6 ms·

driving 15k miles @25 mpg = 600 gallons of gas (15,000 / 25) gallon of gas has 19.60 lb co2 / gallon [1] = 11,760 pounds of co2 (600 * 19.6) = 5.88 tons (19.6

driving 15k miles @25 mpg = 600 gallons of gas (15,000 / 25) gallon of gas has 19.60 lb co2 / gallon [1] = 11,760 pounds of co2 (600 * 19.6) = 5.88 tons (19.6 * 600 / 2000) cost for clime works to sequester co2 is $600 [2] so total cost to sequester for the 15k is $3,528 (5.88 * 600) cost to sequester per gallon is $5.88 per gallon ($3,528 / 600 gallons) price of gas in NYC is $3.11 per gallon so new cost per gallon factoring in the current high cost of carbon capture is $3.11 base price + $5.88 to sequester = $8.99 per gallon yeah your math seems great lol assuming cost to sequester goes down to $100 per ton, the cost for 15k of driving at 25mpg would be $588 (5.88 * $100), cost to sequester per gallon would be $0.98 so the new price of gas in NYC would be $4.09 (3.11 + .98), actually not absurd given recent trends and probably not high enough to discourage people from driving sources: [1] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php [2] https://e360.yale.edu/features/the-dream-of-co2-air-capture-edges-toward-reality https://e360.yale.edu/features/the-dream-of-co2-air-capture-... [3] https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/researchers-and-policymakers/energy-prices/motor-gasoline/weekly-average-motor-gasoline-prices https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/researchers-and-policymakers/ener...

slashdot2008 5y ago
thanks for plugging and chugging it all out. carbon engineering's carbon capture technology is projected to be significantly less than $600 tonne, they say the plant they are building for occidental petroleum in texas will be profitable from 1) cost of avoided CO2 purchases (CO2 is used to pump oil out of the ground) and 2) california CO2 credits for "low carbon oil" which is between $175 and $200 USD/tonne [0]. so if carbon ends up at $200 per tonne instead of $100, cost per gallon would be $3.11 + $1.96 = $5.07. If you drive a lot probably enough to nudge you towards an EV! [0] https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/lcfs-credit-price https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/lcfs-credit-pric...
b9a2cab5 5y ago
Good luck getting Congress to pass a tax increasing the price of gas by 1.33-3x. That's political suicide, even for Democrats. Directly fucks over the working class but corporate fleets can afford to pay the extra $$$ or switch to electric.
- gorkish 5y ago
  This is not out of line with the price of fuel in some countries already; I think it demonstrates that the technology is quite possibly on the edge of economic viability for closing the carbon cycle of gasoline, even if we don't get hundredfold improvements in the technology. That's pretty good news for everybody.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    UK petrol is about £1.30/liter = $1.80/l = $6.80/US gallon. Not really enough to seriously deter driving yet.
    - raffraffraff 5y ago
      The biggest problem with any cost-driven incentive is that it has the ability to fuck people over. If you make electricity too expensive you end up with fuel poverty. There is no way out of it. There is no other 'choice' that poor people can make. Same with water charges. What do you do if you can't afford your water bill? But cars are different. For many people, driving is not essential. It should be a luxury to drive a huge hunk of metal around a smooth road. By right that shouldn't be affordable, given the current situation. We just got used to cheap cars and cheap fuel, and built our culture and our cities and our lives around that. (Yeah, I know, people who live in the country are married to their cars). If your country really pushes EV charge points and implements tax incentives on EV vehicles, then you are providing people with a way out of high carbon tax. And you need your PR campaign to be clear that people are getting a choice: high price fossil fuel or cheap EV. Because the chicken/egg here is that you won't get a government that'll make those changes until your convince people to vote for it. And people won't vote for poverty, but they will vote for options.
      - cameronh90 5y ago
        If you create a tax that disproportionately hits poor drivers, you can balance that out with redistributive taxes - and incentives for buying electric cars that mainly benefit poor people. Currently most incentives for buying electric cars benefit the wealthy. For example in the UK, I can get 45% of my tax back through salary sacrifice on an electric car, whereas a person on basic rate only gets 20%. It should arguably be the other way around i.e. a "super deduction" for the poor, capped at basic rate relief for the rich.
FeepingCreature 5y ago
(Discouraging people from driving is not the point, if we have net zero CO2 people can drive as much as they want.)
- afiori 5y ago
  Extraction and refining of oil is still quite polluting. The first step is still reduce
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    I personally disagree that's a good step. Sadly, I can't think of a good memorable three-worder involving "price in all external costs" and "stop moralizing at people". Increase, internalize, improve?
    - afiori 5y ago
      The reduce part is not that it is wrong to consume, there are many ways in which cars are useful, but if your purpose is to be "green" it is still the first step, for many people it is not an option and that is ok.
      - FeepingCreature 5y ago
        I mean, I don't think it should be up to individuals to be "green"; there's lots of individual choices but "price in the damage your actions cause" should not be one of them. And once environmental damage is correctly priced in, then reducing consumption is no longer green anyways, because the consumption is now carbon neutral.
        afiori 5y ago
        There is an interesting discussion to have around whose behaviour is of an higher priority and/or which group has more blame, but regardless of that individuals can still contribute.
radicalbyte 5y ago
The carbon cost of 1 litre of petroleum is 2.4kg. You need to factor in the emissions through the entire production and distribution chain. Not doing that is like comparing emissions to electric vehicles whilst assuming a carbon cost of 0 for the electricity.
- raffraffraff 5y ago
  ...Including the production of the car itself. Buying a new EV every year has a huge co2 impact even if your mileage doesn't.
  - xvedejas 5y ago
    EVs' lifespan matters (I'm not sure how it compares to ICEs today): if after a year you then sell the car as used, that's a significant amount more efficient than assuming the car is destroyed each year.
seiferteric 5y ago
I think this is an overestimate because DAC is so inefficient when there are so many sources of higher grade CO2 emissions, both natural and man made that could be captured well before DAC makes any sense. Why would we bother doing DAC when you could capture streams of nearly pure CO2 from factories or even volcanic seeps etc?

