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.
You May Also Like
Krugman is, of course, right about this. BUT, note that universities can do a lot to revitalize declining and rural regions.
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
One thing I've been noticing about responses to today's column is that many people still don't get how strong the forces behind regional divergence are, and how hard to reverse 1/ https://t.co/Ft2aH1NcQt
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 20, 2018
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
This is NONSENSE. The people who take photos with their books on instagram are known to be voracious readers who graciously take time to review books and recommend them to their followers. Part of their medium is to take elaborate, beautiful photos of books. Die mad, Guardian.
THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN
If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.
In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)
Beautifully read: why bookselfies are all over Instagram https://t.co/pBQA3JY0xm
— Guardian Books (@GuardianBooks) October 30, 2018
THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN
If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.
In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)
