5 ms·

>These napkin calculations are fairly meaningless on those time scales with emerging technologies Not all technologies are subject to the same scaling laws and

>These napkin calculations are fairly meaningless on those time scales with emerging technologies Not all technologies are subject to the same scaling laws and it is foolish to act as if they are. Carbon removal won't get 1000 times cheaper, because thermodynamics.

k_sze 6y ago
Also, it’s _possible_ that things got “cheaper” simply because the costs have been externalized.
sbierwagen 6y ago
It won't get 1000x cheaper in terms of energy inputs, no. There are many different things you could do to make it economically 1000x cheaper, though. Redefine the US dollar in units of sequestered carbon, for instance. Self-replicating carbon sequestration units, if you like science fiction. Etc etc
- comboy 6y ago
  I must say I'm quite impressed with creativity of redefining US dollar as a means of making something cheaper.
- sa1 6y ago
  > Self-replicating carbon sequestration units, if you like science fiction That's just trees.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Technically you need someone to cut the tree down, turn it into a stable form of carbon (say biochar), and bury it. Otherwise most (all?) of the carbon captured will be released fairly quickly after the tree dies.
    - sa1 6y ago
      And captured back by the next generation of trees. Carbon sequestered remains stable(generally) in forests.
ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
I don't find much value in these kind of out of hand dismissals. Do you have industry knowledge or do you at least care to expand? The experts certainly seem to think they'll be able to get to scale, I think they'll be devastated to have to scrap it all and fire their teams of experts "because thermodynamics".
- 8note 6y ago
  Carbon dioxide has a low concentration in the atmosphere, the atmosphere is really big, and diffusion is not a particularly fast process. Adding to that, industrial processes tend to be big and heavy, and also take fossils fuels to make. Even the outputs of these processes are measured in tonnes of carbon No less, whatever format you're storing the carbon in will be very energy dense, either via compression, or by chemically removing the oxygens. So, there's limits to how quickly your apparatus can interact with new carbon molecules, on moving it to new carbon molecules, and on making sure the products of you apparatus stay sequestered. If they're thinking they can scale, it's by setting up on top of carbon emitters, but doing that is net carbon positive(some will leak, and carbon emitters will continue to scale up), rather than negative

k_sze 6y ago

Also, it’s _possible_ that things got “cheaper” simply because the costs have been externalized.

sbierwagen 6y ago

It won't get 1000x cheaper in terms of energy inputs, no. There are many different things you could do to make it economically 1000x cheaper, though. Redefine the US dollar in units of sequestered carbon, for instance. Self-replicating carbon sequestration units, if you like science fiction. Etc etc

comboy 6y ago
I must say I'm quite impressed with creativity of redefining US dollar as a means of making something cheaper.
sa1 6y ago
> Self-replicating carbon sequestration units, if you like science fiction That's just trees.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Technically you need someone to cut the tree down, turn it into a stable form of carbon (say biochar), and bury it. Otherwise most (all?) of the carbon captured will be released fairly quickly after the tree dies.
  - sa1 6y ago
    And captured back by the next generation of trees. Carbon sequestered remains stable(generally) in forests.

ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago

I don't find much value in these kind of out of hand dismissals. Do you have industry knowledge or do you at least care to expand? The experts certainly seem to think they'll be able to get to scale, I think they'll be devastated to have to scrap it all and fire their teams of experts "because thermodynamics".

8note 6y ago
Carbon dioxide has a low concentration in the atmosphere, the atmosphere is really big, and diffusion is not a particularly fast process. Adding to that, industrial processes tend to be big and heavy, and also take fossils fuels to make. Even the outputs of these processes are measured in tonnes of carbon No less, whatever format you're storing the carbon in will be very energy dense, either via compression, or by chemically removing the oxygens. So, there's limits to how quickly your apparatus can interact with new carbon molecules, on moving it to new carbon molecules, and on making sure the products of you apparatus stay sequestered. If they're thinking they can scale, it's by setting up on top of carbon emitters, but doing that is net carbon positive(some will leak, and carbon emitters will continue to scale up), rather than negative