3 ms·

For it to be truly sustainable the carbon needs to be stored in a way that humans wouldn't get at out of greed ever again. So it would need to be in some useles

by tinco 4y ago

For it to be truly sustainable the carbon needs to be stored in a way that humans wouldn't get at out of greed ever again. So it would need to be in some useless form like maybe diamonds or something. A ton of CO2 is produced by about $150 worth of fuel (oil). So if you can do carbon capture for less than $150/tCO2 it would make more sense to sell the fuel and capture more carbon.

nomel 4y ago
> So if you can do carbon capture for less than $150/tCO2 it would make more sense to sell the fuel and capture more carbon. How does this math work? If it's $149 to recapture, who's paying for this $149? Is the person buying $150 worth of fuel now paying for it also, at ($150 + recapture cost)/gallon?
- blackoil 4y ago
  I believe the idea is to sell captured carbon to be used as fuel. So we are net 0.
  - aziaziazi 4y ago
    That would be valid once we stop extracting carbons from other sources (oil, gaz, coil…). Since that won’t happen at a global scale soon, burning the captured carbon won’t stop the carbonification of the air/water.
- tinco 4y ago
  The $1 profit goes towards paying for capturing carbon. Every 150 barrels of captured fuel you sell, you make $75 profit you could spend on either not selling a barrel, or some more efficient way of reducing our climate impact like maybe buying a solar panel or sponsoring a windmill. Or what the sibling suggests, you keep the money as profit / funds for growing the business so you displace traditional oil and you prevent the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that way.
nephanth 4y ago
In terms of energy, you'll always need more to recapture than burning that fuel will give you (cuz entropy) So if money = energy (which is a wrong assumption), buying that barrel would always be a loss
- tinco 4y ago
  Unless that barrel is a higher value to you than the energy required to create the barrel would otherwise be.
- adrianN 4y ago
  If you capture the carbon for example as carbon dioxide instead of methane "cuz entropy" need not apply.

by tinco 4y ago

nomel 4y ago

> So if you can do carbon capture for less than $150/tCO2 it would make more sense to sell the fuel and capture more carbon. How does this math work? If it's $149 to recapture, who's paying for this $149? Is the person buying $150 worth of fuel now paying for it also, at ($150 + recapture cost)/gallon?

blackoil 4y ago
I believe the idea is to sell captured carbon to be used as fuel. So we are net 0.
- aziaziazi 4y ago
  That would be valid once we stop extracting carbons from other sources (oil, gaz, coil…). Since that won’t happen at a global scale soon, burning the captured carbon won’t stop the carbonification of the air/water.
tinco 4y ago
The $1 profit goes towards paying for capturing carbon. Every 150 barrels of captured fuel you sell, you make $75 profit you could spend on either not selling a barrel, or some more efficient way of reducing our climate impact like maybe buying a solar panel or sponsoring a windmill. Or what the sibling suggests, you keep the money as profit / funds for growing the business so you displace traditional oil and you prevent the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that way.

nephanth 4y ago

In terms of energy, you'll always need more to recapture than burning that fuel will give you (cuz entropy) So if money = energy (which is a wrong assumption), buying that barrel would always be a loss

tinco 4y ago
Unless that barrel is a higher value to you than the energy required to create the barrel would otherwise be.
adrianN 4y ago
If you capture the carbon for example as carbon dioxide instead of methane "cuz entropy" need not apply.