4 ms·

“Once capturing carbon from the air is profitable, people acting in their own self-interest will make it happen,” says Chichilnisky. This is the key to the ent

“Once capturing carbon from the air is profitable, people acting in their own self-interest will make it happen,” says Chichilnisky. This is the key to the entire article. The conversation shouldn't be around the practicality of capturing carbon from the air, the conversation should be what is the most profitable way to reduce carbon in our air either through not putting it in the air in the first place or removing it cheaply after the fact. This demands a more robust marketplace beyond CO2 for soda and oil wells. "The idea is to first sell carbon dioxide to niche markets, such as oil-well recovery, to eventually create bigger ones, like using catalysts to make fuels in processes that are driven by solar energy."

danielweber 12y ago
I'm a bit worried that, because of weird locally-smart but globally-dumb incentives, we might see people consuming 1 KWh to capture a unit of CO2, but the generation of 1 KWh puts more than 1 unit of CO2 into the atmosphere. I'd like to see the numbers. EDIT: The worst coal emits 2.18 pounds of CO2 per KWh.[1] As little as 917Kwh of energy puts a ton of CO2 into the air. They say that can do it for "$15 to $50 a ton". How much of that is energy costs? $50 buys 500KWh, so even if you used coal to operate it, it would net remove carbon from the air. I'd still like to see a plant using nuclear energy to change CO2 into fossil fuel, though. [1] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  That would be an effective way to arbitrage the cost of carbon which isn't externalized on the power plant. However I don't think it would come to that. I'm surprised the SRI effort isn't recovering the CO2 (they claim to be venting it). After all if they really do think they can get $100 a ton for it and make it at $50 a ton, that would at least offset some of their research costs.
danbruc 12y ago
The conversation shouldn't be around the practicality of capturing carbon from the air, the conversation should be what is the most profitable way [...] No, money should play no role. It is obviously easier to reduce CO2 emissions if it is profitable but there is - at least in theory - nothing that prevents governments from just demanding the reduction even if it will increase the price of products or services. In practice you will of course have to deal with businesses just moving to where nobody cares and the like but that does still not mean that money should be an important factor.
hackuser 12y ago
Reducing carbon emissions does not affect profitability because emitters don't pay for them; they are 'externalities', if I remember my economics correctly. Put the cost on their balance sheets and reducing carbon emissions will become profitable. If you dump a ton of solid toxic sludge in my back yard, ruining my back yard, and you will pay to clean it up. Dump a ton of gaseous toxic sludge in the atmosphere, contributing to a global catastrophe, and you don't pay a dime. Ignoring the morality of it, it seems like simple responsibility: Why is everyone else suffering from and paying to clean up their mess? Sea walls, forest fires, water shortages, etc. etc. Taxpayers are paying to clean up the mess made by the emitters.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Because neither party wants to write off the coal states. There is still a Coasean way out: offer those states money to not burn their coal.
Klapaucius 12y ago
"This demands a more robust marketplace beyond CO2 for soda and oil wells." The only permanent solution is sequestering the carbon deep underground (depleted oil/gas fields or saline aquifers). Most CO2 "utilization" cases (including production of biofuels) merely delay the inevitable release of the gas into the atmosphere. Sequestering CO2 for the sake of sequestering it does not pay though. In order for this to make sense, a carbon tax would likely have to be imposed (it worked in Norway, where Statoil has stored excess CO2 geologically for almost two decades now at the Sleipner field).

danielweber 12y ago

I'm a bit worried that, because of weird locally-smart but globally-dumb incentives, we might see people consuming 1 KWh to capture a unit of CO2, but the generation of 1 KWh puts more than 1 unit of CO2 into the atmosphere. I'd like to see the numbers. EDIT: The worst coal emits 2.18 pounds of CO2 per KWh.[1] As little as 917Kwh of energy puts a ton of CO2 into the air. They say that can do it for "$15 to $50 a ton". How much of that is energy costs? $50 buys 500KWh, so even if you used coal to operate it, it would net remove carbon from the air. I'd still like to see a plant using nuclear energy to change CO2 into fossil fuel, though. [1] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11

ChuckMcM 12y ago
That would be an effective way to arbitrage the cost of carbon which isn't externalized on the power plant. However I don't think it would come to that. I'm surprised the SRI effort isn't recovering the CO2 (they claim to be venting it). After all if they really do think they can get $100 a ton for it and make it at $50 a ton, that would at least offset some of their research costs.

danbruc 12y ago

The conversation shouldn't be around the practicality of capturing carbon from the air, the conversation should be what is the most profitable way [...] No, money should play no role. It is obviously easier to reduce CO2 emissions if it is profitable but there is - at least in theory - nothing that prevents governments from just demanding the reduction even if it will increase the price of products or services. In practice you will of course have to deal with businesses just moving to where nobody cares and the like but that does still not mean that money should be an important factor.

hackuser 12y ago

Reducing carbon emissions does not affect profitability because emitters don't pay for them; they are 'externalities', if I remember my economics correctly. Put the cost on their balance sheets and reducing carbon emissions will become profitable. If you dump a ton of solid toxic sludge in my back yard, ruining my back yard, and you will pay to clean it up. Dump a ton of gaseous toxic sludge in the atmosphere, contributing to a global catastrophe, and you don't pay a dime. Ignoring the morality of it, it seems like simple responsibility: Why is everyone else suffering from and paying to clean up their mess? Sea walls, forest fires, water shortages, etc. etc. Taxpayers are paying to clean up the mess made by the emitters.

danielweber 12y ago
Because neither party wants to write off the coal states. There is still a Coasean way out: offer those states money to not burn their coal.

Klapaucius 12y ago

"This demands a more robust marketplace beyond CO2 for soda and oil wells." The only permanent solution is sequestering the carbon deep underground (depleted oil/gas fields or saline aquifers). Most CO2 "utilization" cases (including production of biofuels) merely delay the inevitable release of the gas into the atmosphere. Sequestering CO2 for the sake of sequestering it does not pay though. In order for this to make sense, a carbon tax would likely have to be imposed (it worked in Norway, where Statoil has stored excess CO2 geologically for almost two decades now at the Sleipner field).