it seems very labor-intensive to prepare trays of special dust and slide them in and out of these gigantic towers of them
The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
11–20 of 111 posts
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#12https://archive.is/bl4XZ
It's too bad these DAC systems don't take it a step further kicking the o2 back into the atmosphere while turning the carbon into something physical and industrially valuable like say spools of carbon fiber fabric or graphene/carbon nanotubes.
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#13"The plant is capable of removing 1,000 tons of CO2 a year" So about equivalent to 100 hectares of forest? Anyway, cool, another 50 million more of these facilities and we'll be at break-even.
As another yardstick, it will cost about 2x the annual world GDP to mitigate all emissions this way. With normal amortisation rates and operating costs, it will be about 1.5x-2x more than entire energy expenditure worldwide. I wonder if this is simply a scheme to siphon public money. What a good catch for Fox News! Of course, if $100 per ton ever becomes a reality, then it's just 3% of world GDP and is probably affor…
If we have additional costs in the economy that just means GDP increases by that amount.
You could also phrase this as 'global GDP would triple from this initiative'. GDP is a silly measurement.
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
People on this technology forum seem skeptical that technology can improve or get cheaper.
I think they just understand that this is very unlikely to work even with best case estimates from people with a direct financial interest in this working
It’s part of the IEA’s net zero by 2050 plan. An understanding of basic physics is all that is required to see that DAC must be in the mix to achieve net zero emissions globally.
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
They talk about other plants doing over a hundred times as much, too. You need to build small before you can build big.
Also need to build factories for these like they planned for SMR reactors. Mass produce and ship them out for installation.
The dream would be to build them out of the material that they absorb.
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
As another yardstick, it will cost about 2x the annual world GDP to mitigate all emissions this way. With normal amortisation rates and operating costs, it will be about 1.5x-2x more than entire energy expenditure worldwide. I wonder if this is simply a scheme to siphon public money. What a good catch for Fox News! Of course, if $100 per ton ever becomes a reality, then it's just 3% of world GDP and is probably affor…
If we have additional costs in the economy that just means GDP increases by that amount. You could also phrase this as 'global GDP would triple from this initiative'. GDP is a silly measurement.
It's the CO2 equivalent of the two economists eat shit joke.
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
As another yardstick, it will cost about 2x the annual world GDP to mitigate all emissions this way. With normal amortisation rates and operating costs, it will be about 1.5x-2x more than entire energy expenditure worldwide. I wonder if this is simply a scheme to siphon public money. What a good catch for Fox News! Of course, if $100 per ton ever becomes a reality, then it's just 3% of world GDP and is probably affor…
> As another yardstick, it will cost about 2x the annual world GDP to mitigate all emissions this way. How did you calculate the cost for this number? Is that supposed to be annual operating cost? > it will be about 1.5x-2x more than entire energy expenditure worldwide We could use non-carbon sources to triple energy production if we really wanted to.
>How did you calculate the cost for this number?
$53M for 1K tons of capacity vs 37B tons annual mitigation needs, assuming 20 years amortisation, and purchase price being about half of the total lifetime costs including financing, which is typical for renewable energy systems, resulting in ~$200T a year vs $165T world GDP, so yes, oops, 1.2x world GDP :) which is still kinda too costly :D
>We could use non-carbon sources to triple energy production if we really wanted to.
exactly my point.
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#18https://archive.is/bl4XZ It's too bad these DAC systems don't take it a step further kicking the o2 back into the atmosphere while turning the carbon into something physical and industrially valuable like say spools of carbon fiber fabric or graphene/carbon nanotubes.
Oxygen really likes being connected carbon so spitting it off takes a lot of energy. All the things you mentioned burn in oxygen for exactly that reason. Making them requires at least as much energy as you’d get back by burning them so is hard to justify right now when instead you could make it directly from the carbon in things like fossil fuels and not have to spend all the energy to spit oxygen off first
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#19"The plant is capable of removing 1,000 tons of CO2 a year" So about equivalent to 100 hectares of forest? Anyway, cool, another 50 million more of these facilities and we'll be at break-even.
As another yardstick, it will cost about 2x the annual world GDP to mitigate all emissions this way. With normal amortisation rates and operating costs, it will be about 1.5x-2x more than entire energy expenditure worldwide. I wonder if this is simply a scheme to siphon public money. What a good catch for Fox News! Of course, if $100 per ton ever becomes a reality, then it's just 3% of world GDP and is probably affor…
And how much co2 is emitted while building these structures vs planting trees?
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#20[dead]