Hydroponic Carbon Capture At Source (HCCAS) for Industry by gas2green

6comments

Share conversation:

Anna Förster Jul 16, 2014 03:11 Member 1 \| Share via:	The linked website is empty? The ice aid really worth expanding and working out, but you do not have a lot of time. You need to explain well and in detail at least one of the conversion techniques and you need also kind of a business plan for such a plant - hope much will it cost to build one on a cement site, for example, how much will it cost to run it, what it will produce and how you can sell it, etc.
Mark Everson Jul 16, 2014 12:37 Member 2 \| Share via:	Proposal contributor Hallo Anna Thanks for the encouragement and sorry about the site - the site provider flipped out but I'm assured it will be back on line tomorrow. That does include some supporting numbers, so is linking to that sufficient? I'm not in a good position to produce a business plan... my chosen career path means I now have no contacts able to advise on financials for something like this. My key argument would be that CCS is being implemented at high cost and pays back nothing - so a plant that offers similar benefits and would probably be at similar cost, but pays back large volumes of food or biofuel and produces life-giving O2 throughout its life must be better. My main site provides more info so I'll sort the link out tomorrow. Thanks again for the input, I really do appreciate it! :)
Mark Everson Jul 24, 2014 04:38 Member 3 \| Share via:	Proposal contributor UPDATE - work at Purdue Uni http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140723152023.htm may be suggesting spinach would be a good choice of plant. I'll try and get some mass balance info, if I can I'll add to this.
Mark Everson Jul 29, 2014 10:53 Member 4 \| Share via:	Proposal contributor STOP PRESS! http://t.co/gP3CgKTxtL, airborne water vapour magnifies global warming effects. And much water vapour comes from burning carbon fuels; the equation for wood combustion (all carbon fuels are broadly similar) is C6H12O6 + 6 O2 = 6 CO2 + 6 H2O So, it occurs that HCCAS recovers heat from flue streams. Flue streams are water-vapour rich, so when we recover the heat from the flue gas we ALSO condense out LOTS of water. Yes, it'll be acidic with CO2 and contaminated with combustion by-products like sulphur, but it's there and - I think - fairly easily treatable and cleanable. Most importantly, it hasn't gone into the atmosphere. So we're adding water vapour scavenging to HCCAS's other virtues of - CO2 reduction - O2 production - and food/biomass generation. Not bad.
Climate Colab Aug 6, 2014 12:25 Member 5 \| Share via:	We have seen much work on growing algae with CO2 waste streams already -- what makes this approach different or novel? We would have also needed to see the key challenges more thoroughly addressed.
Climate Rescue Aug 6, 2014 02:41 Member 6 \| Share via:	The key innovation here is as stated in the proposal; to use plants for CCS not just algae. I hope the judges took time to read this.

Anna Förster Jul 16, 2014 03:11 Member 1 \| Share via:	The linked website is empty? The ice aid really worth expanding and working out, but you do not have a lot of time. You need to explain well and in detail at least one of the conversion techniques and you need also kind of a business plan for such a plant - hope much will it cost to build one on a cement site, for example, how much will it cost to run it, what it will produce and how you can sell it, etc.
Mark Everson Jul 16, 2014 12:37 Member 2 \| Share via:	Proposal contributor Hallo Anna Thanks for the encouragement and sorry about the site - the site provider flipped out but I'm assured it will be back on line tomorrow. That does include some supporting numbers, so is linking to that sufficient? I'm not in a good position to produce a business plan... my chosen career path means I now have no contacts able to advise on financials for something like this. My key argument would be that CCS is being implemented at high cost and pays back nothing - so a plant that offers similar benefits and would probably be at similar cost, but pays back large volumes of food or biofuel and produces life-giving O2 throughout its life must be better. My main site provides more info so I'll sort the link out tomorrow. Thanks again for the input, I really do appreciate it! :)
Mark Everson Jul 24, 2014 04:38 Member 3 \| Share via:	Proposal contributor UPDATE - work at Purdue Uni http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140723152023.htm may be suggesting spinach would be a good choice of plant. I'll try and get some mass balance info, if I can I'll add to this.
Mark Everson Jul 29, 2014 10:53 Member 4 \| Share via:	Proposal contributor STOP PRESS! http://t.co/gP3CgKTxtL, airborne water vapour magnifies global warming effects. And much water vapour comes from burning carbon fuels; the equation for wood combustion (all carbon fuels are broadly similar) is C6H12O6 + 6 O2 = 6 CO2 + 6 H2O So, it occurs that HCCAS recovers heat from flue streams. Flue streams are water-vapour rich, so when we recover the heat from the flue gas we ALSO condense out LOTS of water. Yes, it'll be acidic with CO2 and contaminated with combustion by-products like sulphur, but it's there and - I think - fairly easily treatable and cleanable. Most importantly, it hasn't gone into the atmosphere. So we're adding water vapour scavenging to HCCAS's other virtues of - CO2 reduction - O2 production - and food/biomass generation. Not bad.
Climate Colab Aug 6, 2014 12:25 Member 5 \| Share via:	We have seen much work on growing algae with CO2 waste streams already -- what makes this approach different or novel? We would have also needed to see the key challenges more thoroughly addressed.
Climate Rescue Aug 6, 2014 02:41 Member 6 \| Share via:	The key innovation here is as stated in the proposal; to use plants for CCS not just algae. I hope the judges took time to read this.