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

U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 347 posts

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#111

Post by perfunctory »

BurningFrog wrote: post #66
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's probably still cheaper to avoid emitting the CO2 in the first place, but that does put an upper bound on the cost of reaching net zero. It seems hard to believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere could ever be less expensive than not emitting it to begin with. You're working against thermodynamics. So the whole thing seems like a fraud. An excuse to keep emitting CO2 while claiming that you'll do something…

Removing CO₂ is far more doable, because you don't have to convince/force 7 billion people to do something. Anyone with the right equipment can just do it, without asking permission, just like CO₂ emitters can.

> because you don't have to convince/force 7 billion people to do something.

Well, at least you'll have to convince them to pay $100 per tonne captured.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#112

Post by nobodyandproud »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #51
dane-pgp wrote: post #2

> The Department of Energy's Carbon Negative Earthshot seeks to slash the cost of carbon removal to $100 a tonne by the end of the decade At 40 gigatonnes a year, that would be $4 trillion, which is about 5% of Gross World Product.[0] It's probably still cheaper to avoid emitting the CO2 in the first place, but that does put an upper bound on the cost of reaching net zero. Of course, no one wants to take a voluntary…

> It's probably still cheaper to avoid emitting the CO2 in the first place, but that does put an upper bound on the cost of reaching net zero. It seems hard to believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere could ever be less expensive than not emitting it to begin with. You're working against thermodynamics. So the whole thing seems like a fraud. An excuse to keep emitting CO2 while claiming that you'll do something…

That assumes a uniform cost for energy spent, which is not an assumption that holds true.

The type of energy and even when it’s spent is non-uniform (think about the Texas gas debacle).

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#113

Post by PeterisP »

dane-pgp wrote: post #22
bobcostas55 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5% is still much higher than the costs of climate change for at least a century (at least if you believe the IPCC projections).

I'm not sure which projections you're referring to, but researchers at UCL concluded: "the damage costs caused by climate change will reach $5.4 trillion a year by 2070, and $31 trillion a year by 2200" https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/news/2020/oct/cdp-and-...

The same report you linked (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/sites/bartlett/files/c... page 10) includes interesting parts regarding e.g. climate change damage to agriculture like "temperate regions in Canada, US and Europe have positive GDP impacts whilst negative impacts are expected in India, other developing Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America." It does not go into that detail for the other types of damage because there it's just different rates of negatives, however, it's reasonable to assume that the regional differences there are also just as large.

It's hard for politicians to ask a Kansas farmer for a large extra tax for CO2 removal if the main justification of it is that it eventually will prevent much larger costs to someone else overseas.

In essence, policy decisions are made on a national level, mostly by people accountable to their own citizens and needing their approval (no matter if in democractic elections or needing to sustain their authoritarian power) - and you can't match national costs (since any decision to pay or invest will be national) versus global benefits of mitigation, you need to consider what the local consequences of doing nothing are going to be as that is what is going to drive all the actual action and decisions even while the same politicians make empty talks about global solidarity.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#114

Post by cat_plus_plus »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #51
dane-pgp wrote: post #2

> The Department of Energy's Carbon Negative Earthshot seeks to slash the cost of carbon removal to $100 a tonne by the end of the decade At 40 gigatonnes a year, that would be $4 trillion, which is about 5% of Gross World Product.[0] It's probably still cheaper to avoid emitting the CO2 in the first place, but that does put an upper bound on the cost of reaching net zero. Of course, no one wants to take a voluntary…

> It's probably still cheaper to avoid emitting the CO2 in the first place, but that does put an upper bound on the cost of reaching net zero. It seems hard to believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere could ever be less expensive than not emitting it to begin with. You're working against thermodynamics. So the whole thing seems like a fraud. An excuse to keep emitting CO2 while claiming that you'll do something…

Thermodynamics is about entropy AND enthalpy. A stationary algae bloom using otherwise unused sunlight can be a lot cheaper than trying to fly a heavy battery along with 300 passengers. Earth is also full of natural alkaline minerals that can be used as cements or for soil enrichment while naturally absorbing acidic carbon dioxide. Direct consumption of electricity for carbon capture is not necessarily the main solution, but fine for when renewable or nuclear energy would be otherwise wasted.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#115

Post by [deleted] »

incrudible wrote: post #103
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that it's still political magic. Suppose it costs $1 to avoid emitting CO2 (e.g. replace gas car with electric car) and $10 to extract the CO2 after the fact. If you get the latter down to $3, you're still upside down. So where does the $3 come from? Presumably a government, but it doesn't even matter. Anyone would still be better off spending that money to subsidize electric cars or solar panels or so…

