What if carbon removal becomes the new Big Oil?(economist.com)
economist.com
What if carbon removal becomes the new Big Oil?
https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2020/07/04/what-if-carbon-removal-becomes-the-new-big-oil
319 comments
Carbon tax paired with a tax refund to every person would both save us from the worst consequences of global warming and stimulate the economy. It's hard to find a rational excuse for not doing it.
Planet Money did a great episode on this idea over 7 years ago: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/07/12/201502003/epis...
They did a followup 5 years later: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/07/18/630267782/epis...
It seems like there are too many entrenched players to make this a reality unfortunately.
Planet Money did a great episode on this idea over 7 years ago: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/07/12/201502003/epis...
They did a followup 5 years later: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/07/18/630267782/epis...
It seems like there are too many entrenched players to make this a reality unfortunately.
I don’t think there is a single viable climate model that doesn’t rely on massive carbon capture. Carbon capture is one of many things we will have to do to avoid mass extinction.
"What if carbon removal becomes the new Big Oil?"
What if rainbow-horned unicorns become the new automobiles?
What if my wife finally succeeds in inventing dehydrated water?
What if zero point energy becomes the new electricity?
What if ... meh.
Someone once pointed out that if you wait six months to read it, the Economist magazine reads like pure comedy.
But this ... this is just Kubler-Ross denial. Very sad.
What if rainbow-horned unicorns become the new automobiles?
What if my wife finally succeeds in inventing dehydrated water?
What if zero point energy becomes the new electricity?
What if ... meh.
Someone once pointed out that if you wait six months to read it, the Economist magazine reads like pure comedy.
But this ... this is just Kubler-Ross denial. Very sad.
I wonder if carbon capture actually makes sense, not from an economic perspective but from an energy perspective.
One way or another you're spending a lot of energy doing it. Using fossil fuel would not make sense as it would add to the problem you're trying to solve. Considering there's not enough renewable energy for all our current uses, wouldn't it be simpler to just reduce, and convert more things to renewable as they come available, which we'll need to do anyway?
Once we have a big surplus of renewable in the future we could look at this again.
It sounds to me like a pipe dream, a promise of a 'quick fix' for a problem that has no quick fixes.
And to be honest in order to actually reverse global warming and prevent some of the future effects we're already locked in to, we'll have to extract so much carbon that I don't see this happening in the next hundreds of years.
One way or another you're spending a lot of energy doing it. Using fossil fuel would not make sense as it would add to the problem you're trying to solve. Considering there's not enough renewable energy for all our current uses, wouldn't it be simpler to just reduce, and convert more things to renewable as they come available, which we'll need to do anyway?
Once we have a big surplus of renewable in the future we could look at this again.
It sounds to me like a pipe dream, a promise of a 'quick fix' for a problem that has no quick fixes.
And to be honest in order to actually reverse global warming and prevent some of the future effects we're already locked in to, we'll have to extract so much carbon that I don't see this happening in the next hundreds of years.
I've read three articles talking about it on HN, but the science and models especially are shacky at best. Great models that will probably never work as intended.
Oxydes are really, really stable, and CO2 is one. Destroying an oxyde will cost at least as much energy as creating one, but in reality it's about 3 time the expense for C02.
The chemical/mechanical solution i've seen on HN[0] with olivine and tidal energy is quite interesting (that how ocean keep themselves from turning too acidic with CO2 capture), but while i'm pretty sure the chemestry bit is true, their paper is not peer-reviewed and i'm a bit skeptic about how fast the carbon will be absorbed.
It feel like it's nearly as much a silver bullet as fusion and ambiant temperature supra-conductor. So not big oil.
[0]https://projectvesta.org/
Oxydes are really, really stable, and CO2 is one. Destroying an oxyde will cost at least as much energy as creating one, but in reality it's about 3 time the expense for C02.
The chemical/mechanical solution i've seen on HN[0] with olivine and tidal energy is quite interesting (that how ocean keep themselves from turning too acidic with CO2 capture), but while i'm pretty sure the chemestry bit is true, their paper is not peer-reviewed and i'm a bit skeptic about how fast the carbon will be absorbed.
It feel like it's nearly as much a silver bullet as fusion and ambiant temperature supra-conductor. So not big oil.
[0]https://projectvesta.org/
Back of the envelope calculation says that one gallon of gasoline makes 20 lbs of CO2 when burned. One hundred gallons of gas per ton of CO2. I have seen sequestration costs of $200-$500 a ton for current CO2 sequestration or conversion to fuel hydrocarbons. This would work out to a $2 to $5 dollar tax for gallon of gas. So this would take us to $4 to $7 per gallon gas to create a sustainable CO2/hydrocarbon economy. For a lot of people, this would be better than spending an extra $20K+ for an EV. Twenty thousand dollars buy a LOT of gas. Ten to 15 years worth for a typical computer driving 10k a year even with the added taxes. Plus, this might make some places like New York, more politically open to oil/gas pipelines and fracking etc to increase supplies because gas/oil would now be green.
I can't see how CCS (carbon capture and storage) can ever be viable economically. It's pure expense. Why would anyone agree to pay for it. And if we mandate it wouldn't it make fossil products way too expensive and therefore uncompetitive? They are already losing to renewables in some regions.
edit: I just don't see the logic in shitting around and then paying somebody to clean up the shit. It's much easier to just stop shitting.
edit: I just don't see the logic in shitting around and then paying somebody to clean up the shit. It's much easier to just stop shitting.
