I totally agree with this essay. There are several problems with DOE and how they are trying to manage CO2 capture.
First as Mike has said they are only trying to optimize current methods of capture, mainly some form of mineralization and storage or mineralization to capture CO2 and demineralization to release the CO2. Both of these methods rely on mineral oxides or hydroxides that will form carbonates. The oxides or hydroxides require hefty energy inputs for their synthesis, energy that is usually supplied by burning a fossil fuel. This makes the process very inefficient for carbon capture.
Second. DOE is funding programs for transportation and long term storage of CO2 by building pipelines and injecting it into rock formations. This will also require fossil fuels making the capture process even more inefficient.
Third. DOE has allowed mission creep into the process. A group that applies for funding from DOE has their proposal partially rated on how well they comply with DEI guidelines and environmental justice guidelines. If the US government believes that CO2 is an existential threat to the world then all proposals should be rated on the solution to that threat not on who is doing the research or where it is being done.
CO2 can be an excellent feedstock for the chemical industry. After all plant life certainly uses it as a feedstock. Some day private industry will devise a method of converting CO2 to useful materials such as biodegradable polymers or solvents, but it will probably not be through the help of the US government because they will not recognize it as a solution to the problem.
I totally agree with this essay. There are several problems with DOE and how they are trying to manage CO2 capture.
First as Mike has said they are only trying to optimize current methods of capture, mainly some form of mineralization and storage or mineralization to capture CO2 and demineralization to release the CO2. Both of these methods rely on mineral oxides or hydroxides that will form carbonates. The oxides or hydroxides require hefty energy inputs for their synthesis, energy that is usually supplied by burning a fossil fuel. This makes the process very inefficient for carbon capture.
Second. DOE is funding programs for transportation and long term storage of CO2 by building pipelines and injecting it into rock formations. This will also require fossil fuels making the capture process even more inefficient.
Third. DOE has allowed mission creep into the process. A group that applies for funding from DOE has their proposal partially rated on how well they comply with DEI guidelines and environmental justice guidelines. If the US government believes that CO2 is an existential threat to the world then all proposals should be rated on the solution to that threat not on who is doing the research or where it is being done.
CO2 can be an excellent feedstock for the chemical industry. After all plant life certainly uses it as a feedstock. Some day private industry will devise a method of converting CO2 to useful materials such as biodegradable polymers or solvents, but it will probably not be through the help of the US government because they will not recognize it as a solution to the problem.