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

U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 347 posts

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#241

Post by PeterisP »

aunty_helen wrote: post #233
PeterisP wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can measure the total amount, but it's rapidly mixing and moving so we can't reliably allocate the CO2 production to states from space measurements, no. Furthermore, countries only are liable for the commitments to which they voluntarily agree in international treaties or get forced to agree with credible threats of excessive violence. As all the climate talks have clearly shown, no one is going to sign a treaty w…

>4 km2 (1.5 sq mi) or smaller, 3 times per second. Looks like there's accuracy enough to be able to model this. OCO-3 is apparently observing city level CO2 levels. And the data is available (thanks NASA): https://oco2.gesdisc.eosdis.nasa.gov/data/OCO3_DATA/OCO3_L1B... As for the human aspect, I think holding carbon trading countries to account when there's been a treaty signed and a financial incentive to do so isn'…

Okay, I'm surprised by this capacity and it looks really nice - it does not measure emissions, though, but at that resolution perhaps can be used to get a reasonable estimate of them.

However, I don't consider is plausible that major carbon-emitting countries will simply agree to sign a treaty in which they will owe a lot of money to others. Currently there have been only some proposals where there would be a financial incentive to trade increases or decreases in the emissions, or to implement financial incentives within a nation or region, where any penalties get paid back to your own budget/economy, and not to third world countries, and even those tend to have a hard time passing.

I simply don't consider it plausible that the nations will agree to any major wealth redistribution at a meaningful scale - they can agree to win-win solutions when getting some reasonable benefit or political consideration in return; they can agree to solutions where your problems get fixed and our balance is roughly neutral; they can agree to some charity/support in certain cases (which usually do come with some strings attached) in a limited amount, but not a wealth distribution so large that their own citizens would feel it in their wallets.

I also do not think that this will change as the world gets a bit more desperate - there is little overlap between the people and regions who will be the first to get desperate and motivated and the people whom you would want to convince to agree to pay.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#242

Post by HPsquared »

guiriduro wrote: post #238
DennisP wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that (a) you're just pulling it from the atmosphere and burying it, not splitting the C from O2 so you can use it as fuel again, and (b) there are applications like long-haul jets and cement production where eliminating emissions isn't that easy. To put some numbers on (a), David MacKay's book has some numbers[1]: > The laws of physics say that the energy required must be at least 0.2 kWh per kg of CO2..…

> there are applications like long-haul jets and cement production where eliminating emissions isn't that easy. I disagree, there's an easy solution to eliminating those emissions: have zero long-haul jets and zero cement production. Before this gets (inevitably) downvoted, the more interesting question is why do we need either, what alternatives are there, how fundamentally we're willing to question our biases and e…

It's not actually easy to ban long-haul travel. It's technologically simple, which is probably the angle you are looking from, but politically very difficult.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#243

Post by lg »

orf wrote: post #227
missedthecue wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tax on the O&G industry is a tax on consumers. Demand for energy is largely inelastic, so costs are easy to pass on. Gas prices at only $3.50 are already sending Joe Biden's approval ratings through the floor. Sending gas prices past $5 or more means a reactionary panel of candidates get elected next cycle, which is counter-productive.

I always forget US gas prices are dollars per gallon . According to Google prices are currently less than a dollar a litre , in Europe the median seems to be about 1.8 dollars per litre (4.5 litres in a gallon). In the UK it is about 7.5 dollars per gallon. The USA seems addicted to cheap fuel. That addiction needs to end sometime, and if you collectively cry about prices raising to less than the levels the rest of t…

Consider the american built environment since WW2, gas at 7.50/gal would simply make many people’s daily lives unaffordable, and the most impacted people have the largest clout politically due to the rural bias at every level of our government. We would happily commit climate suicide first.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#244

Post by HPsquared »

ericd wrote: post #226
HPsquared wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically in such a heat wave, lots of people would likely take shelter in their air conditioned cars.

A lot of the people in a lot of the places likely to have those don’t have cars with AC.

Either way the actions people will take for adaptation/mitigation are often at odds with the "prevention" path. Similarly, building flood defences would be expected to require a lot of steel and concrete, which are energy and carbon intensive. I suppose people in more marginal circumstances will need to make some tough decisions.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#245

Post by m3at »

Carbon capture certainly has some appeal, though it seems far from clearly being a net positive yet.

Notably questionable IMO is the sequestration when used to simply pump more oil, so taxes end up subsidizing fuel extraction. Oil giants are some of the biggest DAC investors, along with airlines [1][2].

[1] https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2021/03/the-direct-air-...

[2] https://www.wired.com/story/is-it-time-for-an-emergency-roll...

