Login
You're viewing the sfba.social public feed.
  • Mark Holtom (aka Kingbeard)MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk
    Jul 31, 2026, 9:20 AM

    It took 2 years to build this size of Direct Air Capture (DAC) plant in Iceland which sequesters CO2 out of the air.

    It runs on (free) geothermal energy.

    It will apparently capture the equivalent of about 36 seconds of global emissions annually (or 5 Taylor Swifts as we can now call it). Now we just need another 8 million of these.

    Who is stupid enough to say that this will fix our problems? Of course, the fossil fuel lobby, who say that we can continue drilling and burning, as this will clear things up.

    Come on guys...even they must see this isn't going to work. 36 seconds worth of emissions saved per year.

    This is a picture of a Direct Air Capture plant in Iceland. It is the size of factory.
    💬 42🔄 385⭐ 316

Replies

  • Mark Holtom (aka Kingbeard)MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk
    Jul 31, 2026, 9:28 AM

    I had a chat/debate with a guy about this, and the info is:
    - it costs 2.4 kWh per kg of CO2.
    - there are 18 of these in the world, and the largest can sequester 8,000 tonnes pa.
    - to operate at scale, it needs to be able to process billions of tonnes. So, it would have to scale to 12,760,000%
    - for 1 Bn tonnes of CO2 the energy cost would be the same as for the whole energy usage of all of the EU combined.

    On the other hand, simply planting trees won't fix this. Too little, too late.

    The only realistic scenarios are to
    - immediately halve our energy consumption.
    - insulate so we don't need as much energy.
    - produce as much energy as we can ourselves (solar, etc.)
    - Then to use as many renewable as possible to the supply of the remainder.

    The picture shows the DAC. There is an arrow pointing to a very small mark on the photo. It is a human standing in front of the DAC. He is tiny by comparison.
    💬 6🔄 10⭐ 23
  • Mark Holtom (aka Kingbeard)MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk
    Jul 31, 2026, 9:35 AM

    UPDATED:

    There is research on Carbon Capture Systems here
    web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/ja

    The results in Table 3.4 suggest that carbon capture does not come close to eliminating CO2e emissions from coal or gas power plants. Data from real world projects (Section 3.2.3) indicate even less reduction in CO2e emissions due to carbon capture than Table 3.4 suggests

    💬 4🔄 9⭐ 17
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • 💬 1🔄 7⭐ 8
  • palaresspalaress@mastodon.online
    Jul 31, 2026, 2:27 PM

    @themadhatter

    I think we will still need those, especially after net zero. To "simply" stop emitting is not enough in the long-term. We need to go below 350ppm CO2 levels again. And therefore I would agree with Conny, that this is one part of the solution.

    But you are right, that this is never an excuse for emitting GHG.

    @connynasch @MarkHoltom

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 2
  • Walter C. Smithstiefel_fan@troet.cafe
    Jul 31, 2026, 5:51 PM

    @palaress @themadhatter @connynasch @MarkHoltom
    Exactly this! It's No excuse to further emit GHGes but it might be one part of the solution to lower the CO2 concentration in the athmosphere.
    Now just always say it won't work, we can't build enough is imho like 40 years ago tell the people renewables won't work, because it's not possible to have enough batteries to stabalize the grid ... 🤷🏼‍♂️

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Tired and Angrytired_angry@mastodonapp.uk
    Jul 31, 2026, 3:33 PM

    @MarkHoltom
    I’m always dubious of claims that something “doesn’t work” when it is so new. I’m reminded of a few decades ago when people were decrying early solar PV installations, understandably, because their outputs often seemed like a drop in the ocean in comparison to the businesses which had them on their roofs.
    It seems that planting trees alone won’t save us, insulating everything in sight alone won’t save us. EVs instead of petrol & diesel on their own won’t save us.
    So maybe we shouldn’t discourage development of anything which might eventually help unless there really is no hope, ever, of it being useful.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Tired and Angrytired_angry@mastodonapp.uk
    Jul 31, 2026, 3:49 PM

    @MarkHoltom
    Things which seem obvious, to anyone who’s income doesn’t depend on fossil fuels:
    “We” have to stop burning fossil fuels. This surely includes not setting fire to refineries and tankers full of the stuff with bombs & missiles because of 🤷‍♂️ “disagreements” over whatever.
    “We” have to stop destroying forests & plant more trees!
    Insulate, then insulate some more; to avoid heat loss in winter but also to reduce excess heat gain in summer. Not just homes either!

