4 ms·
Wouldn't they get a better rate of carbon collection if they put the facility in places with worse air pollution? Like manufacturing hubs, etc. Seems like a bi
by scohesc 2y ago
Wouldn't they get a better rate of carbon collection if they put the facility in places with worse air pollution? Like manufacturing hubs, etc.
Seems like a bit of a waste to build this whole facility in Iceland with a population of 400k people, even if it is for testing. There aren't many people around compared to other population centers, so the average concentration of carbon, right?
Build it in areas with more dense population centers - China, India, Vietnam, New York, etc. - wouldn't you see better carbon return on investment?
- asadotzler 2y agoNot a lot. Directly on the emissions at their origin, like capturing inside a cement plant, sure. In a city or region near the cement plant not so much. The difference is probably 1-15 ppm depending on the city. (Making up numbers for the example,) imagine 420 ppm in remote Iceland and 425-430 ppm in NYC. Now consider the cost of land in the two locations and the couple percent difference in CO2 concentration clearly isn't at all worth it. Iceland also has volcanoes and lots of accessible underground basalt which makes this form of storage work best.