Anynindustrial process would have to compete with biological sequestration, with tropical, shallow seas (as with past petrogenisis), and forests being prime contenders.
The likelihood of industrial operations at this scale proving cost effective seems low.
The likelihood of industrial operations at this scale proving cost effective seems low.
Reforestation and preservation/restoration of natural environments, including the oceans, will accomplish the same results.
I wonder about future generations who will see their then-average temperatures as the new normal. There will be people complaining: “do you really want colder Winters?”
One thing that I think is overlooked in this thread (though I didn’t read it all) is that carbon capture/sequestration is not incompatible with burning fossil fuels. You get the energy by breaking bonds of (somewhat) complex hydrocarbons, but it takes less energy than is released to capture/sequester the resulting carbon (at least theoretically/for some methods). Therefore there is a possible future where energy could come from fossil fuels without CO2 release.
There are other reasons one may not want energy from fossil fuels, however.
There are other reasons one may not want energy from fossil fuels, however.
There's an interesting electrochemical hydrogen technology from Greg Rau and coworkers.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180625192825.h...
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0038955.html
As I understand it, it exploits the separation of acid and base in membrane electrolysis cells, and neutralizes the acid with various minerals. This ends up producing an output stream that can add CO2-absorbing capacity to the ocean. At the stated CO2 absorption capacity, producing the world's current H2 production using this would allow the oceans to absorb an addition 3 Gt of CO2 per year.
Rau has a company, Planetary Hydrogen, that looks like it's trying to commercialize this.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180625192825.h...
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0038955.html
As I understand it, it exploits the separation of acid and base in membrane electrolysis cells, and neutralizes the acid with various minerals. This ends up producing an output stream that can add CO2-absorbing capacity to the ocean. At the stated CO2 absorption capacity, producing the world's current H2 production using this would allow the oceans to absorb an addition 3 Gt of CO2 per year.
Rau has a company, Planetary Hydrogen, that looks like it's trying to commercialize this.
Archive link to bypass paywall: https://archive.is/buUjn
Sure. Similar to how so much of Tesla's revenue is in offset emissions. But unless you carbon tax everyone you're not going to b get it. And let's be honest: most middle and lower class Americans and Europeans are burning the planet alive.
Btw, it doesn't even cost that much. I'm under $1k a year in carbon offsets to be negative.
Btw, it doesn't even cost that much. I'm under $1k a year in carbon offsets to be negative.
[deleted]
Likely the greatest threat to our species is that the new big oil, is big oil.
As soon as we figure out how to make money or create value by removing carbon, then it will have a chance of actually becoming a business.
One funny thing could come out of this: too much of it could be removed.
Once a company is working on this they might accidentaly or through greed start to see "TOO MUCH CARBON" everywhere.
Once a company is working on this they might accidentaly or through greed start to see "TOO MUCH CARBON" everywhere.
make diamonds out of this carbon and maybe you got something that will take care of the problem forever
Non-paywall version: https://outline.com/FeJyEM
This is a good hypothetical.
This is a good hypothetical.
Mongstad! Mongstad! Mongstad!
Prediction: The will blacken the skies with nanoparticles to cool the Earth.
If it does, we’re screwed. Below 140ppm most life on Earth will die.
Is carbon removal even capable of making a dent? Is it even worth discussing? CO2 is a tiny component of air, meaning that we would have to move vast quantities air through some sort of a filter to get tiny amounts of carbon out (i.e. 1 million particles of air, to filter out 400 of CO2).
I also wish there was an easy way to buy and shut down oil producers. There are 8.3 million millionaires in the US, so they control 8.3T.
Chevron is worth 180B. If the millionaires banded together to control 50.1% of Chevron, they could oust the board, permanently destroy all of its oil production and distribution capabilities, and convert its oil fields into a permanently undrillable status.
Then, they could sell off the remaining assets (except the mineral rights), and only lose most of their money. Heck, the resulting shuttered corporation would probably be eligible for carbon credits.
Even better, instead of buying the oil reserves, they could buy out the corporations that own patents and factories for things like fracking equipment and critical car components.
Anti-trust would probably get in the way, but the global airbag industry has revenue in the single-digit billions. A band of 100,000 millionaires could easily acquire them all and charge $80,000 extra (per car) for bags headed to gas powered vehicles.
Chevron is worth 180B. If the millionaires banded together to control 50.1% of Chevron, they could oust the board, permanently destroy all of its oil production and distribution capabilities, and convert its oil fields into a permanently undrillable status.
Then, they could sell off the remaining assets (except the mineral rights), and only lose most of their money. Heck, the resulting shuttered corporation would probably be eligible for carbon credits.
Even better, instead of buying the oil reserves, they could buy out the corporations that own patents and factories for things like fracking equipment and critical car components.
Anti-trust would probably get in the way, but the global airbag industry has revenue in the single-digit billions. A band of 100,000 millionaires could easily acquire them all and charge $80,000 extra (per car) for bags headed to gas powered vehicles.
Deforestation rivals fossil fossil fuels for greenhouse gas emissions (up to 30% of anthropic emissions) yet it rarely gets talked about. Could it be because there is no money to be made in halting deforestation?
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/deforestation-and-greenhous... https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo671
On the fossil fuel side what we need is a large scale industrial use of CO2 that is not hopelessly energy inefficient. If such a breakthrough happens we could build gas turbine farms at gas fields and pipe the CO2 to industrial centers. Modern gas turbines are the most efficient form of electricity generation. The emissions consist almost entirely of H2O and CO2, some collateral NO2, and trace amounts of other stuff from combusted impurities.