2 ms·
Microsoft signs $200 CO2 removal deal with Heirloom Carbon
- gabrielsroka 3y ago$200 million ?!
- sinuhe69 3y agoI understand it’s a politics motivated move but regarding the effectivity and climate impact, I argue money spending on planting trees in many places in the world will be a better spend. And significantly cheaper. A tree will absorb from 210 to 300 kg CO2 in 10 years. For 315000 tons, one will need 1.5 millions living trees. Spending 50-100$ per tree (a reasonable cost for a developing country), the total cost would be 75-150 millions dollars only; much cheaper than the 200 millions estimate from the article. And the environment impact will be much bigger, ways beyond capturing CO2 alone (anti-desertification, reducing land-slide, keeping the soil productive for generations and so social coherence and even helping maintain peace etc…)
- quantified 3y agoSo many things that are likely to fail. I am so skeptical that the CO2 extracted by heating will be sequestered in an energy-efficient fashion for more than a generation. And generating the necessary heat carbon-efficiently would be better spent replacing the heat generated from carbon itself. Packing the CO2 is concrete? What's the environmental inpact of generating that concrete? Concrete production itself is a major CO2 emitter. Plus, the actual auditing of the efficacy is a huge problem. One ton of CO2 scrubbing is easily sold multiple times. Unlike coins and bits that can be counted, these carbon offsetting businesses are enormously easy to grift in.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ChrisArchitect 3y agoSome more discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435454