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

171–180 of 347 posts

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

#171

Post by incrudible »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128
incrudible wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

You're mixing up watts with dollars, a mistake that "green energy" stockpickers make all the time. Consider all the energy that is hitting the Sahara. It's worth zero dollars, because it can't economically be used - but what if you could capture and transport it somehow, you know, like in a fuel?

> It takes about the number of miles that the average person drives in a year.

That's the lowest estimate I have ever heard - do you have a source for that?

> 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.

Sure, but economics of scale apply to all technologies and unless you let the market do its thing, you won't know the minima and maxima.

> So put a price on CO2.

Exactly.

> 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.

You don't know that. Ideally, nothing should be subsidized. However, in a market where profit is sooner found with dog meme cryptocurrency and other harebrained schemes, subsidies are arguably necessary, and then you shouldn't put all the money into directions that have already been mostly explored.

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

#172

Post by neaanopri »

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…

Us first. The carbon footprint of a US citizen is very high. We can shame others when it gets below average

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

#173

Post by moffkalast »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #35
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…

40 gigatonnes is just the "yearly deficit". That's just for carbon neutrality. We have put 2 teratons of carbon into the atmosphere since industrialization. Yes we probably don't need to remove all of that, but at least 1 teraton is probably a very good idea, by trees, olivine, seeding oceans, pumping into the ground (which I think eventually comes back out. This is kind of like the mainstream reporting on the budget…

Well reaching net zero effective emissions would be a good start at least, we're not even close to that yet right now.

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

#174

Post by stanleydrew »

chillwaves wrote: post #155
Factorium wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't that the whole appeal of our economic system? To root out these inefficiencies? If it is not economically feasible to run a coal plant if they do not externalize the pollution cost, how is that my problem? And if the demand justifies it, the cost for coal-generated electricity will go up. It's a matter of priorities and resource allocation. Why do we allow coal operators to enrich themselves at the cost of ever…

> If it is not economically feasible to run a coal plant if they do not externalize the pollution cost, how is that my problem?

Well it's your problem because they currently do externalize the pollution cost, and the status quo is difficult to overcome.

> Why do we allow coal operators to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else?

Great question, but the rough answer is that a lot of people don't believe (or don't want to believe) that the cost to everyone else is meaningful.

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

#175

Post by WalterBright »

pharke wrote: post #162
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…

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 opt…

That's why banning is a bad solution. Tax it. Then when it's really needed, paying the tax is worth it.

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

#176

Post by frazbin »

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…

This is totally true, awesome, and under appreciated. Check out project vesta. Basically there's an infinite amount of magnesium silicate minerals, and they weather to absorb co2 and release magnesium. You get some iron for free, but no heavies or toxics.. You can put it in the soil too, which is great because fe and esp mg are being depleted in soils. You can dump it in the ocean and raise PH while also mobilizing calcium. It's a win win win win win win.

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

#177

Post by opportune »

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…

Renewables don't all have steady load, so it could be an alternative to batteries/hydro batteries. Use natural gas peakers when renewables don't produce enough, use excess renewable power to remove CO2 from the air when they are producing more than you need. Basically it's using the atmosphere as a reverse-battery

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

#178

Post by frazbin »

gspr wrote: post #122
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In a very literal sense, we have been using the atmosphere as half of a battery since forever-- combustion on earth uses atmospheric oxygen as as an electron acceptor.

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

#179

Post by andy_ppp »

When we are going to start taxing coal manufactured products (like e.g. Bitcoin) correctly? There should already be a huge tax on, for example, Chinese made steel that imported both iron ore and coal from Australia by ship to be smelted in the mainland...

Until we make capitalism work for climate it will work against it.

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

#180

Post by AnthonyMouse »

pharke wrote: post #162
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…

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 opt…

Rocket fuel isn't gasoline, it's hydrazine. It's not pumped out of the ground, it's synthetic.

This is a good lesson for the carbon capture economics.

We know how to make synthetic fuels and biofuels. As a general rule, making them costs around the same as carbon capture. "Grow some plants or something" is actually one of the most efficient known methods of carbon capture.

Biofuels cost more than pumping crude out of the ground. They also cost more, in most cases, than electric cars. So if you don't care about CO2 then fossil fuels win over biofuels because they're cheaper and if you do care about CO2 then electric cars win over biofuels because they're cheaper. Basically nobody uses biofuels unless they're subsidized. But we know how to do it; we just also know of something better to use in 98% of cases.

Then you have the other 2% of cases. Like aircraft. Existing batteries are too heavy for aircraft and we don't know if or how long it'll be before we have sufficient ones. But we could use biofuels for that. Put a carbon tax on fossil fuels and that's what might happen, because for a plane that might be the most cost effective alternative.

So you say hey, maybe it'd be better to keep using fossil fuels in planes and then use carbon capture. If carbon capture has a cost similar to biofuels, that could be competitive. But it's not. Because biofuels produce fuel. With carbon capture you still have to pay to buy petroleum.

Post reply on HN