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

The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 111 posts

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#31

Post by euroderf »

undersuit wrote: post #27
CyanLite4 wrote: post #9

Did it cost more in carbon just for the construction workers to drive their pickup trucks to build this plant than what the plant will actually remove?

I'd like to know this too, the article only let me read two paragraphs. I found a NASA stat that an US average car will emit a metric ton of CO2 in 3 months of use. "The U.S. EPA has found that a typical 22 MPG gas-based car emits about 5 tons of carbon dioxide per year. On average, you emit one ton of CO2 for about every 2,500 miles you drive". CarbonCure(the partner of Heirloom here) agrees with me on the math: "Ca…

Indeed, automation is not just about eliminating the payment of wages, it's also about removing the need to burn dinosaurs shuttling hoominz around.

How 'bout if workers at carbon capture facilities are prohibited from driving fossil-fueled cars to work. Maybe they could get e-bikes as a job perk ? It would be on-brand.

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#32

Post by s1artibartfast »

dottjt wrote: post #29
cglan wrote: post #24

How on earth is this ever going to be economically feasible. Wouldn’t it be more economically viable to literally just bury paper in the ground, or like simply not use the carbon in the first place?

How on earth could you possibly make an economic argument on the future viability of our species on this planet? It's because of economics we're in this mess in the first place.

That's silly. That's like condemning logic or mathematics.

If you want future viability, you can ask if there is a cheap way or an expensive way to get what you want. That's economics. It says nothing about what your goal is.

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#33

Post by Dylan16807 »

dottjt wrote: post #29
cglan wrote: post #24

How on earth is this ever going to be economically feasible. Wouldn’t it be more economically viable to literally just bury paper in the ground, or like simply not use the carbon in the first place?

How on earth could you possibly make an economic argument on the future viability of our species on this planet? It's because of economics we're in this mess in the first place.

Huh? Even with extremely important life-saving goals, you still want to use a cost-effective method to get there.

Also if it was actually expensive enough, we'd simply be doomed. Economics can't be ignored. They're a proxy for how much we can accomplish.

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#34

Post by arnvald »

cglan wrote: post #24

How on earth is this ever going to be economically feasible. Wouldn’t it be more economically viable to literally just bury paper in the ground, or like simply not use the carbon in the first place?

This is a first of its kind, I'm sure over time they'll become more efficient.

But yes, probably not using carbon would be better, so maybe if we have proper capabilities and laws in place, companies might be forced to remove all the carbon they release - that will either make them pay for such service or push towards reducing carbon as much as possible

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#35

Post by dottjt »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #32
dottjt wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How on earth could you possibly make an economic argument on the future viability of our species on this planet? It's because of economics we're in this mess in the first place.

That's silly. That's like condemning logic or mathematics. If you want future viability, you can ask if there is a cheap way or an expensive way to get what you want. That's economics. It says nothing about what your goal is.

You're forgetting a key factor though: politics.

What you're arguing is a rational idea of economics that doesn't exist. Instead, we have this bastard version influenced by politics, which in practice, cares nothing of the key objectives which concern future viability.

Instead, we get this thing that demands infinite growth and consumption. That's modern economics and it's destroying us.

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#36

Post by ISL »

cglan wrote: post #24

How on earth is this ever going to be economically feasible. Wouldn’t it be more economically viable to literally just bury paper in the ground, or like simply not use the carbon in the first place?

The last one, not burning it in the first place, is the thermodynamically-easiest thing to do.

However, there's already a lot of CO2 in the air, and we'll be wise to pull that out, too, so the impacts of warming are blunted.

Part of the way people will begin to vote for carbon-usage restrictions is when they begin to discover exactly how expensive it will be to remove from the air. The big catalyst, of course, is when they begin to personally feel acute effects of climate-change.

This [1] was my catalytic moment. Everyone's will be different, but we're each going to have one or more experiences that change our view on fossil fuels.

[1]: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cw09t0gPAwm/

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#38

Post by s1artibartfast »

depereo wrote: post #13
anovikov wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

Alternatively, everybody might starve to death because there are real physical bottlenecks on GDP.

It doesn't matter how much money you print, someone can't be in two places at once, growing food and working in the carbon capture factory

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#39

Post by LispSporks22 »

cglan wrote: post #24

How on earth is this ever going to be economically feasible. Wouldn’t it be more economically viable to literally just bury paper in the ground, or like simply not use the carbon in the first place?

Well, I think they'll move the whole thing to a nearby coal or gas power station and fit over the chimney stack. After all, that's where the CO2 is concentrated. It wouldn't make sense to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere as a trace molecule at 430 PPM - that would be stupid. Hopefully they plan to miniaturize the technology and fit it over transportation exhausts and wherever else we're dumping out CO2 in high concentrations.

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#40

Post by dottjt »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #33
dottjt wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How on earth could you possibly make an economic argument on the future viability of our species on this planet? It's because of economics we're in this mess in the first place.

Huh? Even with extremely important life-saving goals, you still want to use a cost-effective method to get there. Also if it was actually expensive enough, we'd simply be doomed. Economics can't be ignored. They're a proxy for how much we can accomplish.

I agree in principle, but my question to you, is how do we make something economic i.e. CO2 pollution, which in principle provides no value?

The same goes for fossil fuel consumption. There's nothing economic about not using fossil fuels.

Understandably it's a compromise, but the first reaction shouldn't be "it costs too much, so don't do it". This attitude is the reason why nothing ends up getting done. I would much rather an uneconomic solution, than no solution at all, which seemingly is the status quo.

Post reply on HN