U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by PeterisP » Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #55

cletus wrote: post #36

I've said this repeatedly here: the world won't address climate change even if it's mildly inconvenient to do so, let alone the massive endeavours that have been proposed thus far. The solution will be economic. Want to replace fossil fuels with cleaner energy sources? It won't happen until those alternatives are cheaper. When energy is sufficiently cheap or the byproducts are sufficiently valuable, that's when carbo…

"Want to replace fossil fuels with cleaner energy sources? It won't happen until those alternatives are cheaper" We are going to go extinct with that attitude - the laws on nature do not owe us a cheaper method of producing energy. The Moneyed classes have never given up anything willingly: the end of monarchy, the end of slavery and even labour laws were won in blood. Its likely to be the same with climate change

> The Moneyed classes have never given up anything willingly: the end of monarchy, the end of slavery and even labour laws were won in blood. Its likely to be the same with climate change

This seems to be a very valid observation. However, it's worth noting that with respect to climate change, it's nto about some mystical "0.1%" but rather in this case the "moneyed classes" include the vast majority of the first world citizens, which (as you state) are very unlikely to give up their privilege willingly unless the "global south", who will suffer the worst parts of the climate change first, would win that concession through blood.

However, as a counterpoint, nuclear weapons do act as a reasonably effective veto in conflict escalation.

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

#122

Post by gspr » Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #114

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…

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 solut…

In some sense it's just using the entire atmosphere as a battery. Burn fossile fuels where it's the only reasonable option (currently), such as for planes, then spend energy to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere elsewhere.

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

#123

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #116

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…

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 w…

> 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?

You only have to dictate policy to them if you're trying to get them to pay for it. If you're going to pay for it yourself, there is nothing at all stopping you from paying people in Africa or South America to buy electric cars. The main thing preventing this is that you would have to convince your taxpayers to pay to offset emissions in some other country. But that's the same problem with carbon capture, except worse, because you would need more dollars to offset the same amount of CO2.

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

#124

Post by to11mtm » Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

incrudible wrote: post #108

chmod775 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine all the CO2 of a century of industrial development but also without any of the amenities of modern life. Most people on earth still live in conditions that are nowhere near the kind of development you are likely enjoying. They are also those who will feel the effects of man-made climate change most. That is why this argument falls flat. We didn't buy this kind of living standard with some future self-inflic…

I get that, but what are the implications? Consider that the vast majority of CO2 emissions today are coming from the countries that are still developing to that standard we enjoy. We have no right to ask them to cut down. Therefore, we have no choice but to invest into sequestration, because that's the only way to pay down that "debt".

As an alternative, would it be worth it to help developing countries build green solutions now, maybe the economies of scale will help offset some of the short-term cost?

You're right that it's not right to force still developing countries to halt their progress. I just wonder if there's a way to help them develop in a way that is better long-term.

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

#125

Post by novok » Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

grayfaced wrote: post #76

mikesabbagh wrote: post #37

Maybe instead of paying 100$ for a ton of CO2 captured, add a CO2 tax of few $ to every ton released

If it costs $100 to remove, then that should set the price. If you can set a reasoned price on a externality then charging anything less is subsidizing the pollution.

I agree that creating an upper bound price is powerful, because it economically incentivizes those companies to figure out cheaper ways to save on that tax, like not emitting in the first place :p

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

#126

Post by GaryTang » Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #68

GaryTang wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inaction is only the default option in totalitarian societies.

Uh, no? Business as usual scenarios are the default option (tautologically) and will lead to lots of dead bodies in the future. Anything else requires large-scale coordination to change course.

New businesses emerge everyday, many call themselves startups.

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

#127

Post by dane-pgp » Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

cblconfederate wrote: post #119

Removal of CO2 at such grand scale and speed will probably affect ecosystems drastically and cause violent disasters

If the aim is to reach "net zero", then the ecosystem will have the same amount of CO2 in year N as in year N-1. That doesn't seem like a drastic situation (except that the level we stop at will already be well outside the recent historic average).

After reaching a steady state, we can then consider how much we want to continue scaling up the CO2 removal process, and for how long we want to run it at "net negative" levels. Whatever rate we choose should cause fewer violent disasters than the process of extracting and emitting the carbon did in the first place.

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

#128

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

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…

> Don't. You can't predict prices like that.

You can predict that not emitting CO2 will cost less than emitting CO2 and then recapturing it, because it's the second law of thermodynamics.

> 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.

It takes about the number of miles that the average person drives in a year. New cars last a lot more than a year. Also, the CO2 it takes to make an electric car has a lot to do with the fact that existing vehicles and power generation emit CO2, which goes away as we get more electric vehicles and non-carbon power generation.

> 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.

So put a price on CO2. The point isn't that subsidizing electric cars and solar panels is the best solution to the problem, it's that subsidizing carbon capture is strictly worse.

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

#129

Post by pkdpic » Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

civilized wrote: post #93

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.

If we're going to talk insanely expensive moonshots, maybe the US should install and maintain free point-of-emission carbon capture for anyone anywhere in the world who wants it, and put the technology behind it in the public domain for anyone who doesn't want it from us. Point of emission capture is at least technologically feasible.

Kind of like how some cities / states already subsidize solar panels / heat pumps / electric appliances etc.

But even more like how some organizations (like PurpleAir, maybe thats the only one though?) will get you connected with the hardware necessary to be a part of their air quality monitoring network.

Except this is a way more interesting idea for a lot of reasons.

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

#130

Post by Factorium » Sun, Nov 14, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

civilized wrote: post #93

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.

If we're going to talk insanely expensive moonshots, maybe the US should install and maintain free point-of-emission carbon capture for anyone anywhere in the world who wants it, and put the technology behind it in the public domain for anyone who doesn't want it from us. Point of emission capture is at least technologically feasible.

As soon as you add that requirement to coal power plants, they become immediately uneconomic to build or operate. They are already borderline due to the fall in cost of renewables.

With a meagre Carbon Tax of $15/tonne, coal costs double in the US.

There's nothing that can be done to fix coal power apart from just shutting it all down.