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

311–320 of 347 posts

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

#311

Post by Sankozi »

xyzzyz wrote: post #87
Sankozi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had process that only needs electricity then you run it only when power is cheap (usually when renewables are producing it). Depending on efficiency this could be better solution than energy storage (instead storing energy you pull CO2 and then burn it later if energy is needed).

Carbon capture techniques do not necessarily allow you to easily burn the captured carbon again. For example, consider a process where calcium oxide is used to capture CO2, converting it to calcium carbonate (that’s how masonry mortars work). You can’t convert calcium carbonate to energy.

I did not meant the same CO2, just any available fossil fuels.

I find it would be great if we could convert CO2 to something that cannot be profitably burned.

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

#312

Post by vbezhenar »

Robotbeat wrote: post #273
guiriduro wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are applications like long-haul jets and cement production where eliminating emissions isn't that easy. I disagree, there's an easy solution to eliminating those emissions: have zero long-haul jets and zero cement production. Before this gets (inevitably) downvoted, the more interesting question is why do we need either, what alternatives are there, how fundamentally we're willing to question our biases and e…

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…

> What do you use for a house foundation?

Rocks.

> Many apartments are made of cement

Make them from wood.

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

#313

Post by inglor_cz »

Factorium wrote: post #130
civilized wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The EU has much higher pricing of CO2 (currently at 60 eur / tonne [0]) and yet Germany was using more coal power than expected, forced by the fact that there was a scarcity of wind. [1]

Of course, that caused the prices of electricity for households to jump up. [2]

[0] https://www.euractiv.com/section/emissions-trading-scheme/ne...

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec...

[2] https://www.dw.com/en/europeans-brace-for-hard-winter-as-ene...

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

#314

Post by vkou »

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.

Actually, we just need to make things work for the wealthy. If we can do that, all of these changes will go through overnight.

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

#315

Post by inglor_cz »

psd1 wrote: post #287
snmx999 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are so right but nobody wants to hear it. We are incredibly short-sighted and incapable of accepting inconvenient truths. Every child conceived (and their children) is an enormous burden to the earth and all of us (in the grand scale of things) but because more population is in the best interest of every individual family, city, region and country, no reduction will ever happen, at least not voluntarily.

I think you mean: every _first world_ child.

Third world children consume less, but their parents engage in deforestation and bushmeat hunts to sustain their families. This is an environmental burden as well.

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

#316

Post by vbezhenar »

jandrese wrote: post #8
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…

More importantly, having an actual price tag on removing carbon from the atmosphere would allow carbon markets to finally work. Assuming there is enough political will to properly monitor and tax CO2 emissions worldwide, which is a huge ask. A lot of companies and countries will be tempted to lie because it will make their products more competitive.

Why do you need any actual price tag? Put it into market. If company releases carbon, it must buy capture carbon futures. If company captures carbon, it can sell capture carbon futures. Add government subsidies, like 98% in 2021, 0% in 2071, so companies have enough time to adapt and restructure their business.

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

#317

Post by inglor_cz »

chmod775 wrote: post #102
incrudible wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems hard to believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere could ever be less expensive than not emitting it to begin with. This is the "get rich by saving money" fallacy. Imagine all the CO2 of a century of industrial development had not been emitted. We'd be enjoying a life without man-made climate change, but also without any of the amenities of modern life. Consider that air-to-fuel companies are pretty clo…

> 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…

"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."

They still benefit from industrial development, even though with a certain time lag compared to us (because that is it: time lag. Living standards in poorer countries lag behind those of Europe or Japan, but they rise nonetheless.)

For example, about 90 per cent of humanity has electricity and uses some electrical appliances. Few people live in truly pre-industrial conditions.

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

#318

Post by inglor_cz »

redisman wrote: post #149
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how fast electrification of transportation is occurring, I think those "millions of tailpipes" may go down sooner than you think.

In rich western pockets like Norway and SF Bay sure. Globally though your median car owner can in no way afford to replace their car with a new one

It also depends a lot on price of electricity. Norway has a lot of electric cars because it is a rainy country with terrain very suitable for dams and cheap hydro production.

With enough small modular reactors, we might get to the same point elsewhere. The German renewables mix does seem to drive prices up, especially in certain peaks, because nature is unpredictable and you can absolutely have a freak streak of several windless, dark, cold days in the winter.

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

#319

Post by HamburgerEmoji »

mynegation wrote: post #150
rayiner wrote: post #147

Carbon recapture is essential for humanitarian purposes. Countries like China, India, and Bangladesh, won’t forgo industrialization to go to net zero CO2 emissions. I’m from Bangladesh and there’s just zero political will to do that. Maintaining the 6-7% annual GDP growth is literally what the legitimacy of the government is built upon. So it’s imperative for the developed world to build the technology to recapture t…

It is ironic as Bangladesh is going to be one of the countries hardest hit by rising sea levels and climate change.

The NOAA sea level measuring station in that region of the world with the most history seems to be the one in Visakhapatnam in India. It shows 1.05mm/year rise, steady since 1940. Very little sign of acceleration. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station....

Here are some other charts with less history but that are closer to Bangladesh. They are also very slow and steady rates of rise with little sign of any acceleration. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.... https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.... https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station....

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

#320

Post by Emma_Goldman »

Robotbeat wrote: post #273
guiriduro wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are applications like long-haul jets and cement production where eliminating emissions isn't that easy. I disagree, there's an easy solution to eliminating those emissions: have zero long-haul jets and zero cement production. Before this gets (inevitably) downvoted, the more interesting question is why do we need either, what alternatives are there, how fundamentally we're willing to question our biases and e…

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…

>Neither is long haul travel, particularly.

Aviation and shipping make up 5-6% of GHG emissions, not a trivial amount. Aviation is projected to expand several-fold by 2050 which, in the context of decarbonisation, means it will take up a progressively larger fraction of global emissions over time. It will be one of the last and greatest challenges - which is exactly why it will require offsets, carbon capture or otherwise. The aviation's offset market, CORSIA, is already one of the most developed in the world. Your optimism about electrifying aviation is not shared by the industry.

Post reply on HN