3 ms·

The thermodynamics of this seems wrong to me. You would have to burn at least a ton of oil to draw a ton of carbon from the air, probably more like 2 tons due

The thermodynamics of this seems wrong to me. You would have to burn at least a ton of oil to draw a ton of carbon from the air, probably more like 2 tons due to inefficiencies. The cost of oil is 418 dollars a ton. So to make this even remotely plausible you have to assume access to an energy source which is 4 times cheaper than oil on a cost basis. So cheap, in fact, that unburning carbon from the air would be twice as cheap as mining it out of the ground.

snarf21 8y ago
Let's say the thermodynamics are wrong. At some level, it doesn't matter by how much. I think of this like a battery. Use wind power or tides even solar to create this gas. Then you have easy to transport energy that is carbon neutral as you've added no new CO2 to the air. That is the excitement, not the cost per unit of energy.
RockyMcNuts 8y ago
hypothetically, if you burn 2 tons of oil and you get out of the atmosphere 1 ton of oil equivalent to burn, then if your emission-free energy cost is 1/2 the price of oil, you break even on cost, and reach carbon neutral, no? Alternatively, if your emission-free energy cost is same as oil, you tax oil-based energy 100% and now you reach carbon-neutral? I don't see why it has to be 4x cheaper, clarification would be helpful.
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  he's estimating the energetic i.e. objective cost. If the government subsidized to the point of us stopping pumping up oil or true fossil neutral rate (ignoring the CO2 already up there, which will over hundreds of years fall back to natural levels), then we would have to manufacture our fuels... with what energy? sure in the long term I think we can use renewable, but it isn't deployed yet. The only way this makes sense is if we deploy true renewable energy, and stop allowing fossil fuel industry to masquerade as green.
ISL 8y ago
The majority of the mass (72%) of CO2 is oxygen, not carbon. By convention, the "tons" generally quoted in climate literature are carbon-dioxide, not pure carbon. Using $418/ton of oil: $418 * (1-0.72) = $117, in striking range of the $100 target. Where renewables match or exceed hydrocarbon fuel, $100 would appear to be a reasonable price.

snarf21 8y ago

Let's say the thermodynamics are wrong. At some level, it doesn't matter by how much. I think of this like a battery. Use wind power or tides even solar to create this gas. Then you have easy to transport energy that is carbon neutral as you've added no new CO2 to the air. That is the excitement, not the cost per unit of energy.

RockyMcNuts 8y ago

hypothetically, if you burn 2 tons of oil and you get out of the atmosphere 1 ton of oil equivalent to burn, then if your emission-free energy cost is 1/2 the price of oil, you break even on cost, and reach carbon neutral, no? Alternatively, if your emission-free energy cost is same as oil, you tax oil-based energy 100% and now you reach carbon-neutral? I don't see why it has to be 4x cheaper, clarification would be helpful.

DoctorOetker 8y ago
he's estimating the energetic i.e. objective cost. If the government subsidized to the point of us stopping pumping up oil or true fossil neutral rate (ignoring the CO2 already up there, which will over hundreds of years fall back to natural levels), then we would have to manufacture our fuels... with what energy? sure in the long term I think we can use renewable, but it isn't deployed yet. The only way this makes sense is if we deploy true renewable energy, and stop allowing fossil fuel industry to masquerade as green.

ISL 8y ago

The majority of the mass (72%) of CO2 is oxygen, not carbon. By convention, the "tons" generally quoted in climate literature are carbon-dioxide, not pure carbon. Using $418/ton of oil: $418 * (1-0.72) = $117, in striking range of the $100 target. Where renewables match or exceed hydrocarbon fuel, $100 would appear to be a reasonable price.