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Z̈oéuint8_t@chaos.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 4:45 PM

    @tired_angry @MarkHoltom one could argue that setting refineries and tankers on fire in Minecraft is beneficial. The cargo would have been burned either way. But increasing the cost of the fossil infrastructure drives adoption of non-fossil alternatives.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 2🔄 0⭐ 2
  • TwotiredTwotired@universeodon.com
    Jul 31, 2026, 3:30 PM

    @forthy42 @MarkHoltom Yes! Thank you! This is the key point, IMO.

    Yes, we can burn fossil fuels to release the energy by forming a carbon bond, and then expend more than that amount of energy (because thermodynamics) to break it again, but why? If the geothermal energy is “free”, just skip the fossil fuel and use the geothermal energy as your energy source in the first place.

    Thinking that you can fix the fossil fuel problem if you just find the right carbon capture technology is like thinking you can reach the top of the mountain without having to go uphill if you just find the right path.

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 4
  • robloblawrobloblaw@mastodon.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 6:40 PM

    @Twotired @forthy42 @MarkHoltom
    Yes, entropy says this approach won't scale. Do not argue with entropy.

    Iceland is using the plant to 'make up for' carbon emissions they can't avoid for now (hard to abate emissions). They have a very ambitious net zero target.
    open.spotify.com/episode/0EHq9

    Arguably better to use the money to get higher emissions reductions outside their borders, but at least they are doing something positive.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Carlos Solíscsolisr@hub.azkware.net
    Jul 31, 2026, 1:18 PM
    If our current worldwide hyper-connected economy could survive falling back to literal sailboats, it could have been way easier to halve energy consumption...
    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • robloblawrobloblaw@mastodon.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 6:30 PM

    @MarkHoltom
    I agree with the sentiment of this post, but not the details. Even if we stopped all fossil extraction and usage now, it wouldn't be enough to avoid severe global heating. We need to to be drawing down carbon from the atmosphere too. That won't be technological solutions like the Iceland plant - it will be better management of soils and ecosystems, biochar, enhanced weathering, and building with natural materials.
    1/2

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • robloblawrobloblaw@mastodon.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 6:30 PM

    @MarkHoltom
    And we will be using more final energy, not less. Fossil energy mostly gets wasted in extraction, refining, transport and use (heat losses). Renewables are much more efficient. We need clean electricity grids that displace transport and industry that is currently fossil powered.

    More final energy use, less primary energy. And much less carbon pollution.
    2/2

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)david_chisnall@infosec.exchange
    Jul 31, 2026, 7:00 PM

    @MarkHoltom

    That 2.4 kWh / kg of CO2 seems fairly comparable to the emissions number for a fossil fuel plant, so simply using the energy to displace fossil fuels would have about the same impact.

    It’s almost certainly going to be important in the future, but generally the advice if you’re in a sinking boat is to plug the hole and then start bailing.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
  • kbalkbal@fedia.io
    Jul 31, 2026, 7:06 PM

    Why does every plan seem to leave out "stop burning fossil fuels"? I think we should do that first. It would mean much less driving, practically no flying, expensive shipping, massive reorganization of global supply chains, and a bunch of other unpopular consequences. Let's do it now.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Khleedrilkhleedril@cyberplace.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 12:21 PM

    @peturdainn @MarkHoltom Given that you would probably get decreasing returns as you scale up to those sort of numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if the estimate was an order of magnitude higher than the naive calculation might suggest.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Dave Mcguigsy@mstdn.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 11:16 AM

    @MarkHoltom for the amount of money these cost, you could have instead spent it on efficiency (like insulation) or renewables. And you'd have made an order of magnitude larger net reduction in CO2. Carbon capture is just bonkers.

    💬 0🔄 2⭐ 11
  • 💬 0🔄 1⭐ 4
  • SimonBornAt318ppmSimon318ppm@mastodon.sdf.org
    Jul 31, 2026, 11:27 AM

    @MarkHoltom but I think I’m right in saying that, apart from the obvious distraction they provide the fossil fuel industry, US gas producers have also been using sequestered CO2 under pressure to extract previously inaccessible gas so most plants there were actually producing more carbon than they remove

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 6
  • 💬 2🔄 0⭐ 0
  • ploumploum@mamot.fr
    Jul 31, 2026, 1:06 PM

    @tired_angry @MarkHoltom @nuintari : all the emissions made during its construction, including raw material extraction, transport to that place, emissions from people working on the project, maintenance.

