Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂

climeworks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 168 posts

Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂

#31

Post by masklinn »

fwlr wrote: post #22

Their subscription page is currently offering a rate of about $1.35 USD per kg of CO2 removed, and they promise to complete your order within 6 years. It’s nice to have some hard numbers on end-stage or “gold standard” CO2 offset (no doubt there are cheaper carbon credit options but this directly solves the hardest problem, CO2 that’s diffused into the atmosphere.

For reference we’re producing about 60Gte/year globally.

For pure CO2, developed countries produce about 5t/year/person on the low end (Switzerland, Sweden, Italy) and >15 on the high end (Luxembourg, Australia).

To the surprise of no one, the US is on the high end (15.5), so are petrostates (Saudi Arabia 16, Brunei 18, UAE 23, and Qatar takes the top at 37).

Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂

#32

Post by marvin »

fwlr wrote: post #22

Their subscription page is currently offering a rate of about $1.35 USD per kg of CO2 removed, and they promise to complete your order within 6 years. It’s nice to have some hard numbers on end-stage or “gold standard” CO2 offset (no doubt there are cheaper carbon credit options but this directly solves the hardest problem, CO2 that’s diffused into the atmosphere.

For reference, Charm Industrial offers $0.6/kg.

https://charmindustrial.com/plans?planName=consumer&budget=6...

Charm's pricing is actually approaching reasonable to offset a single person's net CO2 emissions if you're comfortably middle class; in the low 4 digits per month. Add a tax benefit and get the costs a bit lower, and it starts to look doable.

Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂

#33

Post by pilaf »

Mizza wrote: post #18
thx-2718 wrote: post #3

"Our plants require less land than other techniques. E.g., on a land area of 0.42 acres, our Orca plant can remove 4,000 tons of CO₂ from the air every year, which is almost 1,000 times more effective than trees. The same land would host around 220 trees with an estimated capacity of 22kg each" How much land, in solar panels for example, is required to power this? Also what's the carbon waste that this generates? Is…

For context, 4000 tons of CO2 is roughly the emissions of a full 777 flying from San Francisco to London and back twice.

That doesn't sound right, 4000 tons is more than 10 times the maximum takeoff weight of a 777.

Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂

#35

Post by mytailorisrich »

shipman05 wrote: post #10
thx-2718 wrote: post #3

"Our plants require less land than other techniques. E.g., on a land area of 0.42 acres, our Orca plant can remove 4,000 tons of CO₂ from the air every year, which is almost 1,000 times more effective than trees. The same land would host around 220 trees with an estimated capacity of 22kg each" How much land, in solar panels for example, is required to power this? Also what's the carbon waste that this generates? Is…

> How much land, in solar panels for example, is required to power this? It says "The CO₂ can then be safely and permanently stored underground by our storage partners — Carbfix in Iceland." So my assumption was that the collectors are located there as well and using Iceland's abundant geothermal electricity.

I remember watching something about Carbfix on TV: they inject the CO2 into underground magma and it is then incorporated in the rock formation (carbonate rocks?)

So, yes, it would make sense to use local geothermal electricity or even to produce it at the same time as the CO2 injection process if that's possible.

Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂

#36

Post by z3t4 »

thx-2718 wrote: post #3

"Our plants require less land than other techniques. E.g., on a land area of 0.42 acres, our Orca plant can remove 4,000 tons of CO₂ from the air every year, which is almost 1,000 times more effective than trees. The same land would host around 220 trees with an estimated capacity of 22kg each" How much land, in solar panels for example, is required to power this? Also what's the carbon waste that this generates? Is…

Plants/trees waste product is oxygen. And plants only need water and sun. Plants can also reproduce themselves. What we should concentrate on is to make artificial systems that get water to areas where it doesn't rain.

Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂

#37

Post by j16sdiz »

lom wrote: post #25

The article says that the plant can remove 4000 tons of co2 per year. If you look up what’s the equivalent of that, just under 900 average vehicles less on the road per year. Or the equivalent co2 savings of building one wind turbine to replace polluting forms of energy production. What a joke.

if the process is linear scalable (hint: it is not), I don't see any problem.

Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂

#39

Post by j16sdiz »

jonplackett wrote: post #34

Explain like I’m 5: Why is this better than just growing trees and then cutting them down and burying them so the co2 never gets back into the atmosphere?

Your plan don't have the ecological and geological risk of pumping acid into the ground.

You cant get VC funding without risk.

Re: Direct air capture: our technology to capture CO₂

#40

Post by kuprel »

Mizza wrote: post #18
thx-2718 wrote: post #3

"Our plants require less land than other techniques. E.g., on a land area of 0.42 acres, our Orca plant can remove 4,000 tons of CO₂ from the air every year, which is almost 1,000 times more effective than trees. The same land would host around 220 trees with an estimated capacity of 22kg each" How much land, in solar panels for example, is required to power this? Also what's the carbon waste that this generates? Is…

For context, 4000 tons of CO2 is roughly the emissions of a full 777 flying from San Francisco to London and back twice.

The entire aviation industry emitted 619 million tons of CO2 in 2019 [1]. So about 155 thousand of these plants would be needed just to offset air travel

[1] https://www.iea.org/reports/aviation

Post reply on HN