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

161–170 of 347 posts

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

#161

Post by dataflow »

betwixthewires wrote: post #157

Imagine that tomorrow someone came and said that they have found a technique to remove any arbitrary amount of carbon dioxide for a trivial cost. What do you think that would do to the world? Whoever controls that is the most powerful person in the world because they can literally suffocate all life on the surface. Carbon capture technology is more dangerous than nuclear weapons. Just convert the carbon to biomass. J…

I'm not sure if you mean this seriously but even with a miracle technology it's going to be hard to remove CO2 from the atmosphere at dangerous levels without risking serious repercussions to yourself.

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

#162

Post by pharke »

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…

Depends on what the dollar cost of not burning fossil fuels turns out to be. I think being able to close the carbon loop is extremely important, there will inevitably be use cases where burning fossil fuels is the superior or only option. Rocket launches immediately jump to mind and are looking to be an area that will continue to experience explosive growth throughout the next century. We had better have a viable option for capturing those emissions along with the long tail of emissions generated during an orderly transition away from burning fossil fuels.

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

#164

Post by listenallyall »

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…

Lol "5% pay cut". Classic ivory tower, wealthy first-world thinking. 4 trillion dollars is $500 per person on earth, which is more than the annual wages for a significant percentage. Energy cost increases put vastly more of the burden on low-income individuals due to the demand inelasticity of heat, fuel, light.

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

#165

Post by dataflow »

DantesKite wrote: post #146
GOONIMMUNE wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does "leaving it in the ground" get us back to 280 ppm?

It's not clear to me 280ppm is actually ideal, because below 150ppm, most plant life on Earth begins to die from the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. It takes a couple generations for plants to adapt (which they can), but I don't imagine most crops and forests will survive the transition well. I actually think where we're at is relatively decent. We know what's happening, can reliably predict certain storms. Definitely…

> I actually think where we're at is relatively decent. We know what's happening, can reliably predict certain storms.

You mean aside from the massive wildfires, depleting groundwater with droughts in so many parts of the world, etc.? The status quo hits the 'sweet spot' for you?

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

#166

Post by throaway46546 »

worik wrote: post #141

What about compost? Surely the best place to sequester carbon is in topsoil where we can use if to grow food. I have not done the maths, but I do do a lot of composting myself and it makes me wonder as I watch my soil get deeper.

Doesn't composting actually release greenhouse gasses?

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

#167

Post by ithkuil »

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…

Money and energy are not the same thing.

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

#168

Post by HPsquared »

ericd wrote: post #104
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…

It seems like you’re assuming our current culture stays constant. I’m pretty sure it’s going to change quite drastically after we have our first million+ death heat wave. It’s going to suddenly seem a hell of a lot more tacky to be driving a huge Chevy Tahoe. Which is to say that things that seem impossible politically might suddenly become very politically possible.

Ironically in such a heat wave, lots of people would likely take shelter in their air conditioned cars.

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

#170

Post by tsol »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #123
notahacker wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>there is nothing at all stopping you from paying people in Africa or South America to buy electric cars

I can think of tons of problems with this.

It requires more scarce than resources like lithium to make cars.

You can be scammed by people selling the car and using that money to buy a house and a cheap commission engine. You don't have the issue with carbon capture.

Your likely to face much more political pushback for subsidizing others carbon use. "Let's make our country carbon neutral" can resonate with people as it's cleaning up after ourselves. That's much easier to convince people to do.

Can Africa and South America even use them? Is it reasonable for them, do they have the infrastructure? I know in some countries electricity can be scarce-- and power companies turn off the supply at night.

It's cheaper to scrub carbon, than it is to fix the societal and economic issues across the globe required to make passing out electric vehicles work

Post reply on HN