    Then disposal after its EOL.

    That’s an awful lot of emissions compared with just planting trees.

    💬 2🔄 2⭐ 6
  • 💬 1🔄 1⭐ 2
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 2
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 2
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • I Thought I Saw A 2 :donor:ithoughtisawa2@infosec.exchange
    Jul 31, 2026, 11:44 AM

    @MarkHoltom The thing I don't understand about people and organizations who advocate heavily for fossil fuels above any form of renewable at all is that fossil fuels are a limited resource. We can debate about whether the current supply will last another 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years, but at some point it's going to run out. Why not begin the process of switching to something else? The conversion is going to take a very long time, so your fossil fuel profits are still going to be safe for a while.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Mark Holtom (aka Kingbeard)MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk
    Jul 31, 2026, 2:54 PM

    @tired_angry @ithoughtisawa2

    I have a climate scientist friend. He used to consult for Obama. He foresaw a 'mad max; scenario with $25+ a gallon, with rationing for military use,

    It still hasn't happened, but the US has the plan in their back pocket ready for activation.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • GlobobGlobob@thecanadian.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 11:48 AM

    @MarkHoltom Simple study of thermodynamics would tell you that air capture is a fools errand. Capturing CO2 at emission sources such as cement is a better prospect. Even better if you then reuse that CO2 to make eMethanol fuel which you use in series plug-in hybrid vehicles. The fossil industry already knows how to do CO2 capturing because they inject captured CO2 back into aging oil reservoirs to keep them active.
    energyasicit.ca/CarbonGrid/

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 1
  • robloblawrobloblaw@mastodon.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 6:45 PM

    @Globob @MarkHoltom
    CO2 capture from source is going to be necessary in the shirt to medium term. Hybrids will never compete economically with EVs though. Long distance shipping, or the other hand, will likely need to switch to methanol or ammonia as fuels.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 1⭐ 1
  • Yann Droneaudydroneaud@ouvaton.coop
    Jul 31, 2026, 11:52 AM

    @MarkHoltom just wait for the techbros to suggest using heat generated by AI data centers to power such carbon capture plants

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Ryek Darkener_RyekDarkener_@mastodon.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 12:04 PM

    @MarkHoltom

    Often not in scope: Due to thermodynamics all systems produce heat in the end. So even if these 8 million units will be built, they will not solve the underlying problem if no massive greenhouse gas reduction takes place. Maybe if sized properly some kind of long term healing technology to reduce the bad days for the next 500 years.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 3
  • Tom Bortelstbortels@infosec.exchange
    Jul 31, 2026, 12:22 PM

    @MarkHoltom

    Research is research. Future units will be more efficient.

    Looking at this and extrapolating to the future is like looking at a model T and assuming you could predict modern car culture. Simply multiplying is both misleading and misses the point.

    The reality is we need to look at and try all potential remediations, and one is not exclusive of others. Direct carbon capture doesn't mean we aren't also looking at conservation and other mechanisms.

    The unfortunate reality is we need to not simply stop dumping carbon into the atmosphere - we need to reverse the flow. Carbon capture and sequestration technologies is that process, and needs to happen *in addition to* conservation.

    I suspect the eventual efficient solution will be something not invented yet. But to get there we need to iterate on what we can achieve. This isn't a solution - it's part of a process.

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 2
  • NewdeNewde@todon.eu
    Jul 31, 2026, 12:35 PM

    @tbortels @MarkHoltom Except you are fighting an uphill battle against the fundamental laws of physics.

    It is very hard to imagine this type of technology making a meaningful impact -- especially within the shrinking timeframe we have left.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 2
  • Mark Holtom (aka Kingbeard)MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk
    Jul 31, 2026, 4:00 PM

    @tbortels

    I understand what you are saying, but it is not being borne out by the facts (AFAIK).
    The UK govt is investing £25Bn in carbon capture - even when it has been shown not to work at scale. They are being 'guided' by the oil lobby who tell them it will all work out fine.

    So, we are not exploring lots of avenues, we are in a blind alley.

    And your thought that the solution will appear in the future, is like the picture below - 'And then a miracle happens'.

    Image attached toot
    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Tom Bortelstbortels@infosec.exchange
    Jul 31, 2026, 4:09 PM

    @MarkHoltom

    We believed heavier-than-air flight was impossible until engines improved - than it was.

