3 ms·

This is a terrible article and I am a fan of The Atlantic and would probably be considered a climate hawk. The new science that Climate Engineering did has not

This is a terrible article and I am a fan of The Atlantic and would probably be considered a climate hawk. The new science that Climate Engineering did has nothing to do with making gasoline from CO2. There is technology to do that and a number of companies working on it, its in the $10/gallon range. Some have estimated as low as $4, if they can get their process to scale up, which they haven't been able to do. There is already plenty of CO2 available for much less than $100/ton, this is not a barrier to making products out of CO2.

thinkling 8y ago
I read the article wondering why you'd want to do this by sucking in air when you could do it with exhaust from gas-powered power plants that is much richer in CO2 than regular air. In fact, there was coverage the other day of a new gas-fired power plant that throws off CO2 for storage in oil wells. Why not use that CO2? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/1/17416444/net-power-natural-gas-carbon-air-pollution-allam-cycle https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/1/17416444...
- thinkcontext 8y ago
  Exactly, that new plant design is a much bigger deal. It gives you the CO2 for "free" as part of its normal operation without a power penalty. This article tries to make a point about how if the gasoline is made from CO2 from the air, it makes burning it carbon neutral. This is true but it misses the point. You want to get the most CO2 reduction for your money, so do the cheapest carbon capture first. Its cheaper to collect it from large point sources, so do that first. Once those emissions are being captured or simply ended from the plant retiring then move on to more expensive DAC.
- notabee 8y ago
  The reason is simple: we've already put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause adverse changes over a long period of time. A lot of the IPCC models and their discussion centers around more near-term climate threats over the next 100 years or so caused by continued emissions and overall severity of going ever more "over budget" with CO2 levels, but we're still 100+ ppm of CO2 over the highest average of the last half a million years or more. That CO2 is going to hang around in the atmosphere for quite some time as the natural processes like weathering that lower it are slow, and its presence will add extra heat from solar radiation while it's still there. If we suddenly stopping emitting now, we would still be above baseline but not in the apocalyptic range. If things don't change quickly though, we're going to have to suck CO2 from the atmosphere one way or another because just halting emissions won't be enough.
madengr 8y ago
At $10/gal, people really need to be driving electric vehicles.
- plankers 8y ago
  Or just take a bus.
  - 8xde0wcNwpslOw 8y ago
    Why not walk? That doesn't need even that dirty bus. In any case, around here petrol is once again over 7 USD/gal. It's certainly a bit inconvenient, but not the end of the world.
ScottBurson 8y ago
They're not saying they can provide CO2 for $100/ton, they're saying they can extract it from the atmosphere and convert it to fuel for that price. Are you sure you're comparing apples to apples here?
- thinkcontext 8y ago
  You are incorrect. The $100/ton figure is just for capturing it from the air. The bit about gasoline is just something they could do with it once they have it. The article is trash, go read the actual science article it links to and it will be clear what they are referring to.

thinkling 8y ago

I read the article wondering why you'd want to do this by sucking in air when you could do it with exhaust from gas-powered power plants that is much richer in CO2 than regular air. In fact, there was coverage the other day of a new gas-fired power plant that throws off CO2 for storage in oil wells. Why not use that CO2? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/1/17416444/net-power-natural-gas-carbon-air-pollution-allam-cycle https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/1/17416444...

thinkcontext 8y ago
Exactly, that new plant design is a much bigger deal. It gives you the CO2 for "free" as part of its normal operation without a power penalty. This article tries to make a point about how if the gasoline is made from CO2 from the air, it makes burning it carbon neutral. This is true but it misses the point. You want to get the most CO2 reduction for your money, so do the cheapest carbon capture first. Its cheaper to collect it from large point sources, so do that first. Once those emissions are being captured or simply ended from the plant retiring then move on to more expensive DAC.
notabee 8y ago
The reason is simple: we've already put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause adverse changes over a long period of time. A lot of the IPCC models and their discussion centers around more near-term climate threats over the next 100 years or so caused by continued emissions and overall severity of going ever more "over budget" with CO2 levels, but we're still 100+ ppm of CO2 over the highest average of the last half a million years or more. That CO2 is going to hang around in the atmosphere for quite some time as the natural processes like weathering that lower it are slow, and its presence will add extra heat from solar radiation while it's still there. If we suddenly stopping emitting now, we would still be above baseline but not in the apocalyptic range. If things don't change quickly though, we're going to have to suck CO2 from the atmosphere one way or another because just halting emissions won't be enough.

madengr 8y ago

At $10/gal, people really need to be driving electric vehicles.

plankers 8y ago
Or just take a bus.
- 8xde0wcNwpslOw 8y ago
  Why not walk? That doesn't need even that dirty bus. In any case, around here petrol is once again over 7 USD/gal. It's certainly a bit inconvenient, but not the end of the world.

ScottBurson 8y ago

They're not saying they can provide CO2 for $100/ton, they're saying they can extract it from the atmosphere and convert it to fuel for that price. Are you sure you're comparing apples to apples here?

thinkcontext 8y ago
You are incorrect. The $100/ton figure is just for capturing it from the air. The bit about gasoline is just something they could do with it once they have it. The article is trash, go read the actual science article it links to and it will be clear what they are referring to.