"This giant bubble on the island of Sardinia holds 2,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. But the gas wasn’t captured from factory emissions, nor was it pulled from the air. It came from a gas supplier… “The facility compresses and expands CO2 daily in its closed system, turning a turbine that generates 200 megawatt-hours of electricity, or 20 MW over 10 hours.”

    • kalkulat@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Damned good question, and I played stump-the-search-engine for 15 minutes and it’s like they’re AVOIDING that question

    • it_depends_man@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      3 days ago

      Could be very high, even the waste heat from the compression could be used to achieve more compression and turbines get to above 90%, that all depends on the scales they’re building this at. 70% overall doesn’t seem unrealistic as an educated guess.

        • sunbeam60@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          3 days ago

          That’s a hell of a lot better than most other systems. If true, and if scalable, this is a huge innovation.

          • fullsquare@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            compressors, turbines (like steam turbines), piping, some of which heat-resistant (500C), container for liquid carbon dioxide, lots of plastic for the bubble, something for thermal storage, dry and clean carbon dioxide, these aren’t unusual or restricted resources, don’t depend on critical raw materials or anything like that

        • fullsquare@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Compressed air without heat recovery is more like 30%, so this is huge

          Carbon dioxide can be liquefied relatively easily which is what i guess makes this efficient

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I was just about to bang out that they must lose a lot of heat from the compression. But apparently not! That’s amazing.

          I’m struggling to think of systems that would significantly outperform “75%+”. Chilled superconducting coils? Those are expensive, and would fail rather catastrophically.

      • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        even the waste heat from the compression could be used to achieve more compression

        No. Waste heat (which is always low-temperature in respect to the device in question) can by definition not be converted to mechanical work. (Edit: to uninformed people downvoting this, this is nothing else than Carnot’s law in action.)

        Otherwise, one could build a perpetuum mobile: Convert heat to mechanical work, use that work to generate heat, convert it to work again, and so on. You’d have a machine that generates energy out of nothing, and that’s not possible because of the law of energy conservation.

    • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sure wish they mentioned the effeciency.

      Without it you should dismiss the whole article as worthless garbage