3 ms·

It's not about tech. It's about the fact that the atmosphere has like 0,00something% CO2, so you need to process like a thousand tons of air to theoretically ex

by sfn42 2mo ago

It's not about tech. It's about the fact that the atmosphere has like 0,00something% CO2, so you need to process like a thousand tons of air to theoretically extract one ton of CO2. You basically need to suck the entire atmosphere through a factory, it's not about tech it's just a big fan. And then of course you need something to process all that air as fast as it comes in.

senordevnyc 2mo ago
Why are these technical problems insurmountable, particularly over 50 years?
- sfn42 2mo ago
  We've already been doing it for 50 years, and the pinnacle of achievement in the field is a facility being built in Texas that is planning to sequester 500,000 tons of CO2 annually. The world produces over 38 billion tons of CO2 a year. Assuming they reach their target performance, we would need 38bn/500k=76,000 of these facilities just to offset our current emissions. The number of "power generating facilities" in the entire world, for reference, is about 30,000. So we would need more than twice as many capture plants as we currently have power plants. And of course they all need power, ways to actually get rid of the carbon they're collecting, chemicals etc. So sure, if you want to live in a dream world where we magically just invent a 1000x better way to do it it's totally feasible. And while we're at it I'm sure we'll just make a 1000x more efficient combustion engine and a 1000x more effective dynamo and 1000x more effective ways to grow food and 1000x more effective solar panels, desalination etc. The next 50 years will totally revolutionize all these technologies we've already close to perfected, surely. In case it wasn't clear that's sarcasm. Nobody is expecting to significantly improve any of these things because we are already closing in on hard physical limits that can't just be technologied away. A 1.2x improvement in any of them would be staggering, and even that is unrealistic for most if not all of the random technologies i mentioned. Furthermore, 50 years is way too late. In 50 years we will be at like +3-4C or beyond. If things haven't already completely gone to shit at that point I can guarantee you there will be chaos and much more to come. They will have more pressing concerns than building 70,000 carbon capture facilities. I'm not having kids, I hope my corner of the world stays relatively stable until I'm gone and I pity the people who have to live beyond that.
  - senordevnyc 2mo ago
    You seem really upset at the mere suggestion that this might be feasible one day. Why?
    - sfn42 2mo ago
      I'm just explaining to you why this technology will almost certainly not solve the problem, it likely won't even make a dent in the problem. I believe this is an important point to make because it looks to me like the primary effect (and maybe also intended effect?) of carbon capture efforts is to encourage complacency. "Don't worry about these emissions, we'll just slurp the CO2 back up later and fix everything". It is orders of magnitude harder to remove the CO2 that it is to emit it. Relying on "future technology" to save us is a prayer not a plan. What if there is no solution? Do you understand that we are talking about the very imminent end of the world? Literally a complete collapse of human civilization, likely starting within this century. Maybe within our lifetimes. "Let's hope someone finds a solution" is not enough. We have the solution, it is to stop emitting billions of tons of greenhouse gases every year. We just aren't doing it. So yeah, I find it just a little frustrating when people deny the problem, deny the severity of it, or claim that magic future technology will fix it. This is why we are in this position in the first place, because people do not take it seriously.
      - senordevnyc 2mo ago
        Can you point to any evidence for the idea that climate change will be the end of human civilization? I’m fully onboard with the scientific consensus around climate change, but I haven’t seen anything credible suggesting it’ll be anything close to civilization-ending. Even RCP 8.5, which was dropped for being implausible, doesn’t predict effects anywhere close to ending a global civilization of ten billion people.
        sfn42 2mo ago
        https://unclimatesummit.org/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1-5c-2c-3c-and-4c/ https://unclimatesummit.org/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1-5... > there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible … the projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur. Bonus: https://www.dpg-physik.de/veroeffentlichungen/publikationen/stellungnahmen-der-dpg/klima-energie/klimaaufruf/stellungnahme_de-en https://www.dpg-physik.de/veroeffentlichungen/publikationen/... > the climate change mitigation goals which have been pledged are far too low (ambition gap), and the measures which are currently being implemented and planned are not sufficient to achieve even these inadequate goals (realisation gap). This has far-reaching consequences: There is a strong probability that the ambition gap will lead to a temperature rise of 2 to 5 degrees Centigrade compared to pre-industrial temperatures by 2100, the realisation gap to a further rise of several degrees Centigrade.[1,2,VI] There is a danger that the mean temperature will already have risen by 3 degrees Centigrade by 2050

by sfn42 2mo ago

senordevnyc 2mo ago

Why are these technical problems insurmountable, particularly over 50 years?

