3 ms·

Can we just start building facilities to test this at scale based on targeted taxes. Worst case scenario is that we learn how to do a better job at improving ou

by rob_c 5y ago

Can we just start building facilities to test this at scale based on targeted taxes. Worst case scenario is that we learn how to do a better job at improving our planet...

sokoloff 5y ago
One challenge in fields where rapid advancements in tech are likely is that it can often not pay to deploy the first generation of something; if the second generation will arrive soon enough and be 25% better, building the first generation could be entirely wasteful. (Assuming you can learn enough in the lab to inform building the second generation at scale.)
- rob_c 5y ago
  Very true, but my feeling on this is until the tech is scaled a lot of the advancements are either slowed or don't mature. It's annoyingly the argument made for covering the surface of the planet in photovoltaic cells, but in this case if the tech is already CO2 negative it can't be that bad to try to test it's longevity or scalability and reliability. Just need the equivalent got methane and were sorted ;)
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Similarly, I think it's very likely that the only life to ever touch Voyager 1 and 2 will be future humans going to have a play with them
  - rob_c 5y ago
    Dam, I like to think of Star Trek as future historical records... Sometimes blue sky thinking helps us as we reach out into the cold lonely cosmos :)
- jjk166 5y ago
  This is known as the Wait Calculation (sometimes referred to as the Wait/Walk problem) but it only applies to scenarios where a better option B, if done later, can overtake an inferior option A; for example a future spacecraft might be able to beat a less advanced craft to its destination, rendering the first a waste of resources. In the case of carbon capture though, the results are additive: whatever carbon an inneficient gen 1 plant removes before gen 2 is developed will remain removed when you go to implement gen 2, and any number X gen 2 plants plus Y gen 1 plants as well will always outperform just X gen 2 plants. Now if you were putting money (or some comparable resource) into escrow to be used for future carbon capture plants and the total resources allocated to carbon capture were fixed, it might make sense to save it for those better gen 2 plants, but for the moment no such system is in place.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Whatever money we spend on a Gen 1 plant can’t also be spent on Gen 2 plant. Whatever CO2 emissions we create while making a Gen 1 plant can’t be used again to make a Gen 2 plant. Whatever land we dedicate... Whatever ongoing power is used less efficiently for decades to come... I think there might be ample valid reasons to think 20 years from the starting line could be better for waiting rather than racing to get an inferior Gen 1 plant online in the name of doing something. This is partly a political/social problem, but it’s largely an engineering calculation. “At the end of the useful life of both plants, which leaves the planet and humans better off?” should be the guiding question.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      Again, it's only relevant if there is a fixed pool that both are being drawn from. Unless you are planning on spending 100% of world GDP and 100% of world land area on carbon capture plants, you are not sacrificing any future Gen 2 plants to build a Gen 1 plant. Even in the magical world where we know for certain to what degree Gen 2 can outperform Gen 1, and there was no cost to leaving carbon in the atmosphere for 20 years, Gen 1 + Gen 2 will still always outperform Gen 2 alone. In the real world, racing to do something now with technology that works is obviously better than letting the problem fester in the blind hope that it will become easier to solve later. Engineering is not about maximizing efficiency, it is about successfully solving problems. The guiding question is always "what get's the job done?" It doesn't matter how superior Gen 2 plants may be, if you can't build them they aren't an option.
- DennisP 5y ago
  Climeworks and Carbon Engineering, at least, are based on fairly old tech. Waiting for big improvements in the lab doesn't seem like the best bet. Meanwhile, it's generally true that the more you make of something, the cheaper you learn to make it, and that appears to hold true here: > “We’re confident our costs will continue to fall,” Oldham, the Carbon Engineering CEO said. “But only if we deploy. If you never deploy, your costs never go down.”

by rob_c 5y ago

Can we just start building facilities to test this at scale based on targeted taxes. Worst case scenario is that we learn how to do a better job at improving our planet...

sokoloff 5y ago

One challenge in fields where rapid advancements in tech are likely is that it can often not pay to deploy the first generation of something; if the second generation will arrive soon enough and be 25% better, building the first generation could be entirely wasteful. (Assuming you can learn enough in the lab to inform building the second generation at scale.)

rob_c 5y ago
Very true, but my feeling on this is until the tech is scaled a lot of the advancements are either slowed or don't mature. It's annoyingly the argument made for covering the surface of the planet in photovoltaic cells, but in this case if the tech is already CO2 negative it can't be that bad to try to test it's longevity or scalability and reliability. Just need the equivalent got methane and were sorted ;)
mhh__ 5y ago
Similarly, I think it's very likely that the only life to ever touch Voyager 1 and 2 will be future humans going to have a play with them
- rob_c 5y ago
  Dam, I like to think of Star Trek as future historical records... Sometimes blue sky thinking helps us as we reach out into the cold lonely cosmos :)
jjk166 5y ago
This is known as the Wait Calculation (sometimes referred to as the Wait/Walk problem) but it only applies to scenarios where a better option B, if done later, can overtake an inferior option A; for example a future spacecraft might be able to beat a less advanced craft to its destination, rendering the first a waste of resources. In the case of carbon capture though, the results are additive: whatever carbon an inneficient gen 1 plant removes before gen 2 is developed will remain removed when you go to implement gen 2, and any number X gen 2 plants plus Y gen 1 plants as well will always outperform just X gen 2 plants. Now if you were putting money (or some comparable resource) into escrow to be used for future carbon capture plants and the total resources allocated to carbon capture were fixed, it might make sense to save it for those better gen 2 plants, but for the moment no such system is in place.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Whatever money we spend on a Gen 1 plant can’t also be spent on Gen 2 plant. Whatever CO2 emissions we create while making a Gen 1 plant can’t be used again to make a Gen 2 plant. Whatever land we dedicate... Whatever ongoing power is used less efficiently for decades to come... I think there might be ample valid reasons to think 20 years from the starting line could be better for waiting rather than racing to get an inferior Gen 1 plant online in the name of doing something. This is partly a political/social problem, but it’s largely an engineering calculation. “At the end of the useful life of both plants, which leaves the planet and humans better off?” should be the guiding question.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Again, it's only relevant if there is a fixed pool that both are being drawn from. Unless you are planning on spending 100% of world GDP and 100% of world land area on carbon capture plants, you are not sacrificing any future Gen 2 plants to build a Gen 1 plant. Even in the magical world where we know for certain to what degree Gen 2 can outperform Gen 1, and there was no cost to leaving carbon in the atmosphere for 20 years, Gen 1 + Gen 2 will still always outperform Gen 2 alone. In the real world, racing to do something now with technology that works is obviously better than letting the problem fester in the blind hope that it will become easier to solve later. Engineering is not about maximizing efficiency, it is about successfully solving problems. The guiding question is always "what get's the job done?" It doesn't matter how superior Gen 2 plants may be, if you can't build them they aren't an option.
DennisP 5y ago
Climeworks and Carbon Engineering, at least, are based on fairly old tech. Waiting for big improvements in the lab doesn't seem like the best bet. Meanwhile, it's generally true that the more you make of something, the cheaper you learn to make it, and that appears to hold true here: > “We’re confident our costs will continue to fall,” Oldham, the Carbon Engineering CEO said. “But only if we deploy. If you never deploy, your costs never go down.”