4 ms·

> As far as I know, it is strictly a matter of price, there is no technological reason why it cannot work Trees, bogs, and permafrost are already super efficie

by Swizec 2y ago

> As far as I know, it is strictly a matter of price, there is no technological reason why it cannot work Trees, bogs, and permafrost are already super efficient at carbon capture. This is more of a culture/incentives problem than a technology problem. Plant forests, cut them down, turn them into housing or whatever. Voila: carbon captured for the next 50 or so years. People would love to pay you for cheaper abundant lumber.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
Trees, bogs and permafrost are < 0.1% efficient at turning photons into fuel. A solar cell is >20% efficient at turning photons into electricity.
- Swizec 2y ago
  I didn't say fuel. I said carbon sequestration :) > Peatlands are the largest natural terrestrial carbon store. They store more carbon than all other vegetation types in the world combined. Damaged peatlands are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for almost 5% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-climate-change https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-cl... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/21/headway/peat-carbon-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/21/headway/peat-... Also burning the stuff negates the carbon capture part.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    A quarter inch of lime will sequester as much carbon per acre as your peatland. The numbers don't work for using plants for sequestration. 1-3% of the world's land is urbanized, the rest is either already green or doesn't support extensive plant life. We can increase the green land area number, but not substantially. We can release thousands of years worth of carbon sequestration in a peat bog in a few days by destroying the bogs. We don't have thousands of years to put it back. The economics don't work for industrial sequestration. The numbers don't work for green sequestration. Our only choice is to stop putting the carbon into the atmosphere in the first place.

by Swizec 2y ago

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Trees, bogs and permafrost are < 0.1% efficient at turning photons into fuel. A solar cell is >20% efficient at turning photons into electricity.

Swizec 2y ago
I didn't say fuel. I said carbon sequestration :) > Peatlands are the largest natural terrestrial carbon store. They store more carbon than all other vegetation types in the world combined. Damaged peatlands are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for almost 5% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-climate-change https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-cl... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/21/headway/peat-carbon-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/21/headway/peat-... Also burning the stuff negates the carbon capture part.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  A quarter inch of lime will sequester as much carbon per acre as your peatland. The numbers don't work for using plants for sequestration. 1-3% of the world's land is urbanized, the rest is either already green or doesn't support extensive plant life. We can increase the green land area number, but not substantially. We can release thousands of years worth of carbon sequestration in a peat bog in a few days by destroying the bogs. We don't have thousands of years to put it back. The economics don't work for industrial sequestration. The numbers don't work for green sequestration. Our only choice is to stop putting the carbon into the atmosphere in the first place.