sfn42 2mo ago
We've already been doing it for 50 years, and the pinnacle of achievement in the field is a facility being built in Texas that is planning to sequester 500,000 tons of CO2 annually. The world produces over 38 billion tons of CO2 a year. Assuming they reach their target performance, we would need 38bn/500k=76,000 of these facilities just to offset our current emissions. The number of "power generating facilities" in the entire world, for reference, is about 30,000. So we would need more than twice as many capture plants as we currently have power plants. And of course they all need power, ways to actually get rid of the carbon they're collecting, chemicals etc. So sure, if you want to live in a dream world where we magically just invent a 1000x better way to do it it's totally feasible. And while we're at it I'm sure we'll just make a 1000x more efficient combustion engine and a 1000x more effective dynamo and 1000x more effective ways to grow food and 1000x more effective solar panels, desalination etc. The next 50 years will totally revolutionize all these technologies we've already close to perfected, surely. In case it wasn't clear that's sarcasm. Nobody is expecting to significantly improve any of these things because we are already closing in on hard physical limits that can't just be technologied away. A 1.2x improvement in any of them would be staggering, and even that is unrealistic for most if not all of the random technologies i mentioned. Furthermore, 50 years is way too late. In 50 years we will be at like +3-4C or beyond. If things haven't already completely gone to shit at that point I can guarantee you there will be chaos and much more to come. They will have more pressing concerns than building 70,000 carbon capture facilities. I'm not having kids, I hope my corner of the world stays relatively stable until I'm gone and I pity the people who have to live beyond that.
- senordevnyc 2mo ago
  You seem really upset at the mere suggestion that this might be feasible one day. Why?
  - sfn42 2mo ago
    I'm just explaining to you why this technology will almost certainly not solve the problem, it likely won't even make a dent in the problem. I believe this is an important point to make because it looks to me like the primary effect (and maybe also intended effect?) of carbon capture efforts is to encourage complacency. "Don't worry about these emissions, we'll just slurp the CO2 back up later and fix everything". It is orders of magnitude harder to remove the CO2 that it is to emit it. Relying on "future technology" to save us is a prayer not a plan. What if there is no solution? Do you understand that we are talking about the very imminent end of the world? Literally a complete collapse of human civilization, likely starting within this century. Maybe within our lifetimes. "Let's hope someone finds a solution" is not enough. We have the solution, it is to stop emitting billions of tons of greenhouse gases every year. We just aren't doing it. So yeah, I find it just a little frustrating when people deny the problem, deny the severity of it, or claim that magic future technology will fix it. This is why we are in this position in the first place, because people do not take it seriously.
    - senordevnyc 2mo ago
      Can you point to any evidence for the idea that climate change will be the end of human civilization? I’m fully onboard with the scientific consensus around climate change, but I haven’t seen anything credible suggesting it’ll be anything close to civilization-ending. Even RCP 8.5, which was dropped for being implausible, doesn’t predict effects anywhere close to ending a global civilization of ten billion people.
      - sfn42 2mo ago
        https://unclimatesummit.org/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1-5c-2c-3c-and-4c/ https://unclimatesummit.org/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1-5... > there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible … the projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur. Bonus: https://www.dpg-physik.de/veroeffentlichungen/publikationen/stellungnahmen-der-dpg/klima-energie/klimaaufruf/stellungnahme_de-en https://www.dpg-physik.de/veroeffentlichungen/publikationen/... > the climate change mitigation goals which have been pledged are far too low (ambition gap), and the measures which are currently being implemented and planned are not sufficient to achieve even these inadequate goals (realisation gap). This has far-reaching consequences: There is a strong probability that the ambition gap will lead to a temperature rise of 2 to 5 degrees Centigrade compared to pre-industrial temperatures by 2100, the realisation gap to a further rise of several degrees Centigrade.[1,2,VI] There is a danger that the mean temperature will already have risen by 3 degrees Centigrade by 2050