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#246

Post by DanHulton »

dane-pgp wrote: post #2

> The Department of Energy's Carbon Negative Earthshot seeks to slash the cost of carbon removal to $100 a tonne by the end of the decade At 40 gigatonnes a year, that would be $4 trillion, which is about 5% of Gross World Product.[0] It's probably still cheaper to avoid emitting the CO2 in the first place, but that does put an upper bound on the cost of reaching net zero. Of course, no one wants to take a voluntary…

Can you imagine only needing to take a 5% pay cut and just _solving_ global warming? I'd sign up in a heartbeat.

We're all going to end up paying a lot more than 5%, some of us a _lot more._

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#247

Post by tsol »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #189
tsol wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there is nothing at all stopping you from paying people in Africa or South America to buy electric cars I can think of tons of problems with this. It requires more scarce than resources like lithium to make cars. You can be scammed by people selling the car and using that money to buy a house and a cheap commission engine. You don't have the issue with carbon capture. Your likely to face much more political pushback…

> It requires more scarce than resources like lithium to make cars. What do you think it takes to capture carbon? > You can be scammed by people selling the car and using that money to buy a house and a cheap commission engine. How is that a profitable scam? Anybody else could buy the same car with the same subsidy. You can't resell it for more than you paid. > Your likely to face much more political pushback for sub…

>What do you think it takes to capture carbon?

I'm not familiar with how exactly carbon capture technology works to be honest, but I believe it involves taking advantage of chemistry to separate carbon from air. I don't see how lithium would factor into this as there isn't any absolute need for batteries, as there are with electric cars. Carbon capture at the point of production(ie in factories themselves) could be hooked up to the grid and still have a high rate of capture

>Solar panels and electric cars go together like hand and glove. The car doesn't care what part of the day you charge it, so you charge it when the sun is shining. And you don't need a functioning power grid to install cheap solar on your own house/business.

Enough to charge a car? That's not a simple setup, that takes a serious set up. That effectively increases the cost of running an electric car by a significant margin.

>The only reason to do this is if you've already done that. Otherwise it would make more sense to spend the money subsidizing replacement of fossil fuels in your own country first.

I don't disagree with that. It's the simplest way to start, and represents the most benefit for the taxpayers paying for it.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#248

Post by mcny »

scottcodie wrote: post #208
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A stationary algae bloom using otherwise unused sunlight can be a lot cheaper than trying to fly a heavy battery along with 300 passengers. The alternative isn't just trying to fit a heavy battery into a plane, it's to scoop the algae up and use it to make carbon-neutral biofuels to run the plane. > Earth is also full of natural alkaline minerals that can be used as cements or for soil enrichment while naturally ab…

It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants to take a hit on their economy to force the transition to happen.

» It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants to take a hit on their economy to force the transition to happen.

I am completely with you. We aren't even able/willing to remove all existing subsidies/tax breaks for coal. We know what we need to do. We can't wait for developing nations to freeze/starve to death before we cut subsidies on our own coal and gas industry.

Even people at Brookings (which I'd call right wing) can't support subsidies and tax breaks for coal and gas:

» To lead global subsidy reforms, the United States will have to strengthen these commitments by actively dismantling its own substantial production subsidies. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute reported that direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry totaled $20 billion per year, with 80% going toward oil and gas. In addition, from 2019 to 2023, tax subsidies are expected to reduce federal revenue by around $11.5 billion. Considering that production subsidies grew 28% between 2017 and 2019, the United States will be under a lot of scrutiny from other countries wanting to see evidence of reform before making their own commitments.

» This is a challenging task for the United States because production subsidies are embedded in the tax code and promote fossil fuels in a variety of ways. For example, producers can deduct a fixed percentage of gross revenue instead of their actual costs as capital expenses, deduct exploration and development costs, amortize geological and geophysical expenditures, and benefit from accelerated depreciation of natural gas infrastructure. Oil and gas companies are also permitted to use the Last In, First Out (LIFO) accounting method to sell their most recent and expensive reserves first, thereby reducing the value of their inventory. Other incentives include foreign tax credits and energy production credits.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-f...

If we can't even remove direct subsidies and tax breaks (including accounting hijinks) from our domestic coal and gas industry, what moral authority do we have to ask other (less affluent) countries to reduce their subsidies?

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#249

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

grayfaced wrote: post #76
mikesabbagh wrote: post #37

Maybe instead of paying 100$ for a ton of CO2 captured, add a CO2 tax of few $ to every ton released

If it costs $100 to remove, then that should set the price. If you can set a reasoned price on a externality then charging anything less is subsidizing the pollution.

Why not look at it as costing $10 of externalities plus $90 worth of steel bars that you’re preventing? That combination would make a $100 removal cost a good goal. Or at least something that includes both the positive (stuff is good, jobs are good) and negative externalities (carbon is bad).
Post reply on HN