Technology is connected to the "tailpipes" of these facilities and is used to remove CO2 from the plant exhaust.
What is carbon capture? And how does it work?
While carbon capture is regularly discussed in the media, no one really ever explains what it is.
Below is a quick thread discussing the technology behind traditional carbon capture 👇
Technology is connected to the "tailpipes" of these facilities and is used to remove CO2 from the plant exhaust.
This step is called "sequestration" and is why experts often talks about "carbon capture and sequestration" or "CCS".
Currently, one of the most economic forms of carbon capture is called "amine-based" capture.
An "amine" is a special liquid chemical which selectively grabs on to CO2 molecules.
The exhaust bubbles up through the column, and the amine drips down.
The liquid amine and gas exhaust mix in the column.
The amine with dissolved CO2 is sent into a second column where it is heated.
In the second column, the CO2 pops out of the amine.
Now, we have separated the CO2.
Below is a picture of an amine plant used for CO2 scrubbing.
The CO2 is injected into a well for permanent storage underground, usually a few hundred yards away.
What I've described is called "point source capture" because it captures CO2 from a single plant exhaust
With new advances in technology, CO2 can also be captured directly from the air we breathe
More from Science
Hard agree. And if this is useful, let me share something that often gets omitted (not by @kakape).
Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.
You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.
The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.
In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.
The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.
Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.
Feels like the next thing we're going to need is a ranking system for how concerning "variants of concern\u201d actually are.
— Kai Kupferschmidt (@kakape) January 15, 2021
A lot of constellations of mutations are concerning, but people are lumping together variants with vastly different levels of evidence that we need to worry.
You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.
The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.
In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.
The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.
I think we have to expand our thinking about the toroidal sphere even more. When looking at maps, I noticed the da Vinci map, from 1514, which uses the Reuleaux Triangle. This triangle is formed from 3 intersecting circles, and is in the center of a trefoil.
The trefoil is the focal point in many gothic structures, repeatedly and prominently shown. It is represented in many ways. ‘Going down the rabbit hole’ now makes sense, if you understand the center point of the ears is the center of the torus, with the rabbit trefoil.
The trefoil can be found within the toroidal field. Here is a fun site, where you can manipulate it yourself. https://t.co/FCMcybuuFC
The wiki page makes it seem like there isn’t much of importance with the Reuleaux Triangle, besides being used for coinage, or some stupid bike. But the Wankel engine is an interesting engine, using this geometric design https://t.co/ayPOgkAqGN
https://t.co/m9EaWwF796
The trefoil is the focal point in many gothic structures, repeatedly and prominently shown. It is represented in many ways. ‘Going down the rabbit hole’ now makes sense, if you understand the center point of the ears is the center of the torus, with the rabbit trefoil.
The trefoil can be found within the toroidal field. Here is a fun site, where you can manipulate it yourself. https://t.co/FCMcybuuFC
The wiki page makes it seem like there isn’t much of importance with the Reuleaux Triangle, besides being used for coinage, or some stupid bike. But the Wankel engine is an interesting engine, using this geometric design https://t.co/ayPOgkAqGN
https://t.co/m9EaWwF796
