5 ms·

In 2021, the US emitted more than 5 billion tons of CO2 [1]. I don't see how technology like this could ever scale to capture even a tiny fraction of that. A

In 2021, the US emitted more than 5 billion tons of CO2 [1]. I don't see how technology like this could ever scale to capture even a tiny fraction of that. A ton of dirt is roughly 20 cubic feet (just for perspective/I don't know what these things output), and we emit more than 13 million of those every day. The kind of scale here is insane, and that's even assuming the technology can be truly carbon negative from cradle to grave. And this is just for the US... It's all green washing. Everyone, the rich especially, must dramatically reduce consumption and put our money towards regrowing/healing the green space. 1 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-...

vinay_ys 3y ago
What blows my mind is the dilution capacity of the air in our atmosphere. How much more of this can air hold and still keep it acceptable from breathable and visibility aspects?
- mr_toad 3y ago
  Currently CO2 concentration in the air is about 0.04 percent. Levels above 0.5 percent may be harmful in the long-term. Levels above 7 percent can cause suffocation.
junofan 3y ago
They heat rocks. What’s the barrier to scale other than cash?
brian-armstrong 3y ago
Cynically, a "market forces" carbon reduction strategy does have the advantage that it doesn't require anyone to stop any particular behavior, which collectively is easier said than done. If there's even a small chance it could work, shouldn't we try?
- chii 3y ago
  to make market forces work, you will need to regulate the release of carbon, just like the release of other pollutants - have a penalty, or some sort of cost that is higher than the actual capture cost.
hedora 3y ago
One ton = 100 gallons of gasoline’s CO2 emissions. Many technologies would be in the $100-200 per ton range if they were scaled. So, if any of those technologies were operating at scale, we could add a $2 / gallon tax to gasoline (or a similar upfront tax on new ICE engines, based on expected emissions), and then the transportation part of our economy would be carbon negative. We could add similar taxes to things like concrete, and other greenhouse gas emitters. This is all eminently doable, but it would hurt oil profits, so politicians and propagandists keep making sure it doesn’t happen. Private entities voluntarily funding actual carbon capture is the only feasible way to break the deadlock at this point (short of overthrowing ~ 100 governments at once).
- space_fountain 3y ago
  It would also hurt normal people as driving, heating, electric all basically doubled. Not saying it’s not worth doing, but climate isn’t hard because of a bunch of greedy oil execs (though they obviously don’t make things easier)
  - mullingitover 3y ago
    I have some bad news about how future normal people are going to be hurt by drought, rising sea levels, and all the other effects of climate change.
    - asynchronous 3y ago
      Yeah but normal people tend to refuse to be the ones to suffer when we have private jets producing more than our cars emit in a year in a single flight. We’ll destroy the upper class before we let them use climate change to destroy the lower classes.
      - space_fountain 3y ago
        Note this is for a single car. Overall cars produced way more CO2. General aviation in general which I think includes private planes only admits maybe a 5th as much as passenger vehicles. That’s actually way higher than I expected, but again points to the fact that it isn’t a rich other causing global warming it’s more or less us. Though of course the rich have a vastly expanded impact and the truly poor do the least, but there are way less rich people https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10153PC.pdf https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10153PC.pdf
harpooniker 3y ago
"It's all green washing. Everyone, the rich especially, must dramatically reduce consumption and put our money towards regrowing/healing the green space." Microsoft can fund this development it's much more difficult to make other people change their ways
gersh 3y ago
There are about 37 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year. If you could get the price down to $100/ton, you can get the world net zero for $3.7t/year. US GDP is 25 trillion/year. World GPD is about 96.5 trillion. So, it would cost about 3.8% of world GDP per year. World global military is about $2.2t/year, so it would be higher than global military expenditure, but somewhat theoretically possible. If you substantially reduced emissions, it might be feasible to use carbon capture for the rest.
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  > If you could get the price down to $100/ton That is the price of a ton of coal. Buy it from China BEFORE it gets burned and you have a sensible strategy. Sucking it back from the atmosphere AFTER burning takes 10x more energy which is complete insanity. "Getting price down" and "when it scales" is an utter misunderstanding of the situation. Scale doesn't defeat the laws of physics.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    The political and logistical problems are a far bigger challenge than energy production. Just think of all the concrete that China and India will need to pour in the coming decades and the CO2 emissions of that.
    - alexey-salmin 3y ago
      No. If cheap energy production wasn't a huge challenge we wouldn't have the CO2 challenge either. It is the same challenge essentially. You can say it's "96% the same challenge" if you want to take concrete into equation. No politics or logistics can change laws of physics. Burning coal with hand and capturing it with the other at 10x the cost just doesn't make sense, neither from the engineering perspective nor from the economical.
    - yurishimo 3y ago
      I saw a graph of that the other day and supposedly concrete was only about 3% of emissions globally. Even if India and China triple that, we’re still coming out ahead by focusing on the reduction of fossil fuels for power generation, international transport, and heating buildings.

