4 ms·
Sure, but where does the energy come from to actively remove? Because that's usually the point, the energy creation created more than the removal removed.
by meandmycode 3y ago
Sure, but where does the energy come from to actively remove? Because that's usually the point, the energy creation created more than the removal removed.
- silentsanctuary 3y agoIt'll depend on the specific project in question (there are quite a few methods under investigation), but for enhanced weathering (the type under discussion), I found some articles in a quick search that suggest the energy cost of grinding and transporting the rocks is significantly smaller than the carbon removed by the programme, e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322664372_Potential_and_costs_of_carbon_dioxide_removal_by_enhanced_weathering_of_rocks https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322664372_Potential...
- ipqk 3y agoArbitrage it from places where green energy is cheap or free. For example, iceland has pretty much 100% renewable energy sources. Already it has an extensive aluminum industry because energy there is cheap, and aluminum is energy-intensive to use it. So, in theory, if you use green energy to produce a carbon-offset product, it's still a useful product.
- chinchilla2020 3y agoThe aluminum smelter in iceland is a former ALCOA smelter from Rockdale TX. They ship the ore in from outside. Let's not pretend mining bauxite ore is 100% renewable.
- vasco 3y agoMaybe, you now have to produce that aluminum somewhere else.
- hinkley 3y agoSurplus energy from wind farms over land with the right kind of rock. Anything you can’t shove into the grid grinds rock.
- oldbbsnickname 3y agoIt's about scalability of any particular process minimizing net $/t (which includes kWh/t).
- melagonster 3y agoenergy is not important. reducing carbon in atmosphere is more important then energy consumption. a lot of energy just escape to space every day.