recommended most:
BRK: Why Not XOM? · 62 recs · 2024
Second quarter comments · 60 recs · 2023
Berkshire's Profit Contributors · 57 recs · 2023
Summary of 2Q 2026 · 54 recs · 2026
3Q Summary · 53 recs · 2024
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (13) |


Announcements
Berkshire Hathaway FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of BRK.A | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community