vinay_ys 3y ago

What blows my mind is the dilution capacity of the air in our atmosphere. How much more of this can air hold and still keep it acceptable from breathable and visibility aspects?

mr_toad 3y ago
Currently CO2 concentration in the air is about 0.04 percent. Levels above 0.5 percent may be harmful in the long-term. Levels above 7 percent can cause suffocation.

junofan 3y ago

They heat rocks. What’s the barrier to scale other than cash?

brian-armstrong 3y ago

Cynically, a "market forces" carbon reduction strategy does have the advantage that it doesn't require anyone to stop any particular behavior, which collectively is easier said than done. If there's even a small chance it could work, shouldn't we try?

chii 3y ago
to make market forces work, you will need to regulate the release of carbon, just like the release of other pollutants - have a penalty, or some sort of cost that is higher than the actual capture cost.

hedora 3y ago

One ton = 100 gallons of gasoline’s CO2 emissions. Many technologies would be in the $100-200 per ton range if they were scaled. So, if any of those technologies were operating at scale, we could add a $2 / gallon tax to gasoline (or a similar upfront tax on new ICE engines, based on expected emissions), and then the transportation part of our economy would be carbon negative. We could add similar taxes to things like concrete, and other greenhouse gas emitters. This is all eminently doable, but it would hurt oil profits, so politicians and propagandists keep making sure it doesn’t happen. Private entities voluntarily funding actual carbon capture is the only feasible way to break the deadlock at this point (short of overthrowing ~ 100 governments at once).

space_fountain 3y ago
It would also hurt normal people as driving, heating, electric all basically doubled. Not saying it’s not worth doing, but climate isn’t hard because of a bunch of greedy oil execs (though they obviously don’t make things easier)
- mullingitover 3y ago
  I have some bad news about how future normal people are going to be hurt by drought, rising sea levels, and all the other effects of climate change.
  - asynchronous 3y ago
    Yeah but normal people tend to refuse to be the ones to suffer when we have private jets producing more than our cars emit in a year in a single flight. We’ll destroy the upper class before we let them use climate change to destroy the lower classes.
    - space_fountain 3y ago
      Note this is for a single car. Overall cars produced way more CO2. General aviation in general which I think includes private planes only admits maybe a 5th as much as passenger vehicles. That’s actually way higher than I expected, but again points to the fact that it isn’t a rich other causing global warming it’s more or less us. Though of course the rich have a vastly expanded impact and the truly poor do the least, but there are way less rich people https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10153PC.pdf https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10153PC.pdf

harpooniker 3y ago

"It's all green washing. Everyone, the rich especially, must dramatically reduce consumption and put our money towards regrowing/healing the green space." Microsoft can fund this development it's much more difficult to make other people change their ways

gersh 3y ago

There are about 37 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year. If you could get the price down to $100/ton, you can get the world net zero for $3.7t/year. US GDP is 25 trillion/year. World GPD is about 96.5 trillion. So, it would cost about 3.8% of world GDP per year. World global military is about $2.2t/year, so it would be higher than global military expenditure, but somewhat theoretically possible. If you substantially reduced emissions, it might be feasible to use carbon capture for the rest.

alexey-salmin 3y ago
> If you could get the price down to $100/ton That is the price of a ton of coal. Buy it from China BEFORE it gets burned and you have a sensible strategy. Sucking it back from the atmosphere AFTER burning takes 10x more energy which is complete insanity. "Getting price down" and "when it scales" is an utter misunderstanding of the situation. Scale doesn't defeat the laws of physics.
- rayiner 3y ago
  The political and logistical problems are a far bigger challenge than energy production. Just think of all the concrete that China and India will need to pour in the coming decades and the CO2 emissions of that.
  - alexey-salmin 3y ago
    No. If cheap energy production wasn't a huge challenge we wouldn't have the CO2 challenge either. It is the same challenge essentially. You can say it's "96% the same challenge" if you want to take concrete into equation. No politics or logistics can change laws of physics. Burning coal with hand and capturing it with the other at 10x the cost just doesn't make sense, neither from the engineering perspective nor from the economical.
  - yurishimo 3y ago
    I saw a graph of that the other day and supposedly concrete was only about 3% of emissions globally. Even if India and China triple that, we’re still coming out ahead by focusing on the reduction of fossil fuels for power generation, international transport, and heating buildings.