Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OS6aDohpegavod4 t1_j5ylzfg wrote

I can't even imagine what a metric ton of carbon looks like, but it sounds huge. $39 to remove that seems like a steal. Why aren't we using this now?


tossme68 t1_j5yvzfv wrote

The average person in the US creates 16 tons of co2, so ~$625 a year or $52 a month. We pay more than that for our cell phones. Let's put this thing online and start embedding a $10 carbon capture tax in airfare and $5-10 for a license plate and a couple of pennies per gallon in gas. Even if that only pulls 25% of the co2 out of the air it's a great start. Hopefully the economy of scale would kick in and reduce costs and that would be even better.


56Bot t1_j5ztqh1 wrote

And here's the issue : instead of fixing the problem at its core (our dependence on combustible fuels), we're more focused on trying to patch the consequences.

Pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere is great, and I may even say necessary. But we ought to get out of creating CO2 in the first place.


tossme68 t1_j5zxqiz wrote

of course but burning stuff is not going to end anytime soon. So while we are waiting it might be a good idea to try to clean up the mess we're making.


56Bot t1_j60dj8t wrote

For me the ones paying for the cleanup should be the ones profiting from the pollution. And forcing them to pay for said cleanup without increasing their prices a single cent ofc.

This way, they'd try to get away from burning fuel, or at least to reduce it.


Red-Zeppelin t1_j60al4o wrote

We're already passed the point of no return. I understand what you're saying, this gives the fossil fuel cabal and excuse to keep destroying our home but we need things like this now to mitagate the devastating damage we've already done.


Picolete t1_j5yr84p wrote

Trees and algae are cheaper


Yoda-byte t1_j5yw27h wrote

What happens with trees when they are burned ? As far as I know they are releasing everything back into the environment.


Picolete t1_j5ywkgq wrote

Just dont burn them duh, also is not all fully released into the atmosphere, a large part becomes charcoal


Yoda-byte t1_j5ywygi wrote

Yes I don't disagree with you, just wondered if it would be a better solution long-term because you don't tell me to let it be instead you're trying to tell every person on earth to please let the trees grow


maldobar4711 t1_j5yz6s3 wrote

One Sqm of land is here 3Euro if forest...just buy 100sqm and plant 4 trees per year that are never cut


Yoda-byte t1_j5yztgy wrote

And then the world would be saved....right ?


maldobar4711 t1_j5z03n8 wrote

No but u have covered your CO2 Footprint


Yoda-byte t1_j5z15jx wrote

I don't know where you got your calculation from but at a first glance it seems that it would not even cover my footprint. I'm going with 10t on average per year for a person from my country

But I'm happy to learn


maldobar4711 t1_j5z1uqb wrote

So Yoda learn:

The first year, you have 100 Sqm..the second 50 years you have 5000 Sqm and you don't cut the trees...

At the point you die, you have recovered it all, if you take the allowed 3T CO2 per year.

And if you donate your trees to the CO2 protection area the next generation will be happy..


Yoda-byte t1_j5z3u1u wrote

Okay thank you But there are a few questions here remaining Is it permitted to just buy Forrest and doing nothing with it in your country ? Because here you have strict obligation what you have to do when you are the owner of a Forest


maldobar4711 t1_j5z621o wrote

Troll - take my downvote on all your posts


Yoda-byte t1_j5z9jn2 wrote

yo What M8 ?!

that was a legit question I support your view overall just beeing a bit sceptical if it is releastic but do what you want Have a nice day


Chagrinnish t1_j60jyfh wrote

The article has a numbers problem. It's "$39" to capture a ton of CO2 in the solvent but they don't explain how they extract it. They describe converting it to methanol, but if you're creating an equivalent ton of methanol then that's worth about $7,500 given that 2 lbs (1 gallon) of methanol costs about $15. They also need to get a bunch of hydrogen atoms from somewhere for that conversion (CH3OH) which is not explained.

So we gotta ignore the methanol thing and assume they're just extracting pure CO2 from the solvent. But how? If they're pulling it out as a gas then they'd be better off just using a vacuum to suck on the power plant's exhaust. And if the CO2 is somehow being extracted as a liquid then that's an incredibly exothermic reaction and the article is really burying the lede. Either way, all we have left is a bunch of CO2 with no explanation as to what we're supposed to do with it.