6 ms·

Thermodynamics is about entropy AND enthalpy. A stationary algae bloom using otherwise unused sunlight can be a lot cheaper than trying to fly a heavy battery a

Thermodynamics is about entropy AND enthalpy. A stationary algae bloom using otherwise unused sunlight can be a lot cheaper than trying to fly a heavy battery along with 300 passengers. Earth is also full of natural alkaline minerals that can be used as cements or for soil enrichment while naturally absorbing acidic carbon dioxide. Direct consumption of electricity for carbon capture is not necessarily the main solution, but fine for when renewable or nuclear energy would be otherwise wasted.

gspr 5y ago
In some sense it's just using the entire atmosphere as a battery. Burn fossile fuels where it's the only reasonable option (currently), such as for planes, then spend energy to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere elsewhere.
- frazbin 5y ago
  In a very literal sense, we have been using the atmosphere as half of a battery since forever-- combustion on earth uses atmospheric oxygen as as an electron acceptor.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> A stationary algae bloom using otherwise unused sunlight can be a lot cheaper than trying to fly a heavy battery along with 300 passengers. The alternative isn't just trying to fit a heavy battery into a plane, it's to scoop the algae up and use it to make carbon-neutral biofuels to run the plane. > Earth is also full of natural alkaline minerals that can be used as cements or for soil enrichment while naturally absorbing acidic carbon dioxide. Then you're trading the thermodynamic problem for an economic one. You have to mine all of that stuff up, do chemistry on it, lose the economic value of the minerals in their existing form and end up with an incredible volume of industrial waste you have to pay to dispose of. It doesn't violate the laws of physics for that to be cheaper, but it's still pretty unlikely. Remember that the alternative doesn't have to cover the full cost of generating electricity from non-carbon sources, only the difference in cost between that and burning coal. That's pretty close to zero, if not negative, as it is, and that's without a carbon tax.
- scottcodie 5y ago
  It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants to take a hit on their economy to force the transition to happen.
  - mcny 5y ago
    » It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants to take a hit on their economy to force the transition to happen. I am completely with you. We aren't even able/willing to remove all existing subsidies/tax breaks for coal. We know what we need to do. We can't wait for developing nations to freeze/starve to death before we cut subsidies on our own coal and gas industry. Even people at Brookings (which I'd call right wing) can't support subsidies and tax breaks for coal and gas: » To lead global subsidy reforms, the United States will have to strengthen these commitments by actively dismantling its own substantial production subsidies. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute reported that direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry totaled $20 billion per year, with 80% going toward oil and gas. In addition, from 2019 to 2023, tax subsidies are expected to reduce federal revenue by around $11.5 billion. Considering that production subsidies grew 28% between 2017 and 2019, the United States will be under a lot of scrutiny from other countries wanting to see evidence of reform before making their own commitments. » This is a challenging task for the United States because production subsidies are embedded in the tax code and promote fossil fuels in a variety of ways. For example, producers can deduct a fixed percentage of gross revenue instead of their actual costs as capital expenses, deduct exploration and development costs, amortize geological and geophysical expenditures, and benefit from accelerated depreciation of natural gas infrastructure. Oil and gas companies are also permitted to use the Last In, First Out (LIFO) accounting method to sell their most recent and expensive reserves first, thereby reducing the value of their inventory. Other incentives include foreign tax credits and energy production credits. https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-how-the-united-states-can-restart-international-cooperation/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-f... If we can't even remove direct subsidies and tax breaks (including accounting hijinks) from our domestic coal and gas industry, what moral authority do we have to ask other (less affluent) countries to reduce their subsidies?
frazbin 5y ago
This is totally true, awesome, and under appreciated. Check out project vesta. Basically there's an infinite amount of magnesium silicate minerals, and they weather to absorb co2 and release magnesium. You get some iron for free, but no heavies or toxics.. You can put it in the soil too, which is great because fe and esp mg are being depleted in soils. You can dump it in the ocean and raise PH while also mobilizing calcium. It's a win win win win win win.

gspr 5y ago

In some sense it's just using the entire atmosphere as a battery. Burn fossile fuels where it's the only reasonable option (currently), such as for planes, then spend energy to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere elsewhere.

frazbin 5y ago
In a very literal sense, we have been using the atmosphere as half of a battery since forever-- combustion on earth uses atmospheric oxygen as as an electron acceptor.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> A stationary algae bloom using otherwise unused sunlight can be a lot cheaper than trying to fly a heavy battery along with 300 passengers. The alternative isn't just trying to fit a heavy battery into a plane, it's to scoop the algae up and use it to make carbon-neutral biofuels to run the plane. > Earth is also full of natural alkaline minerals that can be used as cements or for soil enrichment while naturally absorbing acidic carbon dioxide. Then you're trading the thermodynamic problem for an economic one. You have to mine all of that stuff up, do chemistry on it, lose the economic value of the minerals in their existing form and end up with an incredible volume of industrial waste you have to pay to dispose of. It doesn't violate the laws of physics for that to be cheaper, but it's still pretty unlikely. Remember that the alternative doesn't have to cover the full cost of generating electricity from non-carbon sources, only the difference in cost between that and burning coal. That's pretty close to zero, if not negative, as it is, and that's without a carbon tax.

scottcodie 5y ago
It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants to take a hit on their economy to force the transition to happen.
- mcny 5y ago
  » It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants to take a hit on their economy to force the transition to happen. I am completely with you. We aren't even able/willing to remove all existing subsidies/tax breaks for coal. We know what we need to do. We can't wait for developing nations to freeze/starve to death before we cut subsidies on our own coal and gas industry. Even people at Brookings (which I'd call right wing) can't support subsidies and tax breaks for coal and gas: » To lead global subsidy reforms, the United States will have to strengthen these commitments by actively dismantling its own substantial production subsidies. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute reported that direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry totaled $20 billion per year, with 80% going toward oil and gas. In addition, from 2019 to 2023, tax subsidies are expected to reduce federal revenue by around $11.5 billion. Considering that production subsidies grew 28% between 2017 and 2019, the United States will be under a lot of scrutiny from other countries wanting to see evidence of reform before making their own commitments. » This is a challenging task for the United States because production subsidies are embedded in the tax code and promote fossil fuels in a variety of ways. For example, producers can deduct a fixed percentage of gross revenue instead of their actual costs as capital expenses, deduct exploration and development costs, amortize geological and geophysical expenditures, and benefit from accelerated depreciation of natural gas infrastructure. Oil and gas companies are also permitted to use the Last In, First Out (LIFO) accounting method to sell their most recent and expensive reserves first, thereby reducing the value of their inventory. Other incentives include foreign tax credits and energy production credits. https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-how-the-united-states-can-restart-international-cooperation/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-f... If we can't even remove direct subsidies and tax breaks (including accounting hijinks) from our domestic coal and gas industry, what moral authority do we have to ask other (less affluent) countries to reduce their subsidies?

frazbin 5y ago

This is totally true, awesome, and under appreciated. Check out project vesta. Basically there's an infinite amount of magnesium silicate minerals, and they weather to absorb co2 and release magnesium. You get some iron for free, but no heavies or toxics.. You can put it in the soil too, which is great because fe and esp mg are being depleted in soils. You can dump it in the ocean and raise PH while also mobilizing calcium. It's a win win win win win win.