11–17 of 17 posts
http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/148.Holmes.Keith.Contac... is probably the most advanced current geoengineering proposal currently; the estimated cost is US$60 per tonne of CO₂ removed, proposing to spend C$140M to construct a facility that removes 1 megatonne of CO₂ per year. (One of the authors constructed a small-scale prototype a few years earlier.) If this is correct, a facility to remove all of the 29 bill…
We can get a lot better at this, with engineered simple organisms like algae growing fuel to be consumed and the carbon captured.
“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from [current levels] to at most 350 ppm.”
Dr. James Hansen
Right now we are at 398 ppm, and we are already seeing weird climate effects, more, bigger wild fires etc.. I don't think the modern, developed world will tolerate 450 ppm. Things will get too weird.
I think we will be forced to capture carbon.
> a facility to remove all of the 29 billion tonnes of CO₂ emitted by human activities annually would cost C$4 trillion to build
We will get these costs down, but to me, even 4 trillion looks downright affordable, the US spent that much invading and occupying Iraq.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture...
http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/148.Holmes.Keith.Contac... is probably the most advanced current geoengineering proposal currently; the estimated cost is US$60 per tonne of CO₂ removed, proposing to spend C$140M to construct a facility that removes 1 megatonne of CO₂ per year. (One of the authors constructed a small-scale prototype a few years earlier.) If this is correct, a facility to remove all of the 29 bill…
http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/148.Holmes.Keith.Contac... is probably the most advanced current geoengineering proposal currently; the estimated cost is US$60 per tonne of CO₂ removed, proposing to spend C$140M to construct a facility that removes 1 megatonne of CO₂ per year. (One of the authors constructed a small-scale prototype a few years earlier.) If this is correct, a facility to remove all of the 29 bill…
Those two things are not exclusive. The `Establishment' needs to set up the regulation and incentives right (eg a proper price for carbon), and then the market can get to work.
http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/148.Holmes.Keith.Contac... is probably the most advanced current geoengineering proposal currently; the estimated cost is US$60 per tonne of CO₂ removed, proposing to spend C$140M to construct a facility that removes 1 megatonne of CO₂ per year. (One of the authors constructed a small-scale prototype a few years earlier.) If this is correct, a facility to remove all of the 29 bill…
The cheaper geoengineering proposal is emission of sulfur particles into the stratosphere - i.e., the sunlight reflecting portion of a volcano. I don't recall the cost estimates, but they were drastically lower than $4T.
> The atmosphere is becoming a greenhouse. The surface of our planet is now warming, with unpredictable consequences. Our planet would be frozen solid if it weren't a greenhouse ;)
Historical record show Golf current supplies heat to Europe. Once that fails instant ice age tends to start. With increased temperature, ice cap melt and salinity of water drops, which causes Golf current to stop.
The reason geoengineering scares me: https://xkcd.com/349/
if it makes you feel any better, the status quo is implicitly geoengineering the planet in a particularly stupid way.