Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DonManuel t1_j56m5o0 wrote

When we emit 40 billion tonnes a year, 2 billion tonnes are just greenwashing. We have to invest all we can spare on avoiding carbon emissions, the rest we can manage by improving photosynthesis, like planting trees etc.

21

Surur t1_j56s4sd wrote

When I see numbers within one order of magnitude I naturally ask - "So we just need to scale this up 20 times to solve the problem"?

22

94746382926 t1_j576pz7 wrote

Yeah I'm wondering if this number includes carbon capture at the source (refineries) because this number is way higher than I was expecting. One order of magnitude isn't a technology issue it's a funding issue.

16

civilrunner t1_j58l2qf wrote

Reading the article it includes everything even trees and all of nature.

5

civilrunner t1_j58kd14 wrote

Pretty confident these numbers are wrong.

https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage

We're currently capturing about 45 megatons annually.

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/co2-emissions

Meanwhile globally we emit 31.5 gigatons or 31,500 megatons.

That means we need to scale up 700X to capture it all. We also want to scale up beyond that to become net negative as well to reverse climate change even.

This sounds like a lot, but most plants today are experimental development plants so we haven't really begun scaling it. For comparison in the USA alone we have almost 12,000 grid scale power plants, so scaling to 10s of thousands of carbon capture plants which is what it would take to reverse climate change isn't actually that infeasible at all. There's currently a ton of money flowing into developing carbon capture.

Obviously reducing emissions will also go a long way, but we do need to go carbon negative to reverse damage.

Most importantly trees release carbon when they decompose so we really have to bury it underground, which means we need to pay people to do that. Trees alone are not a solution to climate change unless you plan on burying the tree deep underground to capture its carbon.

Edit: I see from reading the article it's referring to all capture methods including all trees, land management, etc... Things that don't easily scale sadly. Meanwhile new technology (carbon capture facilities) only accounts for 0.1% of that.

13

ItilityMSP t1_j5aan1w wrote

Turning trees into structured lumber (clt) can solve this problem. Each of the building listed here saved over 1400 tonnes of carbon vs buildimg with just steel and concrete… Clt structures can last a 1000 years if built and maintained properly.

https://constructionreviewonline.com/biggest-projects/top-5-tallest-timber-buildings-in-the-world/

6

civilrunner t1_j5ac6pk wrote

I agree 100% and am a huge advocate for heavy timber construction. It won't move the needle enough to not need direct air capture, but I 100% agree that we should do it.

We can also have part of the life time plan for said buildings be to bury the carbon at their end of life.

High rise heavy timber in my opinion is the most desirable building type out there. It has the added benefit of increased density housing for that carbon emissions reduction as well.

3

seedanrun t1_j59b947 wrote

>About 0.1% of carbon removal — around 2.3 million tonnes per year — is performed by new technologies.

So 99.9% of that 2 Billion tons is just nature doing it's thing (like forests growing).

We would need to ramp up our technological carbon capture 100,000% to cancel production.

Burning one ton of coal produces a bit over two tons of CO2 (because oxygen is heavier than carbon). Whole sale coal costs about $50 a ton. Current carbon capture is about $600 per ton. So currently we would be spending $1,200 to capture coal that cost $50 to burn.

Prevention of coal use is definitely the smart investment currently.

Still worth researching capture, but we need new creative techniques that can increase cost effectiveness about 100 times before they will start having any real life application.

4

PartyYogurtcloset267 t1_j5jyb3x wrote

> So currently we would be spending $1,200 to capture coal that cost $50 to burn.

The way I see it is that this means coal should cost $1,250 per ton. As a society, we're just paying $50 in cash and putting the rest on our credit card. It's time that we wake up and start scaling back because our lifestyle is just unsustainable.

1

seedanrun t1_j5kjfpk wrote

Exactly! We can probably fund coal PREVETION for around $25 per ton (ie spend 50% more to use an alternate power source).

The numbers just don't support carbon capture - though I am not against spending on more carbon capture research to keep looking for a 100x more efficient method.

2

PartyYogurtcloset267 t1_j5kt2pl wrote

>The numbers just don't support carbon capture

But caputalism does. Imagine how much money these companies can make out of government subsidies. It's awesome if you're an investor.

1