6 ms·
The article does not mention the mechanism for CO2 capture. Google can probably find it. I suspect interest in this results from its dependence on fossil fuels.
by HankB99 3y ago
The article does not mention the mechanism for CO2 capture. Google can probably find it. I suspect interest in this results from its dependence on fossil fuels. ISTR sequestration is by injecting deep into the ground where it will form stable carbonates.
And from the article:
> ... the two projects are expected to be able to sequester 2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year
> ... the DOE estimates that reaching the Biden administration's goal of a net-zero US by 2050 will require at least 400 million tonnes to be sequestered annually, and perhaps as many as 1.8 billion.
so we would need 200x these projects (or much more.) I wonder what the carbon footprint of that will be. I'd like to see a cost/benefit analysis of carbon sequestered vs. carbon produced to do so. And the $$$ estimate to do so. I wonder if this is really a cost effect way to reduce green house gases.
- xwdv 3y agoWe have no choice. It must be done, costs be damned.
- 40yearoldman 3y agoThis attitude is the attitude that kills movements like this. You sounds like a crazy guy on the street yelling about Jesus.
- _aavaa_ 3y agoWe absolutely do have a choice when it comes to how we remove CO2 from the atmosphere. And direct air capture (DAC) is most strongly pushed by existing fossil fuel companies as a form of predatory delay. After all, no need for them to stop pumping oil if they can offer up DAC as a fig leaf.
- sillywalk 3y agoOther than DAC, how do we remove CO2?
- _aavaa_ 3y agoWe can deal with that problem when it's the pressing one. These two projects are set to remove 2 MTonnes of CO2 per year (max is they work correctly). The USA alone currently produces ~2,000 MTonnes of CO2/year simply for energy generation [0]. If these two projects are powered by fossil fuel electricity I'll refer you to figure [1]. Best case, they run on CO2-free electricity (Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro). If they are using green electricty, they're better of transitioning their grid off of coal and gas. DAC uses something like 5.5 GJ/t-CO2 [2]. Which, for the 2 MTonnes for these projects it comes out to 2.97 TWh of electricty. On the US grid (7.09*10^-4 t/kWh) those 2 MTonnes of CO2 come out to ~2.8 TWh. So the projects are within a margin of error in terms of reducing more CO2 by existing rather than putting that exact same money into simply creating more green electricity. So I'll reiterate, the discussion about what to do about the CO2 in the atmosphere is a stalling tactic. Instead of wasting time and money to remove 2 MTonnes by DAC, you can avoid all that complication and simply remove it at the source. The time to discuss how to deal with the hard problem of removing CO2 out of the atmosphere is after we deal with the easy problem of not burning shit in the first place. [0]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas... [1]: https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D5612AQHynjdkUha9PA/article-inline_image-shrink_1500_2232/0/1665183819698?e=1697673600&v=beta&t=xE2M3Ersf-bURo2FK9lqqFhwRzKQ60s7GSLLEt7c8Rk https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D5612AQHynjdkUha9PA/articl... [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222002607 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258900422... [3]: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca...
- sillywalk 3y ago> We can deal with that problem when it's the pressing one. If is pressing. Any survivable scenario requires the deployment of massive amounts of DAC. That is what net-neutral is. Planting trees wont help, and even if we stopped all emissions today, we still need to remove tens of billions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere.
- 3y ago
- xwdv 3y agoWhat if they pay for it?
- _aavaa_ 3y agoWho is the "they" because as far as I can tell it always seems to be the taxpayer. The fossil fuel company (which is already inherently subsidized by the lack of strong carbon pricing) gets to dump its waste into the atmosphere for free. Now that it's time for that waste to be cleaned up, we the taxpayers have to foot the bill. And why? something... something.. they would go out of business if they had to pay to clean up their own waste.
- HelloMcFly 3y agoIn my view, I don't see how DAC isn't part of the larger solution. I'm not some industry shill, but without some removal of what we've already put in the air what realistic course do we have to sustainable atmospheric CO2? Even reductions in CO2 by nations still creates net positive, forests will eventually be unable to absorb more CO2, etc.
- _aavaa_ 3y agoBefore trying to solve the hard problem of removing CO2 out of the air, how about we spend our money on the low hanging fruit: stop burning fossil fuels.
- jimmaswell 3y agoMassively disrupting the global economy before alternatives are ready isn't a low hanging fruit.
- _aavaa_ 3y agoBuilding new power generation to replace fossil fuels is not disruptioning the global economy.
- mattashii 3y ago> how about we spend our money on the low hanging fruit: stop burning fossil fuels. That fruit is hanging quite high if you actually want to pick it. Carbon sequestering is becoming more and more of a requirement to keep global temperatures in check, and I think it is better to invest some money right now so that the research and engineering can provide interest over a longer period of time. We just don't have the time to wait until 2050 to get started on that technology - we need it ASAP, together with 0 emissions.
- _aavaa_ 3y agoExcept this is championed by fossil fuel companies as a way to not have to reduce emissions on the first place. Goes something like this: look at us investing for the future so that you don’t have to worry or stop burning in the present.