Graph Results

Graph: 1

Graph: 2

In this figure, you can see that the total amount of CO2 captured was five times more than the amount of CO2 emitted by the carbon-capturing plants. Even though many of these carbon-capture plants require a significant amount of energy in order to function, they make up for the amount of CO2 emitted.

In this figure, there are six types of carbon-capturing methods used between our companies we examined. Rectisol, the most widely used, removes acidic gases by using methanol as a solvent to separate the CO2 from the stream of gas. The rectisol process can also separate hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and heavy hydrocarbons. From this data, rectisol technology can remove more CO2 than any of the other methods shown.

Correlation:

We were looking to see if there would be a correlation between kilowatts per hour used and the amount of CO2 stored. We ran a correlation test on the amount of kilowatts per hour used versus the amount of CO2 stored in each project. The R-value of the correlation test came back to be 0.21 out of 1. The correlation is very weak because of the amount of outliers. For example, some companies showed zero kilowatts used, as well as showing an amount of CO2 they pulled out of the atmosphere. These plants could have been using sustainable energy sources and called that “0”. Some plants could have been more efficient. Some plants had double the amount of CO2 captured or stored while they had used the same amount of kilowatts.