How can you effectively capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from power plants?

Pre-combustion capture makes absolutely no sense from either engineering or economic considerations. Whoever proposed this process dies not have any appreciation for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

La capture et le stockage du dioxyde de carbone (CCS) sont des technologies visant à réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre provenant des centrales électriques et d'autres sources industrielles. 3 étapes fondamentales: Capture du CO2, Transport & Stockage du CO2 Nous pouvons envisager le Stockage géologique et le Stockage océanique Il est important de noter que bien que le CCS puisse contribuer à réduire les émissions de CO2, il ne doit pas être considéré comme une solution unique. D'autres mesures, telles que l'efficacité énergétique, les énergies renouvelables et la modification des comportements, sont également nécessaires pour atteindre des objectifs ambitieux en matière de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre.

Direct the emissions into another process reactor and Convert it into carbon nanotubes/nanocarbon which can be further blended into polymers for reinforcement and added to tar for reinforcing the roads.

Pre-combustion capture is a concept that does not obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The idea may sound sophisticated to draw attention but it's chemically not possible.

Forget about CO2 storage. It us an utter and complete waste of time, money and energy. The earth's subsurface, including saline Acquifers, is always going to be subject to leakage, due to massive, ubiquitous fractures in brittle rocks.

Post-combustion carbon capture is the only large-scale technology that can be deployed immediately and significantly reduce carbon emissions from day one. It also has the potential to generate negative emissions, thus lowering the atmospheric CO2 concentration and offsetting historic emissions and emissions from hard to abate sectors. With the IRA and the EU ETS the business case looks entirely different than just a few years ago. We are not in a situation where we can argue about the best option. Instead we need to act, and we need all the tools we have to reduce our climate impact. There is no silver bullet.

I offer the same comments as I stated above with Pre-Combustion processes. The cost/benefit analysis has certainly not been completely factored into this suggested pathway.

As there are many companies currently researching on the topic of post-combustion capture, we lack the technology to make the process economically advantageous.

PCC can be typically built into existing industrial plants and power stations (known as retro-fitting) without significant modifications to the original plant. PCC can be integrated into new plants to achieve a range of greenhouse gas intensity reductions near to zero emissions. In contrast to competing technologies, PCC offers high operational flexibility (partial retrofit, zero to full capture operation) and it can match market conditions for both existing and new power stations. PCC offers a lower technology risk compared to competing technologies; this is further enhanced by the ability for staged implementation, which is not possible with competing technologies

This is commonly used and proven for feasibility techno commercially. Though there were many other ways we discuss most of them is not widley used

Ditto above comments. Once again, whoever is making this proposal is ignoring the necessary cost/benefit analysis. I welcome an honest debate on this subject.

Each of these proposals lack engineering and economic process vetting. Underground storage is virtually impossible. There is no rock outcrop in the world that can be shown to be a long term seal. None. As to ocean storage, the same principle applies. Any research on this subject will be a complete and total waste of money and resources.

Google lake Nyos Disaster then you will see what happens when large amounts of Co2 escape from underground either by earth tremors capping issue or otherwise.. it will kill everything including insects in the surrounding areas.

Researches are still in progress. No significant breakthrough has been achieved as of now. But it will be very dangerous is in case stored Carbon leaked or came in to the environment. It will impact the nearby environment. One startup names Carbfix working on converting Captured Carbon to rocks in just few days (Naturally it takes years). That way be the solution for Carbon capture for future. More researchs need to be done in the field.

CCS's cost troubles start at the power plant. Firstly it is capital intensive which requires that the plant run at high capacity factor and removes any potential flexibility in the power plant. This capital cost also increases the cost of electricity significantly. CCS consumes a significant amount of energy, and this is made up with additional fuel consumption. If the carbon capture is only partial CCS can actually increase emissions. CO2 is heavier and takes up more volume than fuel so it is costly to transport.

I think one of the main things to focus on in CCS and CCU is the involvement of Oil and Gas majors. These companies are ruining the name of CCS, this way people will never believe that carbon capture can be of any good as people only see that these big companies are spending money on this tech, that means it must be a fraud. Other than that there are many other challenges like not so favourable policies, price of carbon and state of carbon credit markets, price of CCS, scalability issue, storage and transportation of CO2. A whole new infrastructure is needed for things are CO2 and Hydrogen as we need these both to limit global warming under 1.5°C.

CCS allows for ongoing disruption of the debate on climate change, and an excuse to keep delaying action. CCS is cheap as a lobbying tool because no projects have to be built or operate successfully.

Construct pools near power stations. Seed there seaweed, like chlorella. Feed this seaweed to cows and chicken. Also u will need extra fertilisers to upscale efficiency, and sunlight.

There is no economic way to capture and store CO2 from huge CO2 emitters like power plants. The only way to stop this emission is by switching to solar (already less expensive than coal burning in Europe) and other renewable energy sources. Investment in CO2 capture and storage is an enormous waste of public money and time of many researchers.

I think that world should focus more on DAC. Direct Air Capture, rather than CCS. DAC is comparatively newer technology and stands for, capturing CO2 directly from air using green energy. These are companies already working on DAC but a lot more work needs to be done to make them viable. For example, the price of captured CO2 using DAC is 10 or sometimes 100 times higher than the price in the carbon markets. We need a lot of groups/companies/organisations working on this problem and come up with different solutions. We should keep using CCS for processes like steel and cement production where electrification is much harder and sometimes non viable but we should dedicate a lot of time and efforts on developing new DAC technologies.

Build a giant greenhouse next to each power plant. Draft exhaust over the plants. Let them do the work. The greenhouse will be measured in square miles. A jungle will grow within it....fed by damp exhaust high in CO2 and particulate. Out the other end will exhaust clean air.