slashdot2008 5y ago

thanks for plugging and chugging it all out. carbon engineering's carbon capture technology is projected to be significantly less than $600 tonne, they say the plant they are building for occidental petroleum in texas will be profitable from 1) cost of avoided CO2 purchases (CO2 is used to pump oil out of the ground) and 2) california CO2 credits for "low carbon oil" which is between $175 and $200 USD/tonne [0]. so if carbon ends up at $200 per tonne instead of $100, cost per gallon would be $3.11 + $1.96 = $5.07. If you drive a lot probably enough to nudge you towards an EV! [0] https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/lcfs-credit-price https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/lcfs-credit-pric...

b9a2cab5 5y ago

Good luck getting Congress to pass a tax increasing the price of gas by 1.33-3x. That's political suicide, even for Democrats. Directly fucks over the working class but corporate fleets can afford to pay the extra $$$ or switch to electric.

gorkish 5y ago
This is not out of line with the price of fuel in some countries already; I think it demonstrates that the technology is quite possibly on the edge of economic viability for closing the carbon cycle of gasoline, even if we don't get hundredfold improvements in the technology. That's pretty good news for everybody.
- pjc50 5y ago
  UK petrol is about £1.30/liter = $1.80/l = $6.80/US gallon. Not really enough to seriously deter driving yet.
  - raffraffraff 5y ago
    The biggest problem with any cost-driven incentive is that it has the ability to fuck people over. If you make electricity too expensive you end up with fuel poverty. There is no way out of it. There is no other 'choice' that poor people can make. Same with water charges. What do you do if you can't afford your water bill? But cars are different. For many people, driving is not essential. It should be a luxury to drive a huge hunk of metal around a smooth road. By right that shouldn't be affordable, given the current situation. We just got used to cheap cars and cheap fuel, and built our culture and our cities and our lives around that. (Yeah, I know, people who live in the country are married to their cars). If your country really pushes EV charge points and implements tax incentives on EV vehicles, then you are providing people with a way out of high carbon tax. And you need your PR campaign to be clear that people are getting a choice: high price fossil fuel or cheap EV. Because the chicken/egg here is that you won't get a government that'll make those changes until your convince people to vote for it. And people won't vote for poverty, but they will vote for options.
    - cameronh90 5y ago
      If you create a tax that disproportionately hits poor drivers, you can balance that out with redistributive taxes - and incentives for buying electric cars that mainly benefit poor people. Currently most incentives for buying electric cars benefit the wealthy. For example in the UK, I can get 45% of my tax back through salary sacrifice on an electric car, whereas a person on basic rate only gets 20%. It should arguably be the other way around i.e. a "super deduction" for the poor, capped at basic rate relief for the rich.

FeepingCreature 5y ago

(Discouraging people from driving is not the point, if we have net zero CO2 people can drive as much as they want.)

afiori 5y ago
Extraction and refining of oil is still quite polluting. The first step is still reduce
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  I personally disagree that's a good step. Sadly, I can't think of a good memorable three-worder involving "price in all external costs" and "stop moralizing at people". Increase, internalize, improve?
  - afiori 5y ago
    The reduce part is not that it is wrong to consume, there are many ways in which cars are useful, but if your purpose is to be "green" it is still the first step, for many people it is not an option and that is ok.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      I mean, I don't think it should be up to individuals to be "green"; there's lots of individual choices but "price in the damage your actions cause" should not be one of them. And once environmental damage is correctly priced in, then reducing consumption is no longer green anyways, because the consumption is now carbon neutral.
      - afiori 5y ago
        There is an interesting discussion to have around whose behaviour is of an higher priority and/or which group has more blame, but regardless of that individuals can still contribute.

radicalbyte 5y ago

The carbon cost of 1 litre of petroleum is 2.4kg. You need to factor in the emissions through the entire production and distribution chain. Not doing that is like comparing emissions to electric vehicles whilst assuming a carbon cost of 0 for the electricity.

raffraffraff 5y ago
...Including the production of the car itself. Buying a new EV every year has a huge co2 impact even if your mileage doesn't.
- xvedejas 5y ago
  EVs' lifespan matters (I'm not sure how it compares to ICEs today): if after a year you then sell the car as used, that's a significant amount more efficient than assuming the car is destroyed each year.

seiferteric 5y ago

I think this is an overestimate because DAC is so inefficient when there are so many sources of higher grade CO2 emissions, both natural and man made that could be captured well before DAC makes any sense. Why would we bother doing DAC when you could capture streams of nearly pure CO2 from factories or even volcanic seeps etc?