3 ms·

Imagine how long it actually takes to build one structure like that, even with modern techniques. You're perhaps thinking of how long it took to build more mod

Imagine how long it actually takes to build one structure like that, even with modern techniques. You're perhaps thinking of how long it took to build more modern mega-buildings like the Empire State Building or Burj Khalifa. But those are much lighter weight than the great pyramid (365k tonnes and 500k tonnes respectively, compared to the 6M tonnes of the great pyramid). Building even one such pyramid per year would be a huge project for a wealthy industrial state. And there aren't 1500 wealthy industrial states in the world to help with the others.

adrianN 3y ago
I would suggest we bury the carbon instead of building pyramids from it. That seems a lot simpler.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Sure (and that is crucial for various reasons, mostly related to fire hazards). But for the same reasons building roads is cheaper than building tunnels, burying carbon is harder than stockpiling it on the ground. At a minimum, you have to move a similar volume of soil to the carbon you're going to bury, and then move some of it back. And of course, a volume of soil equal to a certain volume of carbon is almost certainly heavier, since carbon isn't all that dense. So yes, building 1500 great pyramids of Giza is actually a low ball estimate. The right image is burying 1500 great pyramids of Giza - which is much harder and more expensive.
  - adrianN 3y ago
    Luckily we have technology like Bagger 288[1] to help us with that. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEvfD4C6ow&pp=ygUKYmFnZ2VyIDI4OA%3D%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEvfD4C6ow&pp=ygUKYmFnZ2VyI...
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      ...which runs on fossil fuels, probably generating about as much carbon as it can help bury.
      - brazzy 3y ago
        Nope, it's entirely electrically powered, so can be run without generating carbon emissions.
        mcny 3y ago
        Which brings us to our original point, it is better if you are sincere to spend this money on electricity generation. In the US, we have over 20% of electricity coming from coal. Any money spent on anything else should first go toward pushing this down to zero.
        adrianN 3y ago
        I don’t think people suggest that carbon sequestration is an alternative to reducing emissions. It’s just that we have already emitted too much for net zero to be enough. We need to unburn a lot of coal to keep the planet comfortable.
        tsimionescu 3y ago
        Read this thread again. Plenty of people are suggesting it exactly for that purpose. Why do you think the biggest proponents and investors by far in the area are fossil fuel companies? The intended message, just like for geongnineering, is "keep burning oil, we'll figure it out another way".
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Still not much compared to the world industrial capacity. S Bagger 288 costs $100 million and can excavate 10 great pyramids a year. Excavation capacity is not the bottleneck here.
- javajosh 3y ago
  Burying carbon is a great idea. Similar to the great idea of preventing cells from reproducing without limit (cancer). The important question is, in both cases: how do you do it? With carbon there is an additional question: what is the demand? This is the interface with neoliberal capitalism: what is the demand? For cancer drugs, it's obvious. For carbon sequestration, it's less obvious. Currently we require individual consumers to prefer carboon negative products. But that's clearly not sustainable. Assuming we have a technical solution, what then is the political solution?
  - esarbe 3y ago
    Instead of burying carbon, why not just not dig it up in the first place? Prohibiting fossil fuels seems like a much simper way than trying to somehow let the market regulate that.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      You need to prohibit them worldwide, which requires plenty of coercion of other countries. While carbon capture can be unilateral.
      - esarbe 3y ago
        > You need to prohibit them worldwide, which requires plenty of coercion of other countries. That's easy for economic blocks like the US and the EU. There's plenty of other regulations they have coerced other nations to follow.
avar 3y ago
> Imagine how long it actually takes to build one structure like that [...] 6M tonnes of the great pyramid. This one machine in Germany is already making the equivalent of ~15 great pyramids per year, by tons of material moved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288 Carbon capture is difficult currently, but we'd have to problem dispensing with this amount of material per year on a global scale.
- josefx 3y ago
  Your example runs through densely packed coal. No one would be insane enough to dig through random dirt with it in order to dig up 0.01% coal.
  - dash2 3y ago
    But the point of the machine was to move the carbon after it's been produced. I agree there's a separate question, how much air do we need to suck through carbon extraction machines.
concordDance 3y ago
For context, we produce about 2000 great pyramids worth of concrete every year.

