3 ms·

Co-founder of CDR.fyi, thanks for all the feedback and love for what we're building! Carbon removal is definitely a unique market in the early innings, and our

Co-founder of CDR.fyi, thanks for all the feedback and love for what we're building! Carbon removal is definitely a unique market in the early innings, and our goal is to provide transparency into the market at it scales. One important note: CDR.fyi aggregates purchases, deliveries, and verifications of carbon removed and stored for more than 100 years

hedora 3y ago
So, burning a gallon of gasoline makes 20 lbs of CO2, so 100 gallons produces one ton. At your current spot price ($29), that means it costs $0.29 per gallon of gasoline to capture the released carbon. I’m pretty optimistic about the viability (and necessity) of carbon capture, but that seems too good to be true. In particular, it would mean that we don’t need to stop using fossil fuels, since that is rounding error vs. the price of gasoline. Is anyone actually delivering captured carbon at that price yet?
- gruez 3y ago
  >At your current spot price ($29), that means it costs $0.29 per gallon of gasoline to capture the released carbon. The graph is deceptive because eyeballing the average rate gets you ~$300, not $29. There might be something funky going on with the averaging, because if you click into the individual producers, the price you get is on the order of hundreds of dollars, not tens of dollars.
  - hedora 3y ago
    If you tap on today’s spot price (which is nearly the lowest price on the graph), a tooltip pops up and says $29. I tapped it because I wasn’t sure if the Y axis started at zero. (It does.) Edit: Macroalgae is at $8. Is that in production yet?
  - blkhawk 3y ago
    to even list the price as a primary factor is also bad - you need to list how much carbon is created by your method for each unit of carbon you capture. This probably has to be based on the average carbon cost for energy a the location you are doing it (since even if you are all renewable on paper that renewable energy could be used to displace use of fossil fuels).
    - hedora 3y ago
      Surely they include emissions. Otherwise, I'd like to register my box fan as a carbon capture device.
- hannob 3y ago
  The site confuses permanent and "we don't really know if permanent" removal technologies. The latter are a lot cheaper, but it's really deceptive. I don't think this helps the field. "We turned carbon into rock" is really a whole different thing from "we put carbon into the soil and hope it stays there fingers crossed". (Update: Here is some background why some of those methods are sketchy https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/07/soil-revolution-climate-change/619611/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/07/soil-rev... )
hannob 3y ago
"more than 100 years" really isn't a lot when we talk about climate change and storing emissions.

hedora 3y ago

So, burning a gallon of gasoline makes 20 lbs of CO2, so 100 gallons produces one ton. At your current spot price ($29), that means it costs $0.29 per gallon of gasoline to capture the released carbon. I’m pretty optimistic about the viability (and necessity) of carbon capture, but that seems too good to be true. In particular, it would mean that we don’t need to stop using fossil fuels, since that is rounding error vs. the price of gasoline. Is anyone actually delivering captured carbon at that price yet?

gruez 3y ago
>At your current spot price ($29), that means it costs $0.29 per gallon of gasoline to capture the released carbon. The graph is deceptive because eyeballing the average rate gets you ~$300, not $29. There might be something funky going on with the averaging, because if you click into the individual producers, the price you get is on the order of hundreds of dollars, not tens of dollars.
- hedora 3y ago
  If you tap on today’s spot price (which is nearly the lowest price on the graph), a tooltip pops up and says $29. I tapped it because I wasn’t sure if the Y axis started at zero. (It does.) Edit: Macroalgae is at $8. Is that in production yet?
- blkhawk 3y ago
  to even list the price as a primary factor is also bad - you need to list how much carbon is created by your method for each unit of carbon you capture. This probably has to be based on the average carbon cost for energy a the location you are doing it (since even if you are all renewable on paper that renewable energy could be used to displace use of fossil fuels).
  - hedora 3y ago
    Surely they include emissions. Otherwise, I'd like to register my box fan as a carbon capture device.
hannob 3y ago
The site confuses permanent and "we don't really know if permanent" removal technologies. The latter are a lot cheaper, but it's really deceptive. I don't think this helps the field. "We turned carbon into rock" is really a whole different thing from "we put carbon into the soil and hope it stays there fingers crossed". (Update: Here is some background why some of those methods are sketchy https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/07/soil-revolution-climate-change/619611/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/07/soil-rev... )

hannob 3y ago

"more than 100 years" really isn't a lot when we talk about climate change and storing emissions.