3 ms·
Well, that's kind of down stream of what I was talking about - I am assuming that we can get to $250 per ton of direct carbon capture and then use something lik
by jaggederest 5y ago
Well, that's kind of down stream of what I was talking about - I am assuming that we can get to $250 per ton of direct carbon capture and then use something like a solar CO2 reduction system with a metal catalyst to strip the O2 off. But it's "merely a matter of money" at that point.
There's almost certainly some coking issues to overcome, but hey, we're already hypothetically taking on the largest industrial project of all time, roughly equivalent to all the effort spent to extract fossil fuels ever.
- kamray23 5y agoOne thing I find particularly concerning in these plans is how people want to use them. Lots of people inevitably suggest under these posts that we just use DAC as counterbalance instead of reducing emissions. This is very much impossible as optimistic reduction scenarios still need trillions annually from every country and a no-reduction scheme would lead to hundreds upon hundreds of trillions of global DAC funding, far more than the GDP of the Earth is right now. This is the scale of the megaproject we need to undertake. The only way we can make these things viable is massive funding and incredible carbon emissions reduction. This is very literally the largest industrial project that ever has happened, a re-terraforming of our own planet. There is absolutely no way we are going to succeed without full effort from all countries. It's not terribly easy to overcome.
- jaggederest 5y agoHonestly I don't expect it to happen. It's depressing, but I just don't think humanity collectively can take action on a scale like this without direct personal incentives, and I don't think there are any. I think we're going to drown in our waste products like yeast in a fermentation tank due to the tragedy of the commons.