[dead]
The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
51–60 of 111 posts
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 so…
> $53M for 1K tons of capacity Nothing says the company is spending all their money on this facility, and I massively doubt the second and third such facility would cost anywhere near the same amount. Also there's no need to finance, just cap annual builds at N/20 per year. > exactly my point. Huh? I thought you were arguing capture needs too much power, and what I was saying was that capture does not need too much p…
I suggest that capture is a bullshit idea and this company is a bullshit company. We don't need capture, we need carbon-free renewable electricity and stuff powered by that electricity and batteries to store it. That's all solved, scaled, and economics is there. Everything else is just a detestable way to siphon public money.
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#53When they say "commercial"... How does this thing make a profit? Carbon permits? Negative electricity costs? Or is it in fact some kind of non profit?
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#54When they say "commercial"... How does this thing make a profit? Carbon permits? Negative electricity costs? Or is it in fact some kind of non profit?
[deleted]
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#55Earlier 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…
People on this technology forum seem skeptical that technology can improve or get cheaper.
It's a defining feature of this place, no optimism is allowed. If it isn't perfect from the start, it can never be good enough.
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#56When they say "commercial"... How does this thing make a profit? Carbon permits? Negative electricity costs? Or is it in fact some kind of non profit?
It seems companies (eg Microsoft being the big customer in this example) pay to offset their carbon emissions so they can use that fact for marketing purposes.
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#57Did 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…
> So this 1000 metric ton CO2 DAC plant could offset the activities of 100-400 vehicles in a year
So it's basically useless? Just for show? Surely you could have done much more for the environment investing that money in a smarter way?
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> So this 1000 metric ton CO2 DAC plant could offset the activities of 100-400 vehicles in a year So it's basically useless? Just for show? Surely you could have done much more for the environment investing that money in a smarter way?
Or it's a stepping stone in design that shows a technology can function. Future designs could be more efficient.
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#59https://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.
This is off topic, but does anyone else always get an infinitely reloading captcha for archive[.]is links?
Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California
#60When they say "commercial"... How does this thing make a profit? Carbon permits? Negative electricity costs? Or is it in fact some kind of non profit?
It seems companies (eg Microsoft being the big customer in this example) pay to offset their carbon emissions so they can use that fact for marketing purposes.
Last I read about this topic, it was way more efficient to just buy better ovens for Ruanda and Nigeria [1] instead of trying to capture carbon.
Was there any recent technology advancement that changed this?
1: https://www.atmosfair.de/de/save80/ - just an example, there are many ways of reducing co2 emission.