5 ms·

Sorry, but this feel-goodism around carbon capture doesn’t work. They paid $775/ton. Coal is $30/ton. Those are not carbon-free facilities and salaries. Capture

by jl2718 6y ago

Sorry, but this feel-goodism around carbon capture doesn’t work. They paid $775/ton. Coal is $30/ton. Those are not carbon-free facilities and salaries. Capture requires energy that could be used to reduce carbon emissions demand. 2nd law of thermodynamics says you can’t win this game. The best carbon capture technology is plants and plankton. The best carbon strategy is to use less. Buying offsets feels like penitential indulgences.

tkzed49 6y ago
The linked article specifically explains that this does not involve the traditional practice of purchasing offsets and is focused on research.
- sampo 6y ago
  > is focused on research So while their punchline is "Remove carbon as you grow your business", when you read the fine print, they don't even promise to remove any carbon? At least the fine print is honest.
  - jl2718 6y ago
    Well let's look at these projects: https://stripe.com/blog/first-negative-emissions-purchases https://stripe.com/blog/first-negative-emissions-purchases {Climeworks: startup, Project Vesta: non-profit, CarbonCure: startup, Charm: startup} Smells like an investor scheme to pump revenues. "Honest" fine print would disclose any and all financial interest in these startups by Stripe corporate officers.
ishjoh 6y ago
My optimism for carbon capture is because it allows a politics free Arbitrage opportunity. Generating hydro electric power in Canada to capture CO2 is a real opportunity, and yes today it is far too expensive, but as more research is done technology is improved those prices will come down. My pessimism for a political solution hinges on the fact that the leading CO2 producers in the world are unlikely to agree on drastic CO2 cuts: China: 28% USA: 15% India: 7% Russia: 5% https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...
jackdeansmith 6y ago
> They paid $775/ton. Coal is $30/ton. That's the whole problem, the cost of coal needs to come up and that's something that's in policy makers hands. Stripe is trying to reduce that $775 by investing early in these projects. > Capture requires energy that could be used to reduce carbon emissions demand. 2nd law of thermodynamics says you can’t win this game. Assuming all energy comes from coal, which isn't even remotely close to true. > The best carbon capture technology is plants and plankton. Plants and plankton are useful for capturing carbon and storing that biomass, but that's not a long-term storage strategy. All plants die and decay, returning carbon to the carbon cycle. If we want a long term solution, we need to put carbon back into the geosphere where we got it from.
- jl2718 6y ago
  > the cost of coal needs to come up ... Stripe is trying to reduce that $775. Non-sequitur. And no, I believe that's a marginal rate. > Assuming all energy comes from coal all=>any, coal=>hydrocarbons > All plants die and decay, returning carbon to the carbon cycle. How do you think the fossil fuels got underground in the first place? Okay, yeah, it's complicated, but the planet has sequestered carbon from volcanic eruptions over billions of years before anyone tried pumping it down a mine shaft. Really it's mostly done by clouds, which absorb CO2 into H2CO3 and then plankton build their shells out of it, and deposit it as lime at the bottom of the ocean. Land-based carbon also washes away as acid or gets buried or turned into ash by oxygen-poor heat from fires. Now the whole problem we're concerned about is not exactly carbon, but global warming, which is caused firstly by low albedo, and secondly by greenhouse gas absorption of surface heat remissions. The most significant source of albedo is clouds, as is the most significant source of carbon capture. So it's really too bad that we've been waging a global war on clouds. We seed clouds for aviation, for farming, for ski resorts, tourism, whatever; we hate clouds. Everybody does it. It seems to me that I see less of them today than decades ago, but I don't know. (Okay, I just checked, and yes, this is true) > we need to put carbon back Sorry, but no, no, no. _We_ do not need to do anything. _We_ are not helping. Do you have any idea how much carbon emission it takes to build a sequestration plant? We need to do less of everything. Less driving, less building, less industry, and less buying junk you don't need, even if 1% is going to some feel-good slush fund to pump up revenues for someone's misguided eco-startup investments.

by jl2718 6y ago

tkzed49 6y ago

The linked article specifically explains that this does not involve the traditional practice of purchasing offsets and is focused on research.

sampo 6y ago
> is focused on research So while their punchline is "Remove carbon as you grow your business", when you read the fine print, they don't even promise to remove any carbon? At least the fine print is honest.
- jl2718 6y ago
  Well let's look at these projects: https://stripe.com/blog/first-negative-emissions-purchases https://stripe.com/blog/first-negative-emissions-purchases {Climeworks: startup, Project Vesta: non-profit, CarbonCure: startup, Charm: startup} Smells like an investor scheme to pump revenues. "Honest" fine print would disclose any and all financial interest in these startups by Stripe corporate officers.

ishjoh 6y ago

My optimism for carbon capture is because it allows a politics free Arbitrage opportunity. Generating hydro electric power in Canada to capture CO2 is a real opportunity, and yes today it is far too expensive, but as more research is done technology is improved those prices will come down. My pessimism for a political solution hinges on the fact that the leading CO2 producers in the world are unlikely to agree on drastic CO2 cuts: China: 28% USA: 15% India: 7% Russia: 5% https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...

jackdeansmith 6y ago

> They paid $775/ton. Coal is $30/ton. That's the whole problem, the cost of coal needs to come up and that's something that's in policy makers hands. Stripe is trying to reduce that $775 by investing early in these projects. > Capture requires energy that could be used to reduce carbon emissions demand. 2nd law of thermodynamics says you can’t win this game. Assuming all energy comes from coal, which isn't even remotely close to true. > The best carbon capture technology is plants and plankton. Plants and plankton are useful for capturing carbon and storing that biomass, but that's not a long-term storage strategy. All plants die and decay, returning carbon to the carbon cycle. If we want a long term solution, we need to put carbon back into the geosphere where we got it from.

jl2718 6y ago
> the cost of coal needs to come up ... Stripe is trying to reduce that $775. Non-sequitur. And no, I believe that's a marginal rate. > Assuming all energy comes from coal all=>any, coal=>hydrocarbons > All plants die and decay, returning carbon to the carbon cycle. How do you think the fossil fuels got underground in the first place? Okay, yeah, it's complicated, but the planet has sequestered carbon from volcanic eruptions over billions of years before anyone tried pumping it down a mine shaft. Really it's mostly done by clouds, which absorb CO2 into H2CO3 and then plankton build their shells out of it, and deposit it as lime at the bottom of the ocean. Land-based carbon also washes away as acid or gets buried or turned into ash by oxygen-poor heat from fires. Now the whole problem we're concerned about is not exactly carbon, but global warming, which is caused firstly by low albedo, and secondly by greenhouse gas absorption of surface heat remissions. The most significant source of albedo is clouds, as is the most significant source of carbon capture. So it's really too bad that we've been waging a global war on clouds. We seed clouds for aviation, for farming, for ski resorts, tourism, whatever; we hate clouds. Everybody does it. It seems to me that I see less of them today than decades ago, but I don't know. (Okay, I just checked, and yes, this is true) > we need to put carbon back Sorry, but no, no, no. _We_ do not need to do anything. _We_ are not helping. Do you have any idea how much carbon emission it takes to build a sequestration plant? We need to do less of everything. Less driving, less building, less industry, and less buying junk you don't need, even if 1% is going to some feel-good slush fund to pump up revenues for someone's misguided eco-startup investments.