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

291–300 of 347 posts

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

#291

Post by Robotbeat »

loufe wrote: post #290
Robotbeat wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say it's pretty dang tough to not have cement. What do you use for a house foundation? Many apartments are made of cement and essentially every building uses a cement foundation. Luckily, cement is not a big part of the total emissions. Neither is long haul travel, particularly. Short haul flights are about half of all passenger-miles in air travel, can be made fully electric, and long-haul and medium haul fl…

> Luckily, cement is not a big part of the total emissions. This is patently false. A quick search shows a number of 8% of global CO2 going to cement production and use emissions.

“Patently false?” No, I see 3% in direct emissions from the cement itself: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/09/Emissions-by-sect...

(As far as indirect emissions like transport, the heat to make the clinker, etc, then yeah, I can believe that it gets to 8% total.)

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

#292

Post by scottcodie »

kodah wrote: post #277
scottcodie wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are some options: - Provide relocation subsidies to areas with public transit - Increase public transit - Treat bike lanes as first class infrastructure - Provide direct gas assistance and carbon tax rebates for low income earners

This tracks for cities and looks good, but also looks like just a start. What about rural areas? They have higher logistical costs, so cost of goods would go up. Things being sold to rural businesses also require someone to traffic their way out there. Point of reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-...

There's no silver bullet to solve this problem. If there were, we would have already done it by now. The government will need to weigh the cost of subsidizing rural residences with that of other policies. The outlook for rural doesn't look great either way, many rural areas will not be able to afford the costs of climate change.

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

#293

Post by kodah »

scottcodie wrote: post #292
kodah wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tracks for cities and looks good, but also looks like just a start. What about rural areas? They have higher logistical costs, so cost of goods would go up. Things being sold to rural businesses also require someone to traffic their way out there. Point of reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-...

There's no silver bullet to solve this problem. If there were, we would have already done it by now. The government will need to weigh the cost of subsidizing rural residences with that of other policies. The outlook for rural doesn't look great either way, many rural areas will not be able to afford the costs of climate change.

Sounds like a policy that won't pass muster then. Making things work for marginalized groups and rural areas is pretty top priority, unless significant and warranted backlash is to be expected.

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

#294

Post by fifilura »

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…

> You're working against thermodynamics.

I find this aspect of global warming intriguing. I wish som physicist could fill in.

Aren't we always fighting the laws of thermodynamics?

Is this what global warming is all about if you leave out the details about CO2 etc?

Is it even possible to fight?

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

#295

Post by scottcodie »

kodah wrote: post #293
scottcodie wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no silver bullet to solve this problem. If there were, we would have already done it by now. The government will need to weigh the cost of subsidizing rural residences with that of other policies. The outlook for rural doesn't look great either way, many rural areas will not be able to afford the costs of climate change.

Sounds like a policy that won't pass muster then. Making things work for marginalized groups and rural areas is pretty top priority, unless significant and warranted backlash is to be expected.

The US isn't France and a set of transfers is a real solution. But I have no doubt that politicians will ignore the gravity of the situation to pander to their voter base. The huge cost of climate capture (likely 50% of our gdp) is probably a policy that won't pass the muster either. The fact is that it is far cheaper to reduce emissions today than try to capture emissions tomorrow.

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

#296

Post by ahevia »

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…

Sadly the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere even if we stopped polluting today. Will still bring about huge negative effects down the road. We need to decarbonize our society(listed first because it’s the first priority) AND remove CO2. Source & a great read: https://www.orbuch.com/carbon-removal/

If you want to learn about carbon dioxide removal check out AirMiners: https://bootup.airminers.org/ they have a useful self paced curriculum

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

#297

Post by Frondo »

notahacker wrote: post #191
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you would have to convince your taxpayers to pay to offset emissions in some other country I strangely think the rich world would be more comfortable building carbon capture infrastructure at home than clean energy offshore. The jobs are domestic. And you aren’t handing a productive asset to another country. Hell, find it with an import tax on polluting countries and we don’t even have to pay for most of it.

Don't think it's even a strange thought; the US has been always much happier with industrial policy than welfare. "NASA, but for your climate" is a much easier political sell than "let's give foreigners [almost] free luxury goods". And if you don't want people in the developing world to simply sell the brand new Teslas you've swapped for their 30 year old bangers, you're also going to have to build out a charging inf…

Just as an aside, "NASA, but for your climate" is the coolest idea for a government agency. Big climate moonshots, stuff to inspire people. I love it! I wish it could be so.

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

#298

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

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

The cost of emission certificates in the EU is currently at 63 EUR (72 USD) per ton. The carbon tax in Switzerland is 96 CHF (104 USD) per ton, soon to be increased to 120 CHF (131 USD).

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

#299

Post by lemming »

MaxGanzII wrote: post #232
rcxdude wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on current trajectories, the world's population is not going to double again (or even increase by 50%), it will level off at about 10 billion and at that point perhaps start to shrink. It's possible this level is not sustainable with an acceptable standard of living, but it's not obvious and it certainly isn't inevitable that humanity will reproduce out of control.

I would say though that this is what I'm arguing. The planet can't cope now - the environment is falling apart right now, already - and the mid-range estimate there's another two or three billion people to come over the next few decades. There are estimates in excess of this, there are estimates lower. Estimates which have population declines see slow declines only. I've not seen any real understanding of why the fer…

Hans Rosling explains it very well: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies

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

#300

Post by godelski »

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…

I think there's two things to consider here.

1) this sets a quantifiable measure on what a carbon tax should be. Which is essentially higher than it would be to remove said carbon. The tax including a convenience fee.

2) We're still on the bottom of the S curve for carbon removal. I'm not sure why anyone that visits HN would be surprised that a new technology costs more. But if we're to survive climate change it is essential that we innovate this technology and make it as cheap as possible. So see $100/tonne as a stepping stone rather than a final product. That will not be the final price, but rather comparable to your first home computers.

Edit: I know I said 2, but a third thing to consider is that we already have too much carbon in the atmosphere. We really need to be net negative, not zero. In addition to this we can't expect developing countries to choose between power and existential crisis. As rich countries we have burden from past emissions. So if we are the ones removing it, that's more equitable. But also probably the only way it's going to happen. If we don't step up, no one will. Though we're also the ones that will fare the best because of our already elevated status. But is that the kind of people we want to be?

Post reply on HN