Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

pubs.rsc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 269 posts

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#211

Post by galangalalgol »

sargun wrote: post #201
galangalalgol wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested in causing algae blooms near the equator with iron sulfide. Not for co2 capture, most of that would get released on decomposition, but for the albedo effect. It also has the failsafe that if it gets too cold the algae will die preventing a snowball earth. They did some tests for salmon production, and scaling that linearly for area covered it would be less than a $1.5 billion project. Also we get salmo…

Would you get enough salmon to offset the cost? What’s the net cost of this approach?

I wouldn't count on any savings from the $1.5B. You would get more salmon than we know what to do with and you have to harvest them or the overpopulation would mess with the ecosystem.

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#212

Post by [deleted] »

rbanffy wrote: post #182
gfodor wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not proud because they’re killing themselves for their employer, they’re proud for killing themselves to feed their families, and perhaps because they are creating energy for others to use.

Nobody should have to choose between living a healthy life and feeding their family.

[deleted]

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#213

Post by gfodor »

rbanffy wrote: post #182
gfodor wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not proud because they’re killing themselves for their employer, they’re proud for killing themselves to feed their families, and perhaps because they are creating energy for others to use.

Nobody should have to choose between living a healthy life and feeding their family.

That is a strange way to say "perhaps I jumped to conclusions assuming people who are proud to be miners are foolish and ignorant for doing so"

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#214

Post by KptMarchewa »

worldofmatthew wrote: post #204
londons_explore wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$47.10 per ton smells like someone has calculated the cost of the reagents and cited that as the price... Any estimate of this process cost would never be to 3 Sig fig.

I am pretty sure the $0.10 per tree of the Eden reforest project would be far cheaper than $47.10 per ton, to say the least. That would be 471 trees for $47.10.

Does the 0.10$ include land acquisition for the forest? If not, the cost could be significantly higher.

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#215

Post by phreeza »

jfim wrote: post #210
phreeza wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, the obsession with correct significant figures is an american high school thing. Why should you deliberately have to choose a number that is not your best guess? Ideally you should include confidence bounds, but if you don't, it shouldn't imply that you are confident to that level.

Because it gives an idea of what range is expected for the actual price. If someone gets an estimate of "about fifty bucks" versus "about $51.04", their reaction to seeing a final price of say $62.17 would be different. The first one implies that it's a rough estimate, while the second one doesn't.

"About" is doing a lot of work, too, no?

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#216

Post by sbierwagen »

worldofmatthew wrote: post #204
londons_explore wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$47.10 per ton smells like someone has calculated the cost of the reagents and cited that as the price... Any estimate of this process cost would never be to 3 Sig fig.

I am pretty sure the $0.10 per tree of the Eden reforest project would be far cheaper than $47.10 per ton, to say the least. That would be 471 trees for $47.10.

Reforestation only sequesters carbon if the land remains forest forever. If it’s cleared again in the future then that carbon goes right back into the atmosphere.

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#217

Post by dllthomas »

rayiner wrote: post #191
tptacek wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are those "masks forever" people? I hear about them, but I never seem to hear them. Is there a news report or something I can read?

You should read my Facebook wall. I’m not saying there’s a lot of them, but I’m apparently Facebook friends with all of them. :D

"Forever" or "after a particular individual is vaccinated, while vaccination rate generally is still low and incidence is still high"?

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#219

Post by throwawayfire »

jfim wrote: post #210
phreeza wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, the obsession with correct significant figures is an american high school thing. Why should you deliberately have to choose a number that is not your best guess? Ideally you should include confidence bounds, but if you don't, it shouldn't imply that you are confident to that level.

Because it gives an idea of what range is expected for the actual price. If someone gets an estimate of "about fifty bucks" versus "about $51.04", their reaction to seeing a final price of say $62.17 would be different. The first one implies that it's a rough estimate, while the second one doesn't.

If someone said "about fifty bucks" and it turns out to be $62.17, I'd immediately understand them to be scamming me.

Re: A CO2 capture solvent with exceptionally low total costs of capture

#220

Post by Gravityloss »

ehnto wrote: post #115
Gravityloss wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$50 per tonne? A coal plant produces about a tonne of CO2 for every MWh produced. Industrial electricity price might be $50 per MWh. So just paying for the carbon capture doubles your electricity price? $100 carbon capture charge would triple it. I can't see how this could be competitive. We have an excellent carbon storage technology, it's called coal. And what's best, it's already there, underground, very safely, p…

It doesn't have to be competitive, it has to be regulated. If coal plants and CO2 emissions heavy processes aren't viable once the cost of sequestering the carbon is charged to the people emitting the carbon, then they should give way to processes that do (or be expensive enough that they're only used when necessary) We can't solve the crisis by trying our best not to disturb the status quo, things are going to get s…

Yes, though even now it's already possible to price CO2, yet somehow it doesn't factor in significantly in the price of goods produced with coal heavy electricity.
Post reply on HN