    The reality is we need to both stop making a mess *and clean the mess up*. Neither alone is sufficient.

    People not involved in solving a problem should stand aside for those who are. You are welcome to give up. I choose not to. There is nothing *fundamentally* impossible about carbon sequestration - you've shown that yourself. Your argument is essentially "it won't scale", while I am saying "it doesn't scale - yet".

    In either scenario - we must also stop making the mess as well.

    When I had young children, their rooms were a disaster area. Part of learning to not make a mess was learning that they were *responsible* for cleaning up that mess. You cannot separate conduct and remediation - they are two sides of the same coin. And telling folks a problem *cannot be solved* is a pretty solid way to ensure it won't be.

    If you give people a get out if jail card on cleanup - they'll do it again.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Urzlgooba42@mastodon.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 12:22 PM

    @MarkHoltom This scheme has to beat the efficiency of 4 billion years of evolved carbon capture and then store it better than nature did.

    It only makes sense if we can run it at extremely high capture rates *and* stop producing more exhaust.

    No matter what else we do, we still have to quit making more CO2.

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 0
  • NephriteNephrite@gamedev.lgbt
    Jul 31, 2026, 12:28 PM

    @MarkHoltom For comparison: this website maps almost 35 thousand power plants in the world: database.earth/energy/power-pl.

    Assuming this list is mostly complete, that suggest the average listed power plant produces about 900 seconds of the world's electricity (and pollution from electricity) per year.

    So that means that for the average power plant, you would need about 25 of these installations to cancel out their emissions. And that's only electricity.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 2
  • Eggs now in different baskets.the_wub@mastodon.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 1:29 PM

    @tbegush @MarkHoltom Volvo released figures a few years ago for CO2 produced by manufacturing one of their electric SUVs.

    It was of the order of 22-24 tonnes.

    I did a quick calculation and it seems that using one of my smaller cars, say my Trabant that it would take 150,000 km of driving to emit the same amount of CO2.

    So it would be interesting to know how long the carbon capture system would need to run to break even taking in account the amount of CO2 produced during construction.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Mark Holtom (aka Kingbeard)MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk
    Jul 31, 2026, 2:38 PM

    @the_wub @tbegush

    er., from memory. Volvo's figures where for a complete lifecycle, ie. build, use and recycle.
    You can't compare that to jusr clocking up miles in a Trabant. You need to include build and recycling.
    Incidentally Volvo's numbers also covered the figures for an equivalent ICE Volvo, annd it was much lower.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Eggs now in different baskets.the_wub@mastodon.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 4:19 PM

    @MarkHoltom @tbegush
    The figures I got in the Norwegian motoring press were just for build as far as I remember.

    For me the point is that if I buy a new electric SUV and throw away the Trabant then I cause a large amount of CO2 to be emitted immediately.

    If I continue to use the Trabant then it will take me many years to cause the same amount of CO2 to be emitted.

    Whether the distance is 150,000 or 80,000 is not so important, both are still a lot more than my annual mileage.

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Eggs now in different baskets.the_wub@mastodon.social
    Jul 31, 2026, 4:22 PM

    @MarkHoltom @tbegush Note that people here in Norway tend to buy new cars on 5 year cycles so that they sell them with at least 2 years of factory guarantee on them.

    Thus, every five years my neighbours buy a new car causing a large quantity of CO2 to be emitted when producing that car.

    That allow me to justify driving my cars for at least another 5 more years as I will emit less CO2 than they do.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • LonMLonM@vivaldi.net
    Jul 31, 2026, 1:00 PM

    @MarkHoltom to be fair, there are some "Direct Air Capture" / "Carbon Capture & Storage" technologies that are cheap to build, basically free to operate, and scale really well.

    Saplings. Trees. Forests.

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 3
  • Mark Holtom (aka Kingbeard)MarkHoltom@mastodonapp.uk
    Jul 31, 2026, 2:50 PM

    @LonM

    a great idea but...
    - they need land (which is becoming scarce).
    - the numbers required are huge (380,000 / 36 * 60 * 60 ^ 365 = 13,870,000,000).
    - then wait 7+ years.

    We need another plan, as well.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • CheapPontoonCheapPontoon@beige.party
    Jul 31, 2026, 1:08 PM

    @MarkHoltom I’d like to see the calculation Emissions generated to build it, and how many years of operation to capture that amount of emissions.

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 2