41–50 of 111 posts
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?
No one is disputing this is obviously the best move. But telling humans not to consume stuff has a rather long and unsuccessful history. Let's not try to keep doing that.
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.
Perhaps it's become harder in our current society, but many great projects of man were economic folly.
To give one admittedly a little cliche example, landing on the moon never made any economic sense.
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…
People on this technology forum seem skeptical that technology can improve or get cheaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People on this technology forum are skeptical that an incredibly inefficient technology used to recover carbon from air is a better investment than using technology to emit less carbon in the first place.
Those seem like different goals. Don’t we need both?
How does carbon capture help? Wouldn't it need to be stored somewhere? What happens if the storage leaks? People say that trees is a bad solution because the carbon is still there. This is even worse than trees. Trees at least looks good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's an extremely sad point of view. Of course humans can accomplish things that are not economically viable. Perhaps it's become harder in our current society, but many great projects of man were economic folly. To give one admittedly a little cliche example, landing on the moon never made any economic sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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?
if carbon capture is undertaken seriously enough to just break even at current burn, the storage alone will be the largest industrial project in human history.
if we somehow stop burning carbon tomorrow we will still see catastrophic change as the carbon we've already emitted takes effect.
the beginning of any solution is to stop, but nobody can afford to stop.
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?
turning trees into paper is too slow. anything you can do with trees is too slow, actually. if carbon capture is undertaken seriously enough to just break even at current burn, the storage alone will be the largest industrial project in human history. if we somehow stop burning carbon tomorrow we will still see catastrophic change as the carbon we've already emitted takes effect. the beginning of any solution is to s…