4 ms·

The USA does 5903 million metric tons of co2 annually [1] You’d need 1.5 million of these to remove just the USA’s yearly co2 emissions. [1] https://www.epa.g

The USA does 5903 million metric tons of co2 annually [1] You’d need 1.5 million of these to remove just the USA’s yearly co2 emissions. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas...

twoslide 6y ago
True, for another perspective, one way across the atlantic is about 1 ton, so this is 2000 one way trips or (roughly) 10 flights of 200 people. On the other hand, if this amount doubled every year, it would equal total US CO2 production in 21 years, total global CO2 production in 27 years. Agree with the other comments that preventing emissions in the first place is far more efficient. Also, I think that CO2 removal is now included in many climate change models, so the benefit might not be too great.
- pyrale 6y ago
  > On the other hand [...] This tells more about the ridiculous progression of exponential functions than about the efficiency of this process.
  - twoslide 6y ago
    Agreed that doubling every year is wildly optimistic, other technological growth is much slower, e.g. mobile phones were about 36% annually between 1990 and 2018: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.CEL.SETS.P2 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.CEL.SETS.P2
- Teever 6y ago
  > On the other hand, if this amount doubled every year, it would equal total US CO2 production in 21 years, total global CO2 production in 27 years. So can we make the machines that make the carbon out of the carbon that the machines capture?
wongarsu 6y ago
That sounds doable and much easier than getting Americans to change their behavior.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
There are 1.7 million wells in the US, I don't think that number is a problem.
jonstewart 6y ago
Yes, this is nowhere near a solution to global climate change/CO2 level management. However, it might seem like a portion of the solution, at least one worth exploring (which seems like the point of this), for a small country with abundant free energy to meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement. So, essentially, the Paris Agreement has created enough of a market for this technology to be worth further development and fielding, and that seems like a good thing.

twoslide 6y ago

True, for another perspective, one way across the atlantic is about 1 ton, so this is 2000 one way trips or (roughly) 10 flights of 200 people. On the other hand, if this amount doubled every year, it would equal total US CO2 production in 21 years, total global CO2 production in 27 years. Agree with the other comments that preventing emissions in the first place is far more efficient. Also, I think that CO2 removal is now included in many climate change models, so the benefit might not be too great.

pyrale 6y ago
> On the other hand [...] This tells more about the ridiculous progression of exponential functions than about the efficiency of this process.
- twoslide 6y ago
  Agreed that doubling every year is wildly optimistic, other technological growth is much slower, e.g. mobile phones were about 36% annually between 1990 and 2018: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.CEL.SETS.P2 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.CEL.SETS.P2
Teever 6y ago
> On the other hand, if this amount doubled every year, it would equal total US CO2 production in 21 years, total global CO2 production in 27 years. So can we make the machines that make the carbon out of the carbon that the machines capture?

wongarsu 6y ago

That sounds doable and much easier than getting Americans to change their behavior.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

There are 1.7 million wells in the US, I don't think that number is a problem.

jonstewart 6y ago

Yes, this is nowhere near a solution to global climate change/CO2 level management. However, it might seem like a portion of the solution, at least one worth exploring (which seems like the point of this), for a small country with abundant free energy to meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement. So, essentially, the Paris Agreement has created enough of a market for this technology to be worth further development and fielding, and that seems like a good thing.