adrianN 3y ago

I would suggest we bury the carbon instead of building pyramids from it. That seems a lot simpler.

tsimionescu 3y ago
Sure (and that is crucial for various reasons, mostly related to fire hazards). But for the same reasons building roads is cheaper than building tunnels, burying carbon is harder than stockpiling it on the ground. At a minimum, you have to move a similar volume of soil to the carbon you're going to bury, and then move some of it back. And of course, a volume of soil equal to a certain volume of carbon is almost certainly heavier, since carbon isn't all that dense. So yes, building 1500 great pyramids of Giza is actually a low ball estimate. The right image is burying 1500 great pyramids of Giza - which is much harder and more expensive.
- adrianN 3y ago
  Luckily we have technology like Bagger 288[1] to help us with that. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEvfD4C6ow&pp=ygUKYmFnZ2VyIDI4OA%3D%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEvfD4C6ow&pp=ygUKYmFnZ2VyI...
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    ...which runs on fossil fuels, probably generating about as much carbon as it can help bury.
    - brazzy 3y ago
      Nope, it's entirely electrically powered, so can be run without generating carbon emissions.
      - mcny 3y ago
        Which brings us to our original point, it is better if you are sincere to spend this money on electricity generation. In the US, we have over 20% of electricity coming from coal. Any money spent on anything else should first go toward pushing this down to zero.
        adrianN 3y ago
        I don’t think people suggest that carbon sequestration is an alternative to reducing emissions. It’s just that we have already emitted too much for net zero to be enough. We need to unburn a lot of coal to keep the planet comfortable.
        tsimionescu 3y ago
        Read this thread again. Plenty of people are suggesting it exactly for that purpose. Why do you think the biggest proponents and investors by far in the area are fossil fuel companies? The intended message, just like for geongnineering, is "keep burning oil, we'll figure it out another way".
- concordDance 3y ago
  Still not much compared to the world industrial capacity. S Bagger 288 costs $100 million and can excavate 10 great pyramids a year. Excavation capacity is not the bottleneck here.
javajosh 3y ago
Burying carbon is a great idea. Similar to the great idea of preventing cells from reproducing without limit (cancer). The important question is, in both cases: how do you do it? With carbon there is an additional question: what is the demand? This is the interface with neoliberal capitalism: what is the demand? For cancer drugs, it's obvious. For carbon sequestration, it's less obvious. Currently we require individual consumers to prefer carboon negative products. But that's clearly not sustainable. Assuming we have a technical solution, what then is the political solution?
- esarbe 3y ago
  Instead of burying carbon, why not just not dig it up in the first place? Prohibiting fossil fuels seems like a much simper way than trying to somehow let the market regulate that.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    You need to prohibit them worldwide, which requires plenty of coercion of other countries. While carbon capture can be unilateral.
    - esarbe 3y ago
      > You need to prohibit them worldwide, which requires plenty of coercion of other countries. That's easy for economic blocks like the US and the EU. There's plenty of other regulations they have coerced other nations to follow.

avar 3y ago

> Imagine how long it actually takes to build one structure like that [...] 6M tonnes of the great pyramid. This one machine in Germany is already making the equivalent of ~15 great pyramids per year, by tons of material moved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288 Carbon capture is difficult currently, but we'd have to problem dispensing with this amount of material per year on a global scale.

josefx 3y ago
Your example runs through densely packed coal. No one would be insane enough to dig through random dirt with it in order to dig up 0.01% coal.
- dash2 3y ago
  But the point of the machine was to move the carbon after it's been produced. I agree there's a separate question, how much air do we need to suck through carbon extraction machines.

concordDance 3y ago

For context, we produce about 2000 great pyramids worth of concrete every year.