HOME          CATEGORIES          OUR TAKE

OUR TAKE: Climate Change Can’t be Stopped by turning CO2 into gasoline by ClimateYou Senior Editor George Ropes

A story in The Atlantic entitled “Climate Change Can Be Stopped by Turning Air Into Gasoline” by Robinson Meyer tells how a team of Harvard University scientists together with the company Carbon Engineering developed two chemical processes, one to extract CO2 from the air relatively cheaply, and the other to convert that CO2 into gasoline, and formed a company to do both.The story offers an abbreviated explanation of the very complicated technique of removing CO and how scientists hope to have an industrial-scale version of a carbon removal plant by 2021. The eventual goal is to construct a huge, industrial-scale network of carbon scrubbers that would remove greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere.

 

http://carbonengineering.com/  

CE has proudly developed an industrially scalable Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology, which can remove CO directly from the atmosphere at an affordable price point 

Our take here at ClimateYou is that this is yet another carbon capture scheme. What’s different with this one is that the CO2, once captured, isn’t stored — it’s used to make more gasoline, which when burned in a car, factory, or electricity plant, will emit more CO2. But it’s called carbon neutral because no new fossil fuels are being combusted nor mined. The Harvard academics behind the start-up company Carbon Engineering created to exploit the process see a niche for their product in those parts of the energy industry hardest to decarbonize: steel mills, cement plants, and long-distance air travel.They claim that their end product is carbon neutral, because while burning it still emits CO2, other CO2 was taken out of the air to make it. Pure sophistry.The cost for this carbon-neutral fuel is projected at $100-$200 per ton of CO2, or 1.00-$2.50 per gallon. But their engineered gasoline will cost more than regular gasoline, so it can’t really compete with even regular petrol, much less energy from solar or wind. In a few special circumstances, it may have a market for a few years, but demand for fossil fuel energy is going down, as wind and solar ramp up and EVs start replacing ICE cars. As those two transformations proceed, the price of oil will fall, making the engineered fuel less and less viable. The startup needs either to find a use and a buyer for the CO2 they extract or someone to pay to store it underground. Forget the second process of turning the CO2 into gasoline, a dirty fuel. That has only a very limited future. Granted, no new fossil fuel is being burned, but we aren’t going to end climate change by burning more CO2.

This method is cheap compared to other methods of capturing carbon. The founders are not averse to storing the CO2 they capture deep in the earth, but haven’t found a funder. Their process works; it’s not theoretical. The cost projections are based on several years of operating a pilot plant in Squamish, British Columbia. A network of such plants would be needed to make a significant impact on climate change. Is there a place and a time for this technology? Maybe, if the costs come in at the low end of projections, and if segments of the energy and transportation industries find it cheaper to use carbon-neutral fuel rather than low-carbon fuel (an unlikely proposition given the plunging prices of wind and solar energy) where that is possible, or if it’s not possible (long-haul electric planes are some years away), whether the added cost of carbon-neutral fuel is worth the opprobrium sure to rebound on greenhouse gas emitters. However, success of the venture is predicated on approximately constant oil prices, which are expected to fall by 2035 as the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) makes inroads into internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. How many companies or state entities would pay a premium for petrol that still trapped temperature-raising heat and polluted the air but had a cleaner pedigree? Only a very few. If I were a venture capitalist getting a pitch to invest in Carbon Engineering, I wouldn’t bite, unless they could cut costs way back and then either monetize the storage of CO2 or get someone (the oil companies?) to pay for it. The carbon-capture half of its process, the removal half, makes sense and has possibilities. The gasoline-production half doesn’t. Sorry, The Atlantic, it was an attention-grabbing headline, but climate change can’t be stopped by turning CO2 into gasoline. To do that we have to stop emitting carbon AND take carbon out of the air.

Comment on this article

ClimateYou moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (New York time) and can only accept comments written in English.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on reddit
Share on email

More Posts Like This

CONSEQUENCES

OurTake: COP26 — the Most Important UN Climate Summit Since COP21

COP26 is the most important UN climate summit since COP21 in 2015 when the Paris Agreement was signed. At that meeting, representatives from 195 member nations (called Parties; COP stands for Conference of the Parties) made Unilaterally Determined Commitments (UDCs) to lower their carbon emissions, the invisible gases

OUR TAKE

Our Take: An Empty-handed Biden Will Bereave us all

A piece in The Guardian titled “Is Joe Biden about to show up at COP26 empty-handed?”, by climate activist and author Kate Aronoff, argues persuasively that President Joe Biden has the executive powers necessary to set the US on a course to replace climate-heating fossil fuels with ones that

OUR TAKE

OUR TAKE: The Four Tasks

No matter what happens at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties in Glasgow, Scotland next month, now is the time for all actors besides the governments of the world —individuals, universities and research labs, corporations, faith-based organizations, and civil society—to examine their

Take action in the fight against climate change