![1PointFive](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 32
- 255 731
1PointFive
Registrace 21. 12. 2021
Developing Direct Air Capture and Sequestration hubs to remove and securely store CO₂ and help achieve climate targets.
No one has gone this big before.
This is exactly why we’re leveraging the expertise and years of experience of our full team to build STRATOS at the climate relevant scale we believe is required to make a difference.
“...it's not just a plant, it's an industry that we're building." - Christine Irvin, Director, Direct Air Capture, Oxy Low Carbon Ventures
We continue to remain ambitious, diligent and pushing the boundaries because that’s what we believe the climate challenge requires.
STRATOS is just the beginning for 1PointFive.
Learn more about this project and others at 1pointfive.com
This video contains forward looking statements: bit.ly/4ecZvvV
“...it's not just a plant, it's an industry that we're building." - Christine Irvin, Director, Direct Air Capture, Oxy Low Carbon Ventures
We continue to remain ambitious, diligent and pushing the boundaries because that’s what we believe the climate challenge requires.
STRATOS is just the beginning for 1PointFive.
Learn more about this project and others at 1pointfive.com
This video contains forward looking statements: bit.ly/4ecZvvV
zhlédnutí: 279
Video
The 1PointFive STEM Room at the Boys & Girls Club of Kingsville
zhlédnutí 48Před 14 dny
Welcome to the STEM Room! A place where children at the Boys and Girls Club of Kingsville can be inspired, explore new interests and, most importantly, have fun. Thank you to all who made this possible!
TD Securities Announces Carbon Dioxide Removal Purchase from 1PointFive
zhlédnutí 110Před 2 měsíci
TD Securities Announces Carbon Dioxide Removal Purchase from 1PointFive
Wish for Wheels and 1PointFive in Kingsville, TX
zhlédnutí 58Před 2 měsíci
Wish for Wheels and 1PointFive in Kingsville, TX
ANA Announces Carbon Dioxide Removal Purchase from 1PointFive
zhlédnutí 98Před 2 měsíci
ANA Announces Carbon Dioxide Removal Purchase from 1PointFive
Explore STRATOS: A Technical Explainer
zhlédnutí 7KPřed 5 měsíci
Explore STRATOS: A Technical Explainer
Breaking ground on the world's largest DAC facility
zhlédnutí 3KPřed rokem
Breaking ground on the world's largest DAC facility
Introducing STRATOS, our first Direct Air Capture facility
zhlédnutí 16KPřed rokem
Introducing STRATOS, our first Direct Air Capture facility
What is Direct Air Capture? A Technical Explainer
zhlédnutí 42KPřed 2 lety
What is Direct Air Capture? A Technical Explainer
All right, so how many kilowatthours will be used? Will it take out more carbon than is produced by a power plant based on the kWh it uses to do so?
Just a question, why they use KOH instead of NaOH. Although they have the sane reaction efficiency and NaOH is way cheaper, lighter?
CO2 is PLANT FOOD! NOT POLLUTION!
The most inefficient way is calcium carbonate cycle. ~850 degreeC. It is a huge energy flow.
Is it possible to connect these plant to solar energy for power supply?
yes all these plants are run off renewable energy
@@YusefNilson how?
yes it is essential to maximize the environmental benefit
We should all get behind this compelling technology. We cannot just sit around and wait for a miracle.
Capturing CO2 must be stopped immediately. They are lying to you. Every living thing needs CO2, and it most definitely is not causing a climate change. Their geo-engineering with chemicals sprayed on us is destroying our air, soil, & water supply.
This sexy/salesy "technical explainer" video kind-of-explains the process used . However, it seriously lacks any technical and economic performance info - e.g. how much energy the process needs to capture and sequester a ton of CO2 (MJ/ton CO2), how this energy would be generated and at what carbon penalty, how much would it cost to run ($/ton CO2 ) and how it compares with carbon cost today, how does net carbon removal effectiveness goes down if captured CO2 is used for secondary oil recovery (Occidental's embarassing scheme), etc., etc. Good start, but needs a major sequel !
