3 ms·

What do you think about Project Vesta[1]? [1]: https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ [2]: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nature-based-

by jooize 6y ago

What do you think about Project Vesta[1]? [1]: https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ [2]: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nature-based-climate-change-technology-hits-key-milestone-in-demonstrating-gigaton-scale-carbon-dioxide-removal-301045099.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nature-based-climat... (2020-04-22) [3]: https://twitter.com/project_vesta https://twitter.com/project_vesta

ben_w 6y ago
I don’t know enough, to be sure. How large are global olivine reserves compares to historical and future CO2 emissions? What are the side effects at the required scale? I’m glad they’re doing the experiments, and I’m sure they consider any question I can come up with (including the above) to be trite to the point of cliché. From the cost and quantity requirements in their FAQ, this will cost $232.4 billion/year. While that ought to be considered affordable vs. the world economy… well, call me cynical, but I don’t think voters or politicians think like that. As grid scale PV reportedly costs $0.7/watt (peak) in the USA, that money could also install 332 GW of additional solar every year. As the panels look like they should last 30 years, that gives a steady-state equivalent of 9.96 TW (peak), compared to total (not just electrical) global consumption of double that continually, and I’ll fudge-factor as another x2.5 on top to convert peak solar output to time-averaged solar output to make PV x5 the cost of olivine. So, economically that looks good with current tech, but may look bad if grid-scale PV goes below $0.14/watt (peak). But that analysis assumes that fossil fuels are free, and as current solar prices are already cheaper than fossil fuels (0), people will probably switch to PV regardless of olivine and save money while doing so. But olivine is probably still useful for the CO2 sources that are hard to substitute with eco-friendly alternatives. (0) What’s that Skippy, current oil prices are negative?

by jooize 6y ago

ben_w 6y ago

I don’t know enough, to be sure. How large are global olivine reserves compares to historical and future CO2 emissions? What are the side effects at the required scale? I’m glad they’re doing the experiments, and I’m sure they consider any question I can come up with (including the above) to be trite to the point of cliché. From the cost and quantity requirements in their FAQ, this will cost $232.4 billion/year. While that ought to be considered affordable vs. the world economy… well, call me cynical, but I don’t think voters or politicians think like that. As grid scale PV reportedly costs $0.7/watt (peak) in the USA, that money could also install 332 GW of additional solar every year. As the panels look like they should last 30 years, that gives a steady-state equivalent of 9.96 TW (peak), compared to total (not just electrical) global consumption of double that continually, and I’ll fudge-factor as another x2.5 on top to convert peak solar output to time-averaged solar output to make PV x5 the cost of olivine. So, economically that looks good with current tech, but may look bad if grid-scale PV goes below $0.14/watt (peak). But that analysis assumes that fossil fuels are free, and as current solar prices are already cheaper than fossil fuels (0), people will probably switch to PV regardless of olivine and save money while doing so. But olivine is probably still useful for the CO2 sources that are hard to substitute with eco-friendly alternatives. (0) What’s that Skippy, current oil prices are negative?