> Suppose it costs X to do Y Don't. You can't predict prices like that. Consider that electric cars roll out of the factory having emitted more CO2 than the equivalent combustion vehicle. It takes a lot of miles to break even. If you put a price on the CO2, you may well figure out that combustion engines end up more efficient, because carbon-neutral fuel is close to being economical. > But then they'd still be better…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#116

Post by notahacker »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #85
notahacker wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also hard to believe that insurance against theft could ever be less expensive than nobody stealing anything, but that doesn't imply insurance is a fraud to allow people to carry on stealing. We live in a world where theft and carbon emissions are going to happen with or without the blessing of the US government, so if they want to spend some money seeing how far they can mitigate the damage then good. I'd rathe…

The problem is that it's still political magic. Suppose it costs $1 to avoid emitting CO2 (e.g. replace gas car with electric car) and $10 to extract the CO2 after the fact. If you get the latter down to $3, you're still upside down. So where does the $3 come from? Presumably a government, but it doesn't even matter. Anyone would still be better off spending that money to subsidize electric cars or solar panels or so…

Which number do you think is larger, the cost for the US to dictate industrialisation policy for the rest of the world or the cost for the US (and possibly other governments more interested in reducing global warming, if the tech is there) to offset some of their emissions?

The problem isn't getting wealthy Californians to swap their SUV for a Tesla, it's getting poor Cubans to give up the only car their government will allow them to afford, cryptoenthusiasts to give up on Bitcoin, Saudi Arabia to decide it doesn't want to exploit its only resource and China to retire its recently constructed coal power plants. That doesn't just require lots of money, it requires magic

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#117

Post by Sapere_Aude »

cassepipe wrote: post #90
Sapere_Aude wrote: post #79

[flagged]

Your only argument is that CO2 is good for the plants. It's a bit light and does not really account for the cycle of carbon on the planet. It's like saying, since sun is good for the health, fuck the ozone layer of the atmosphere haha. So now I am quite weary of visiting "Ice age farmer"'s personal website. Please get out of your information bubble, it's not too late. Btw I rather prefer my own conspiracy theory that…

No, of course it's not my sole argument. I have more than two dozens well researched books full with arguments for and mostly against this bunk science which is underpinning "climate change" and the CO2 lie.

I just don't have the time to argue with internet people over such things, there are enough scientists out there disproving the silly notion CO2 or humans are is to blame for "climate change", a term that has been used since their "global warming" phrase has become a burden. All of their predictions were wrong over the last 100 years and their fear mongering is completely based on falsified data and corporate science.

You don't need any "secret documents" to prove that there is an agenda behind it all, since they are publicly available and pretty easy to access from their sites and all of their wonderful front companies. Just start reading the UN's Agenda 2030 document.

If you actually looked into history then you'll see that much of what has happened from WW1 onwards was an effort by wealthy people, dynasties in finance etc., to build a world of their liking, which gives them top down control via a lot of fronts.

Check out who owns the world economy. It's BlackRock and Vanguard, the latter owning the former. Then there are a lot of foundations and NGO/NPOs which have their function of control and wealth funnelling as well, connecting finance, business, politics and the media.

The "climate change" bullshit is for natural resource and social control. The carbon credits are nothing more than a new financial product and their green governance guidelines are for leverage. Nothing about it is about saving the earth or the environment.

This is provable and not "just a feeling".

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#118

Post by cat_plus_plus »

MaxGanzII wrote: post #92
BurningFrog wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing CO₂ is far more doable, because you don't have to convince/force 7 billion people to do something. Anyone with the right equipment can just do it, without asking permission, just like CO₂ emitters can.

CO₂ is not the only factor driving ecological damage and indeed, the mass extinction event currently in progress. There are simply too many humans for the way in which we as a species currently behave. Either we need single parent families, globally, for a few generations, to get numbers down to a sustainable level, or , we have to convince/force 7 billion people to accept and adhere to major changes in how they live…

Dude, its not the 50s, most of the world is under replacement rate of reproduction. The problem now is largely the opposite, shortage of young minds to invent carbon free energy grids and young hands to build them. You can cut human population by half and still have a problem of excessive carbon emissions or transition to carbon free economy and have net zero per capita emission.

Also I don't want humanity to be almost completely wiped out.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#120

Post by cblconfederate »

hourislate wrote: post #32

Just convert everything to solar, wind, hydro and nuclear, the earth will heal itself. No new taxes, departments, bureaucracies, crooks and additional burdens on the tax payer who will foot the cleanup bill while corporations keep on keeping on.

How will the former happen without the latter
Post reply on HN