91–100 of 168 posts
Every time I see technology like this, I wonder why there so much effort and publicity in capturing carbon from thin air, but no one seems to be interested in capturing carbon directly out of exhaust pipe?
[1]: https://www.stockholmexergi.se/en/environment-and-sustainabi...
Disclosure: I used to work with them, though not on that project, and my current employer still works with them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And one tree does 25kg per year. So each person should plant 14 * 365 / 25= 204 trees. Seems very reasonable.
Consider UK; 204 trees * 65 million people = 13.2 billion trees. Woodland estimates there's approx 3 billion trees in the UK now. That's over 4 fold increase in trees every year. I doubt the terrain/nature could support such a significant increase in just one year, let alone a number of years. But I like the idea of more trees. https://woodlands.co.uk/blog/woodland-economics/how-many-tre...
Climate scientist David Ho has a good thread on CDR: https://mastodon.world/@davidho/109511745525784891 It's hard for people to visualize removing tons or billions of tons of #carbon #dioxide (CO₂). I propose we talked about CO₂ #removal (CDR) like a #time #machine (e.g., this machine will take us back 5 minutes). For example: Q: How far back in time does planting 100 million #trees take us? A: If one mature tree tak…
Time machine is neat metaphor. Thanks for sharing. -- Net Zero is not enough. We must do Net Negative, a much bigger project than Net Zero. The goal is CO2 350ppm, or lower. Today is 417ppm. It will be >600ppm in 2050, our current global Net Zero deadline. There is no either-or. We need all the solutions. To stop and then reverse emissions: solar, wind, geothermal, nukes (old and much more new), storage, transmission…
The one thing that might change that is very ambitious geo engineering. Which actually is the solution that makes most sense to me. But the very people who are most concerned about climate change don’t seem to support that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And one tree does 25kg per year. So each person should plant 14 * 365 / 25= 204 trees. Seems very reasonable.
Consider UK; 204 trees * 65 million people = 13.2 billion trees. Woodland estimates there's approx 3 billion trees in the UK now. That's over 4 fold increase in trees every year. I doubt the terrain/nature could support such a significant increase in just one year, let alone a number of years. But I like the idea of more trees. https://woodlands.co.uk/blog/woodland-economics/how-many-tre...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Superfluous renewable energy already has to go to hydrolysis to produce hydrogen to be saved for times whenever renewables don't produce energy.
Actually battery storage and stored hydro work. As does long duration battery storage options that are in the works now.
For example. The US would consume its entirety of pumped hydro storage in a third of a day.
If you insist on capturing CO₂ then capture it somewhere it is available in abundance instead of ~400 parts per million : at the source. Capture it at gas turbine exhausts, at coal-burning power station smoke stacks, maybe on board ships if the power is available to do so. Use some other process for capturing atmospheric CO₂, e.g. lime stone capture. Trying to actively capture airborne CO₂ is like creating needle-in-…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1000 kWh/ton (found it on google): 166 kW/ton in a sunny place: 1000 square meters/ton in a sunny place: 4 million square meters = ~1000 acres of PV to power. One unit. Yeah, that’s going to happen. /s “We’re too ashamed of our energy requirements to post them on our page and are well aware they’re dooming this technology until cold fusion comes out” is what I read between the lines on their fluff page.
1000 kWh/ton to sequester, and how many tons per kWh to generate? EDIT: Apparently, one ton of CO2 is released by 1000 kWh of electricity: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 So you have a coal plant generating energy and emitting CO2 just for this factory next to it to capture all that CO2 again. Seems more efficient to just not run the coal factory. It seems like this idea will be worthwhile when the…
Imagine you have a teaspoon of salt and a cup of water.
Adding salt into the water is dead simple and requires little energy. Now how hard is it to remove that teaspoon of salt?
That's effectively what's happening with the atmosphere.
Climate scientist David Ho has a good thread on CDR: https://mastodon.world/@davidho/109511745525784891 It's hard for people to visualize removing tons or billions of tons of #carbon #dioxide (CO₂). I propose we talked about CO₂ #removal (CDR) like a #time #machine (e.g., this machine will take us back 5 minutes). For example: Q: How far back in time does planting 100 million #trees take us? A: If one mature tree tak…
Time machine is neat metaphor. Thanks for sharing. -- Net Zero is not enough. We must do Net Negative, a much bigger project than Net Zero. The goal is CO2 350ppm, or lower. Today is 417ppm. It will be >600ppm in 2050, our current global Net Zero deadline. There is no either-or. We need all the solutions. To stop and then reverse emissions: solar, wind, geothermal, nukes (old and much more new), storage, transmission…
Carbon sequestration is unfortunately more of a scam than a practical process. Without actual discouraging the burning of fossil fuels people aren’t going to simply stop on their own and if we can’t even get that far nobody is willing to pay for any kind of meaningful rather than token carbon sequestration.
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.
I could spend maybe £1-2k a year, especially given the futility of this (I would be one of the 0.00...01% of people doing this, large industries will continue to increase pollution, there is no political will for meaningful measures to reduce emissions). There really isn't a lot of value in this. I'd rather invest in a green energy company, or even just pay the bills of a large energy producer decarbonising (replacing a pollution-heavy power plant with something near carbon zero).
Can some company do this carbon filtering at the source more cost-effectively (potentially at no cost to the source/industry/plant producing CO2 now)? I'd rather buy carbon offset from them and pay for that operation. I think they could sequester 10T a year for far below £10k.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider UK; 204 trees * 65 million people = 13.2 billion trees. Woodland estimates there's approx 3 billion trees in the UK now. That's over 4 fold increase in trees every year. I doubt the terrain/nature could support such a significant increase in just one year, let alone a number of years. But I like the idea of more trees. https://woodlands.co.uk/blog/woodland-economics/how-many-tre...
The UK is one of the least forested countries in Europe. It is very doable.