4 ms·

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.

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.