6 ms·

So, why isn't some billionaire working on something to remove the CO2 from the air / ocean and collect the carbon and release the O2. I'm not being sarcastic.

So, why isn't some billionaire working on something to remove the CO2 from the air / ocean and collect the carbon and release the O2. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm actually interested in why, given the other scenarios, the technology isn't being developed for a energy efficient way to do this.

schoen 11y ago
A lot of people are actively researching ways to get CO₂ out of the atmosphere or prevent it from entering the atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
satellitec4t 11y ago
The energy requirements to do it make it impractical, like splitting water into hydrogen for fuel cells. Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae.
- protomyth 11y ago
  We need to spend money on this type of research since these articles keep saying it we've come too far. > Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae. We need to make up the delta not replace what's there.
dredmorbius 11y ago
Scale. Costs. It costs about $550 to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Alternatives, such as sequestering CO2 from seawater, may be cheaper, around $150. I'm going to stick with the higher estimate. To just tread water we'd need to remove as much CO2 as we're adding presently. Current global emissions are 9.875 gigatons (billion tons).8 Let's call it 10 gigatons to make the math easier. That's 550 * 10 billion or $5,550 billion dollars per year in carbon sequestration. A thousand billion is better known as a trillion (in the US), and the US GDP is about $15 trillion. This would equal 1/3 of total US economic output. On a global scale, GDP is about $70 trillion, so we're looking at 1/12 of the global economy. Call it an 8% tax on everything. It's the sort of thing a unified international effort might accomplish, but it's well beyond the reach of even the single richest person or corporation. There's the additional problem that once you remove the CO2, you've got to hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing project. Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable. ------------ Correction: I'd read off the 10 Gt value not realising it was carbon, rather than CO2. Actual is 35 Gt CO2, so multiply dollar amounts and percentages by 3.5. That's $19.25 trillion, or more than the total US GDP, and 28% of total global GDP. Or a ~30% tax on everything.
- protomyth 11y ago
  > It costs about $550 to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Alternatives, such as sequestering CO2 from seawater, may be cheaper, around $150. I'm going to stick with the higher estimate. Well, given the cost it looks like relocating NYC by itself is going to be, it might be worth it to pursue some research into energy efficient processes that can break the CO2 down. > There's the additional problem that once you remove the CO2, you've got to hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing project. I was proposing putting money into researching a technique / process to break the CO2 down into O2 and carbon. Carbon has uses that would freeze it outside the carbon cycle for a long time. > Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable. Well, from all the news, its too late now, so we might need to go to some other solution.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    NB, I'd understated costs by a factor of 3.5 due to confusing carbon and CO2 emissions. The former are 10 Gt/yr. Latter 35 Gt/yr. Cost exceeds total US economic output, or 28% of global GDP. Keep in mind: that's per year, forever. Or at least so long as there's carbon to burn. Probably about a century inclusive of all hard-to-get coal.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      That's assuming that we don't find new processes to do the separation, and its not forever. We will eventually get to a place where energy generation using new technology is as cheap, easy, and storable as coal/gas. Since it seems to be too late to change our ways, and no country is going to sacrifice when others have already used polluting sources to advance their living standard, we need to do the cleanup.
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        We know the energy costs of chemical reactions. They're not subject to change (a prime reason why batter capacity has remained stubbornly unchanged over the past 100 years, though costs have fallen). I'm not optimistic. Your other statement is an article of faith, not evidence.

schoen 11y ago

A lot of people are actively researching ways to get CO₂ out of the atmosphere or prevent it from entering the atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

satellitec4t 11y ago

The energy requirements to do it make it impractical, like splitting water into hydrogen for fuel cells. Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae.

protomyth 11y ago
We need to spend money on this type of research since these articles keep saying it we've come too far. > Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae. We need to make up the delta not replace what's there.

dredmorbius 11y ago

Scale. Costs. It costs about $550 to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Alternatives, such as sequestering CO2 from seawater, may be cheaper, around $150. I'm going to stick with the higher estimate. To just tread water we'd need to remove as much CO2 as we're adding presently. Current global emissions are 9.875 gigatons (billion tons).8 Let's call it 10 gigatons to make the math easier. That's 550 * 10 billion or $5,550 billion dollars per year in carbon sequestration. A thousand billion is better known as a trillion (in the US), and the US GDP is about $15 trillion. This would equal 1/3 of total US economic output. On a global scale, GDP is about $70 trillion, so we're looking at 1/12 of the global economy. Call it an 8% tax on everything. It's the sort of thing a unified international effort might accomplish, but it's well beyond the reach of even the single richest person or corporation. There's the additional problem that once you remove the CO2, you've got to hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing project. Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable. ------------ Correction: I'd read off the 10 Gt value not realising it was carbon, rather than CO2. Actual is 35 Gt CO2, so multiply dollar amounts and percentages by 3.5. That's $19.25 trillion, or more than the total US GDP, and 28% of total global GDP. Or a ~30% tax on everything.

protomyth 11y ago
> It costs about $550 to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Alternatives, such as sequestering CO2 from seawater, may be cheaper, around $150. I'm going to stick with the higher estimate. Well, given the cost it looks like relocating NYC by itself is going to be, it might be worth it to pursue some research into energy efficient processes that can break the CO2 down. > There's the additional problem that once you remove the CO2, you've got to hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing project. I was proposing putting money into researching a technique / process to break the CO2 down into O2 and carbon. Carbon has uses that would freeze it outside the carbon cycle for a long time. > Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable. Well, from all the news, its too late now, so we might need to go to some other solution.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  NB, I'd understated costs by a factor of 3.5 due to confusing carbon and CO2 emissions. The former are 10 Gt/yr. Latter 35 Gt/yr. Cost exceeds total US economic output, or 28% of global GDP. Keep in mind: that's per year, forever. Or at least so long as there's carbon to burn. Probably about a century inclusive of all hard-to-get coal.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    That's assuming that we don't find new processes to do the separation, and its not forever. We will eventually get to a place where energy generation using new technology is as cheap, easy, and storable as coal/gas. Since it seems to be too late to change our ways, and no country is going to sacrifice when others have already used polluting sources to advance their living standard, we need to do the cleanup.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      We know the energy costs of chemical reactions. They're not subject to change (a prime reason why batter capacity has remained stubbornly unchanged over the past 100 years, though costs have fallen). I'm not optimistic. Your other statement is an article of faith, not evidence.