The team is now gearing up to test its methane munching technology beyond the laboratory and will use a 40-foot container-sized prototype at livestock barns in Denmark.
It converts it to co2 and its a structure like carbon capture stuff. Im not big on carbon capture but if you running this thing anyway it might make sense to run the output into some carbon capture scheme as it should reduce both the production and running energy since it can use some of what this is already doing as far as pulling in and exhausting the air. might be good for the exhaust to go down an old well or something to.
Not sure if there is much chance for effective carbon capture. The article states that this works for getting rid of very low concentrations of methane (so burning is not possible). That means that even with the methane 100% turned into carbon, we are talking about very small concentrations.
well there would be the native co2 in the air its taking in too. My point is if it was worth it enough to do on its own its already done most of the heavy lifting so I bet if a carbon capture technique was worth it, it would be riding the output of this.
My understanding of the science is a bit shaky, but that seems a little unlikely.
When there’s a high concentration of methane, they usually use flare towers to burn it, which turns it into CO2. (Excess from chemical processing, or landfills.) This process is for lower concentrations that won’t catch fire.
But that still makes sense, because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. However, the end product from this process may not have a high enough concentration of CO2 to make sequestration feasible, or may pose technical hurdles to the sequestration methods if the gas is a lower CO2 concentration than technologies allow for. (And that’s the part where my knowledge gets shaky - I don’t know if sequestration is just pumping carbon-rich air into the ground, or if they do stuff like pressurize it until it forms liquid or solid CO2, or try to store it in such a way that it forms hydrates underground.)
It converts it to co2 and its a structure like carbon capture stuff. Im not big on carbon capture but if you running this thing anyway it might make sense to run the output into some carbon capture scheme as it should reduce both the production and running energy since it can use some of what this is already doing as far as pulling in and exhausting the air. might be good for the exhaust to go down an old well or something to.
Not sure if there is much chance for effective carbon capture. The article states that this works for getting rid of very low concentrations of methane (so burning is not possible). That means that even with the methane 100% turned into carbon, we are talking about very small concentrations.
well there would be the native co2 in the air its taking in too. My point is if it was worth it enough to do on its own its already done most of the heavy lifting so I bet if a carbon capture technique was worth it, it would be riding the output of this.
My understanding of the science is a bit shaky, but that seems a little unlikely.
When there’s a high concentration of methane, they usually use flare towers to burn it, which turns it into CO2. (Excess from chemical processing, or landfills.) This process is for lower concentrations that won’t catch fire.
But that still makes sense, because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. However, the end product from this process may not have a high enough concentration of CO2 to make sequestration feasible, or may pose technical hurdles to the sequestration methods if the gas is a lower CO2 concentration than technologies allow for. (And that’s the part where my knowledge gets shaky - I don’t know if sequestration is just pumping carbon-rich air into the ground, or if they do stuff like pressurize it until it forms liquid or solid CO2, or try to store it in such a way that it forms hydrates underground.)