9 ms·

But if you're pulling the CO2 from the air anyway, why not just use the extracted carbon as fuel rather than pull it out of the ground?

ARandomerDude 8y ago
Cost. The average American family uses 24 metric tons a year (at least as of 2007, but we're ball-parking here) [1]. The article says it's $500 - $600 to extract 1 metric ton of CO2. (24 metric tons * $550/metric ton) / 12 months = $1,110 per month. That's $1,100 for raw CO2. Once you factor in CO2 => fuel, then transport, delivery, etc. your cost is dramatically higher. Suppose scale could help and the entire process were $1,110 per month. For for most of us, that's still much more than we pay each month in electricity + gas. 1. http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/02/20/picturing-a-ton-of-co2/ http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/02/20/picturing-a-ton-o...
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  The parent comment was about airplanes. The argument was that batteries are too heavy and that airplanes will still need to run on hydrocarbon fuel. And the argument the parent made is: you burn the fuel in the airplane engine and then sequester it later. And my response is: ok, but if you're sequestering carbon anyway, then use carbon you just sequestered instead of burning new carbon. You didn't understand my point.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  According to the World Bank, America produced 16.5 tons of CO2 per person in 2014. Germany produced 8.9 tons per person, Britain produced 6.5 tons, France produced 4.6 tons and Switzerland produced 4.3 tons. Can we all agree that 16.5 tons per person is an absurdly large amount of CO2? https://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=EN.ATM.CO2E.PC&country= https://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&se...
  - snuxoll 8y ago
    Doesn’t help that so many in the US have no realistic choice for transportation beyond an automobile. I’m a 90 minute walk from the nearest bus station, I work from home luckily (and have no license either) but my wife has to drive literally everywhere. We bought a used 2006 Prius now almost four years ago, so we’ve reduced our emissions as much as is feasible for now - but we still use roughly 300 gallons of fuel a year at 40MPG average.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jonathankoren 8y ago
Because CO2 isn’t petroleum, or any other hydrocarbon, and that’s what you need. It’s not easy, nor cost effective, to convert it.
lucisferre 8y ago
This company is doing that https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-company-says-it-is-sucking-carbon-from-air-making-fuel-1.4696817 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-company-...
DennisP 8y ago
Because you'll have to use energy to separate C from O2, and more energy to get hydrogen from water, so you can put them together and make hydrocarbons. One of these companies is planning to do exactly that, but with a price on carbon it might be cheaper to use fossil and pump captured CO2 underground. (I'm not saying it will be, just that it's not obvious either way.)

ARandomerDude 8y ago

Cost. The average American family uses 24 metric tons a year (at least as of 2007, but we're ball-parking here) [1]. The article says it's $500 - $600 to extract 1 metric ton of CO2. (24 metric tons * $550/metric ton) / 12 months = $1,110 per month. That's $1,100 for raw CO2. Once you factor in CO2 => fuel, then transport, delivery, etc. your cost is dramatically higher. Suppose scale could help and the entire process were $1,110 per month. For for most of us, that's still much more than we pay each month in electricity + gas. 1. http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/02/20/picturing-a-ton-of-co2/ http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/02/20/picturing-a-ton-o...

fallingfrog 8y ago
The parent comment was about airplanes. The argument was that batteries are too heavy and that airplanes will still need to run on hydrocarbon fuel. And the argument the parent made is: you burn the fuel in the airplane engine and then sequester it later. And my response is: ok, but if you're sequestering carbon anyway, then use carbon you just sequestered instead of burning new carbon. You didn't understand my point.
jdietrich 8y ago
According to the World Bank, America produced 16.5 tons of CO2 per person in 2014. Germany produced 8.9 tons per person, Britain produced 6.5 tons, France produced 4.6 tons and Switzerland produced 4.3 tons. Can we all agree that 16.5 tons per person is an absurdly large amount of CO2? https://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=EN.ATM.CO2E.PC&country= https://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&se...
- snuxoll 8y ago
  Doesn’t help that so many in the US have no realistic choice for transportation beyond an automobile. I’m a 90 minute walk from the nearest bus station, I work from home luckily (and have no license either) but my wife has to drive literally everywhere. We bought a used 2006 Prius now almost four years ago, so we’ve reduced our emissions as much as is feasible for now - but we still use roughly 300 gallons of fuel a year at 40MPG average.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jonathankoren 8y ago

Because CO2 isn’t petroleum, or any other hydrocarbon, and that’s what you need. It’s not easy, nor cost effective, to convert it.

lucisferre 8y ago

This company is doing that https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-company-says-it-is-sucking-carbon-from-air-making-fuel-1.4696817 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-company-...

DennisP 8y ago

Because you'll have to use energy to separate C from O2, and more energy to get hydrogen from water, so you can put them together and make hydrocarbons. One of these companies is planning to do exactly that, but with a price on carbon it might be cheaper to use fossil and pump captured CO2 underground. (I'm not saying it will be, just that it's not obvious either way.)