None. They are called trees. We should stop wrecking things.
To be fair trees still use energy for doing this, but that energy is conveniently provided by the sun.
If humans could make a profit off of killing the sun, they would.
“Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun.” - Mr. Burns
Algae does it for free all the time. Physically trying to capture carbon dioxide is dumbassery. We need more investment in algae production.
Algae doesn’t capture it for long. Trees do it for longer but not long enough to be more then a speed bump. Unless we start dumping algae and trees into giant pits and sealing them up three is no long term carbon capture.
Biochar (created in a retort) is how you sustainably sequester carbon for the long-term using trees (and similar biomass).
Algae doesn’t capture it for long.
Not true, it depends on how it’s contained. Drying algae and removing the water will stop it from decomposing. Think of seaweed used for sushi except ground up into a very dense powder. Algae will decompose if left hydrated in the sun though.
Where you getting the energy to capture and dry algae that results in a total positive capture?
Solar, wind, nuclear, green hydrogen, hydro, geothermal.
deleted by creator
Techbros were pitching how we’d invent self replicating carbon capture nano machines in the future
That’s so annoying about motorsports in recent years. Commentators are tasked by the race series owners to hype up that BS. Researching the technology is fine. Scientists may find ways to capture carbon at a better rate at acceptable energy cost but shouting that an inefficient combustion engine is somehow better for the environment than EV because “batteries bad, carbon capture great” is just stupid.
TL;DR: the total energy produced by humanity in a year.
Or if you want to do it in let’s say 20 years, 5% of the total power output.
That doesn’t sound too bad.
Technically yes, but politicians start freaking out as it would lower GDP a few percent too.
I think the technical term is: But muh ecomnomie!
They’re going to say that anyway when the real cost of warming hits. Calculation about that says GDP -30% to -50%. But that’s for the next legislature I guess.
Yes, for politicians the cost is always lower to kick the can into the next administration’s term. Unfortunately it becomes more and more expensive for the rest of us.
In the end, they’ll have kicked so many cans down the road that the huge pile is blocking the way.
It’s way less than that. 2.39x10^20 is around 4% of 5.8x10^21. Not even close to “almost as much”. Looks like the authors don’t know their powers of 10. So if we dedicate 5% of the total energy for one year it could theoretically be done.
Assuming a 100% efficient CO2 capture system…
Here’s an actual carbon capture system, I have mo idea how efficient or practical it is.
Carbon capture makes much more sense directly on smokestacks and other industry waste outputs, but then how do businesses make taxpayers fund it?
Idk, I just feel like it’s 1. A cop out. We need to reduce emissions and not put our eggs in one basket. And 2. In its infancy. The tech isn’t efficient enough yet to be rolled out imo
I think we should pursue it for the future, but it shouldn’t be taking funding that could be used for more immediate solutions or used as a distraction / delay tactic (although of course it will).
I disagree. I think we should:
- Pilot it to prove the cost
- Charge a carbon tax based loosely on that number and (high) estimates for the amount of carbon emitted
- Return the carbon tax to the public as a credit
This keeps the tax revenue neutral (i.e. theoretically no hit to GDP) while encouraging companies to find cheaper ways to reduce carbon emissions or capture carbon to offset emissions.
If it’s ineffective at reducing emissions, then start spending a portion of it to remove carbon.
Preventing additional carbon emissions doesn’t decrease what’s already in the atmosphere. We would need some form of carbon capture even if we stopped all emissions today.
It depends on the method. IIRC, the most cost effective methods cost more than leaving it there. The real problem really is figuring out how to make a profit off it. Without the government forcing it subsidizing it, nobody will do it, even sustainably, in volume enough to matter.
That’s what the article theoretically exemplifies, avoiding emission in the first place is the best bet.
Targeting the preindustrial level of atmospheric CO2 is such an ambitious target, trying to undo 300 years of emissions. Then again, it’s not like we’ve stopped emitting.
If we instead try to calculate the energy requirements to simply offset the average emissions of that particular year, using this formula of 652 kJ/kg CO2, and average annual CO2 emissions, against the current numbers of about 37 billion tonnes, or 37,000,000,000,000 kg, we have 2.4 x 10^16 kJ, or 2.4 x 10^19 joules. Which converts to 6.7 x 10^12 kWh, or 6,700 TWh.
Total annual US electricity generation is about 4700 TWh per year.
Global electricity generation is about 25000 TWh per year, about 40% of which is from low or zero carbon sources.
So basically if we’ve got 6700 TWh of clean energy to spare, it would be more effective to steer that into replacing fossil fuels first, and then once we hit a point of diminishing returns there, explore the much less efficient options of direct capture for excess energy we can’t store or transport. Maybe we’ll get there in a decade or two, but for now it doesn’t make any sense.
Actually a thorough article from Wired. Oh…written by an Associate Professor, that’s why.
Casey Handmer seems to think there’s still an opportunity here. There are updated versions of that post, but I think this was his first on the topic.