Secondary recovery of oil is not embarrassing. That oil would be recovered anyway using gas injection (water, methane or CO2), and once the oilfield is depleted it can be leveraged as permanent CO2 storage. Yes - only the net CO2 sequestered should be counted as 'removed' from the atmosphere. Right now this new tech is expensive (and unprofitable) to build, so it needs some way of paying for it - and secondary oil recovery can help here. Hopefully then with the learning curve and experience, costs can come down over the next decade.
This is bullshit technology! The amount of power necessary and capital far outweigh the slightest benefit! One volcanic eruption wipes out everything we are doing now.
@@samclayton270 it's just another green scam.
My thoughts exactly. Be neat to run the plant on solar power or tidal generators or something, but for natural gas power plants (or god forbid coal), there's going to be plenty of carbon released from combustion. I wonder how this compares to cryodistilled CO2 processes (if you disregard their recovery of argon, hydrogen, oxygen, and whatever else they can sell on the market for gases)
Just curious, where are these carbon capture plants getting power from?
Carbon capture (CCS) occurs at the site, so if it's a coal plant then... For Direct Air Capture (DAC) it's a problem. It requires a lot of energy and it would be sort of pointless to power it up with a coal plant. Coal plants and NG plants typically use a secondary source for power, usually through captured heat and steam turbines (energy that would otherwise be wasted).
@@ElSantoLuchador , what kind of cost are we looking at to erect a DAC facility? i'm guessing that prohibitive costs make this impossible to construct on smaller scales?
@@mitchmorrison7791Blackrocks have just invested 550m . The overall new budget estimate looks at 1.5b$.
Ultimately They get power from the grid, but many such plants are purchasing renewable power from open markets.
There will be a solar farm next to the plant.
Lie that fools stupid people
The bottom line is the cost per ton, the average USA citizen creates about 15 tons per year, at $400 per ton removed that is $24,000 for a family of 4, good luck selling that idea to the voters, if carbon credits are being generated the removal is cancelled out by the buyer of the credits.
Guess 100 per ton will be more like it. But still…point taken
Direct Air Capture Technical Explainer
She Uses Potassium Hydroxide, But Mars Has More Calcium Hydroxide?!? Scientists Think That The Most Abundant Chemical Elements In The Martian Crust Are Silicon, Oxygen, Iron, Magnesium, Aluminum, Calcium, And Potassium.
This might be a climate saviour.
It won't. The amount of CO2 that will be captured is absolutely tiny. CCS is a far more effective and cost efficient option.
This is very impressive but I don't see how it can make a significant difference when all it does is remove carbon dioxide in the immediate vicinity of the DAC plant. Shouldn't the priority be to capture CO2 directly from its source i.e. where it is being pumped into the atmosphere in vast quantities rather than after diffusion has taken place?
That what CCS is. It's captured at the source. CCS is not DAC.
@@ElSantoLuchador Yes, I know. I'm saying that it would be far better to prioritise capturing CO2 at its source rather than taking it from the air when the CO2 has already been massively diluted by diffusion.
@@ppuh6tfrz646 We probably have to do both. Even if you capture 100% of all newly emitted CO2 at source, we would likely want to lower CO2 in the atmosphere from where it is today, which means you need to have DAC at industrial scale. The reality is that we will still be emitting CO2 from sources like agriculture, cars, planes and other smaller point sources where it really hard (or impossible) to eliminate, so DAC is your method for offsetting those emissions that you couldn't avoid.
@@samclayton270 I just don't see how DAC can make a meaningful difference. Only 0.04% (1 in 2500) of the air contains carbon. That's such a tiny concentration that carbon capture and storage seems far more effective. Also DAC will not be able to remove carbon that is higher in the atmosphere because it would be 'out of reach'.
The atmosphere mixes - think wind. DAC is a form of carbon capture, and re-read my reply - I think we have to do both. Capturing at source might not be enough.