3 ms·
This kind of direct air capture that relies on consuming CO2 from diffuse, open-air atmosphere conditions will never be effective enough to be worth it. The con
by uoaei 3y ago
This kind of direct air capture that relies on consuming CO2 from diffuse, open-air atmosphere conditions will never be effective enough to be worth it. The concentration is simply too low, and the atmosphere too large. The costs quoted in the article are 5-10x other carbon mitigation technologies (presumably not even accounting for carbon intensities in the mining and logistics necessary to produce such facilities).
However targeted, point-source applications that are effectively scrubbers for carbon-intense processes make a lot of sense because of the opportunities for high-concentration collection and recirculation for multiple passes across the substrate.
I'm wondering if Heirloom is putting any effort into the latter approach. The article only reports on open-air facilities.
- wkat4242 3y agoYeah in order to make a difference we'll have to flatten an entire continent and litter it with such plants. Plus their renewable energy sources. Not to mention the cost and energy usage of manufacturing and maintaining it all. Plus the environmental impact of all those sites in other ways than just CO2. There's just no point. It's a pipe dream for those who are still looking to continue business as usual. Until we really have Terawatts of basically free renewable energy to spend and we're already CO2 neutral globally, it's way more efficient to just not emit the CO2 in the first place. I think it's good they keep a finger on this tech and experiment with it but I don't view it as something even remotely useful to bring CO2 levels down. First we need to stop emitting.
- wilg 3y agoIt's the only way to lower CO2 levels though, right? Not emitting doesn't get you that.
- kwk1 3y agoDirect air capture is not the only way to lower CO2 levels, although you are right that point capture of emissions doesn't lower levels by itself. An example of another technique for CO2 reduction is enhanced olivine weathering, or bioenergy + capture. These are called negative emission technologies in general.
- uoaei 3y agoTrees are net-negative by larger margins than any other technology we have invented, pretty much any way you want to quantify it (efficiency per kilogram of tree/tech, efficiency per dollar of tree/tech, etc.).
- wilg 3y agoI would imagine there's an upper limit to how many trees could be planted, and they might use more space. That won't really work if carbon emissions are an ongoing concern. But by all means let's do as much as we can. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-o...
- wkat4242 3y agoYes but for now we're still emitting so much that we're effectively only reducing emissions. There's no real point until there are no more emissions to cut which is much easier and energy-efficient to do than capturing.
- wilg 3y agoThe point would be to get the technology working really well.