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

181–190 of 347 posts

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

#181

Post by vorpalhex »

dataflow wrote: post #165
DantesKite wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Those wildfires are not new, and are more a factor of humans over meddling (putting out every tiny fire instead of letting nature do it's thing). Global warming plays a part but it's not as if nature was without forest fires pre-man.

Likewise droughts are just as much caused by misuse of water resources than they are changes in rainfall. California in particular has no business having cities as large as it does given their groundwater situation - and that has been before global warming accelerated.

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

#182

Post by missedthecue »

andy_ppp wrote: post #179

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.

What's the difference between smelting the steel in Australia and shipping it to China, vs shipping the coal to China and smelting the steel on location? I don't think there is any material difference there.

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

#183

Post by exyi »

andy_ppp wrote: post #179

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.

It's easier to convince the public that the climate problem is being worked on with this Carbon Removal and Storage. If it turns out not to work that great, it's most likely somebody else's problem 5-10 years from now.

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

#184

Post by exyi »

missedthecue wrote: post #182
andy_ppp wrote: post #179

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.

What's the difference between smelting the steel in Australia and shipping it to China, vs shipping the coal to China and smelting the steel on location? I don't think there is any material difference there.

Then both should be equally carbon-taxed when sold in EU/US, that would actually incentivize figuring out how to do these processes in low-carbon way (or, how to lie about the emissions)

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

#186

Post by dataflow »

vorpalhex wrote: post #181
dataflow wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Those wildfires are not new, and are more a factor of humans over meddling (putting out every tiny fire instead of letting nature do it's thing). Global warming plays a part but it's not as if nature was without forest fires pre-man. Likewise droughts are just as much caused by misuse of water resources than they are changes in rainfall. California in particular has no business having cities as large as it does given…

California is not the only place on earth dealing with severe ground depletion, droughts, or wildfires.

And it's not like putting the blame somewhere else somehow changes the reality.

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

#188

Post by exyi »

baron816 wrote: post #48

Seems to me that everything becomes much easier if we just get fusion right. Carbon removal would be cheap at that point, correct? I’d like to see governments band together and offer up a $1 trillion prize for whomever comes up with a scalable fusion power plant, which would then be released to the public domain.

Or just put a ton of solar plants into the US deserts. it's super cheap now, I doubt fusion will ever be cheaper than just collecting whatever sun sends to us. And for carbon removal you don't need a stable electricity source

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

#189

Post by AnthonyMouse »

tsol wrote: post #170
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #123

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? 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…

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

What do you think it takes to capture carbon?

> You can be scammed by people selling the car and using that money to buy a house and a cheap commission engine.

How is that a profitable scam? Anybody else could buy the same car with the same subsidy. You can't resell it for more than you paid.

> 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.

The only reason to do this is if you've already done that. Otherwise it would make more sense to spend the money subsidizing replacement of fossil fuels in your own country first.

> 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.

Solar panels and electric cars go together like hand and glove. The car doesn't care what part of the day you charge it, so you charge it when the sun is shining. And you don't need a functioning power grid to install cheap solar on your own house/business.

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

#190

Post by diordiderot »

GOONIMMUNE wrote: post #77
jillesvangurp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh this is very political. You just need to follow the money. Basically carbon offsetting is the notion of adding carbon to our atmosphere by continuing to e.g. burn coal or gas and by offsetting that with carbon capture. The problem with that is that it is kind of expensive. To the point where it would be cheaper to simply stop burning stuff and maybe do something cleaner instead. By instead committing to lowering c…

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

Imagine a boat filling with water, you would want to plug the whole before you start bailing out water
Post reply on HN