New FAQ – How Does CleanCarbon Tech compare with projects which use electricity to fix CO2
Added to the FAQ:
Well, you can indeed use electricity to fix carbon dioxide; the problem is that due to thermodynamics you will generate more carbon dioxide through the combustion of fuels (coal, natural gas, etc) than the carbon dioxide you fix. Now you can assume that you have inexpensive net zero power from wind, solar or nuclear power but if you have that then why would you try to sequester carbon dioxide – why would you not generate it in the first place? It is true that cement generates carbon dioxide but 40% of this is due to combustion of heat that can be replaced by net zero energy. The remainder is actual net carbon zero in the end as carbon dioxide is consumed as the cement ages.
This is completely different than our technology – we aim not to use electricity but to potentially generate electricity. We aim to be a net zero power source. How do we do this? By powering our process using hydrogen from waste gas and low grade geothermal heat (less than 100 Centigrade). This is cheap low grade energy that we cannot use today – but can use economically when tied to carbon sequestration. CleanCarbon Energy argues that the latter is of substantially more value than the latter.
The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. Certainly switching to nuclear power plants across the United States and Electric Vehicles is a potential solution. We could go solar or wind where the sunlight or wind is available and if we are willing to pay for the massive equipment and footprint required to do so. Our alternate strategy is to recycle sulfur to generate a biomass and then gasify the biomass. No massive footprint or insane CAPEX required. Hopefully that is of value to someone out there.