Slashdot Mirror
Sucking CO2 From Air Is Cheaper Than Scientists Thought (technologyreview.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: While avoiding the worst dangers of climate change will likely require sucking carbon dioxide out of the sky, prominent scientists have long dismissed such technologies as far too expensive. But a detailed new analysis published today in the journal Joule finds that direct air capture may be practical after all. The study concludes it would cost between $94 and $232 per ton of captured carbon dioxide, if existing technologies were implemented on a commercial scale. One earlier estimate, published in Proceedings of the National Academies, put that figure at more than $1,000 (though the calculations were made on what's known as an avoided-cost basis, which would add about 10 percent to the new study's figures). Crucially, the lowest-cost design, optimized to produce and sell alternative fuels made from the captured carbon dioxide, could already be profitable with existing public policies in certain markets. The higher cost estimates are for plants that would deliver compressed carbon dioxide for permanent underground storage. David Keith, a Harvard physics professor and lead author of the paper, is also the founder of Carbon Engineering, "a Calgary-based startup that has spent the last nine years designing, refining, and testing a direct air capture pilot plant in Squamish, B.C.," reports MIT. "Carbon Engineering plans to combine the carbon captured at its plants with hydrogen to produce carbon-neutral synthetic fuels, a process the pilot facility has already been performing." The company has secured $30 million, but is seeking additional funds to build a larger facility that will begin selling fuels. CNBC notes that Carbon Engineering is owned by several private investors, including Bill Gates.
we should begin taxing corporations
Using 'corporations' is a weasel word. Let's be honest, and say that we need to tax people for buying products that release CO2 in the atmosphere. Charging $100-$200 for a ton of CO2 would double the price of gasoline, for instance.
we should begin taxing corporations and products that release CO2 in the atmosphere.
The main source of CO2 is not "corporations", but personal transportation and residential power. It is YOU, not "them".
I hear this all the time, "We can't use nuclear power, it's too expensive." What of solar power? What do people have to say about that? "We have to subsidize solar power so we can develop the technology and make it cheaper than coal." Okay then, why not subsidize nuclear power so we can develop the technology until it is cheaper than coal?
Did you miss the part where nuclear reached 100 GW of installed capacity in 1970s and where solar reached the same in the 2010s? Nuclear had a forty year headstart - and forty more years of subsidies of course. "Why not subsidize nuclear power so we can develop the technology until it is cheaper than coal?" Well, what the hell were they doing those forty years? Apparently they should have already reached that point by now. Oh, but they didn't. Are you going to give them forty more years?
Nuclear power isn't even asking for subsidies anymore, they are merely asking permission to build.
Heh. "Hinkley Point subsidy bill quadruples as power price forecasts fall". Yeah, not really asking for subsidies at all...
Ezekiel 23:20
really? REALLY?
So, perhaps you would like to tell us about these solar panels that produce enough power to power 2 cars.
Imagine if you will a standard Tesla 85kWh battery.
Charging it at (lets be reasonably generous) 80% total system efficiency (by the time you collect, store (car is not always home) convert voltages, and charge cells.
so, we need around 106 kWh, lets just call it 100kWh to be nice.
but you said 2 cars, s 200kWh for a charge up.
now, that will give you a fair bit of range, lets say you need a full charge each week.
so 200kWh/7, 28kWh a day needs to be produced (rounding to be nice again)
even with tracked arrays, you can collect for a maximum of around 8 hours a day with any efficiency, so you will need 3.5Kw of solar source over your 8 hours.
Doesnt sound too bad does it? not figure in practical Solar load factor, around 20%, so you need 17.5 Kw of solar cells.
At $4/W install cost thats quite a nice $70k solar setup you must have (ignoring trackers to get even close to this efficiency)
Assuming you also want to power your home, I figure you must have dropped well over $100k on it.
Mind you, as you obviously have a lot of spare area, I assume you can afford it - must be nice to lord it over the people in the real world.
Quite lucky those solar panels had zero carbon footprint, and didnt cause any other nasty pollution issues (heavy metals) in their production, shipping, and installation.
The link for CO2 emissions by fuel source didn't come through in that post.
even with tracked arrays, you can collect for a maximum of around 8 hours a day with any efficiency, so you will need 3.5Kw of solar source over your 8 hours. Doesnt sound too bad does it? not figure in practical Solar load factor, around 20%, so you need 17.5 Kw of solar cells.
That's double accounting. The capacity factor already includes the fact that you don't have 24h of maximum output. Your 17.5 kW array with a 0.2 capacity factor generates almost 600 kWh per week on average, which is the of triple your requirement - not surprisingly the factor of three you mistakenly added in "you can collect for a maximum of around 8 hours a day with any efficiency".
Ezekiel 23:20