Submitted by MotorDrive t3_115lnqg in technology
Comments
tinypolski t1_j951vx5 wrote
It really isn't funny. Almost no corporate sector actually incurs the expense of managing the damage that their "business" creates, environmental or otherwise. So some of the most damaging activities remain cheap because the true cost of them is transferred and/or deferred.
Odd_Ingenuity8163 t1_j96iizk wrote
Sorry funny was the wrong word. But I’m just desensitized to all this shit. If I can’t laugh about it I’ll cry 24/7
tinypolski t1_j994cq3 wrote
Sometimes I feel the same way, but unless we push back as hard as we can the situation won't be changing any time soon, unfortunately.
diamond t1_j97lasl wrote
It actually says countries won't charge that much tax - which may ultimately come down to the same thing, given problems with Regulatory Capture.
But regardless, there's the way we would like things to be, and the way things are. The way things are right now, it will be extraordinarily difficult to get a regulatory environment in place where the worst carbon emitters will pay what is necessary for DAC systems to work. Which sucks.
But if technologies like this can sidestep the problem entirely by simply making carbon capture more affordable, then that's an absolute win.
_Brandobaris_ t1_j9358t7 wrote
This makes sense. The density and concentration differences definitely push this as a great idea.
cuddly_carcass t1_j948y3x wrote
But what if the ocean like needs Carbon….like to form life. 🤷♀️ serious don’t know but I get worried about potential domino effect with stuff like this
_Brandobaris_ t1_j94f7mh wrote
Sure, the ocean absolutely needs the carbon. But I think the point of this is that the surface area of the ocean is so much larger than the rest of the surface area of the Earth and that the infusion of CO2 into the ocean is so significant that pulling it out of the ocean water is a lot easier than pulling it out of the air. The decarbonization of the air is done through a mass decarbonization of the water. Without a lot of understanding of the thermal dynamics of transport it’s very difficult to explain. I’m not trying to say that anyone who doesn’t understand is an idiot, it is just the opportunity of understanding.
This isn’t rocket science, it is so much fucking more difficult.
Edit grammar and clarity. And to be sure I’m not trying to shit on anyone.
Agreeable-Meat1 t1_j9527ar wrote
>The decarbonization of the air is done through a mass decarbonization of the water.
But how? Does the ocean itself absorb carbon? And if so, does it have a natural resting point with an osmosis like process that will draw in more carbon naturally if we lower the available.levels?
Gumbercleus t1_j952qwu wrote
The ocean does absorb carbon, and in doing so becomes more acidic. This is (part of) the process currently killing/bleaching coral reefs.
Nick-Uuu t1_j9672wa wrote
Yes it reaches an equilibrium with the atmosphere, same way a sodastream works
Cum_on_doorknob t1_j96twqw wrote
People have answered, but just for some more points. Our blood is a salt solution, the ph is regulated by CO2. Your brain will set your respiratory rate to determine how much CO2 you will expel or retain in your body to keep its acid base balance.
Ocean acidity is a huge problem since we’ve started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, possibly could be more damaging than the temperature increases.
MotorDrive OP t1_j94fanu wrote
There is already so much carbon in the ocean right now, as a result of human emissions (oceans help absorb co2 from the air) that they are too acidic
Joe_Doblow t1_j94iy14 wrote
Could we make diamonds from this carbon?
skolioban t1_j94meey wrote
Probably, but the cost of making it won't cover the price of the diamond. Also, diamond price is artificially inflated from monopolies.
Andybaby1 t1_j94g45e wrote
A majority of the carbon released from fossil fuels ends up in the ocean. Only a very small percentage stays in the atmosphere.
Don't worry. Scientists have thought about this. If you want to know more take an oceans and environmental science course. Though to really understand it would take more than just one course. The interactions been air and ocean is extremely complex and happens on time scales from seconds to thousands of years. But the shoet of it when it comes to carbon in the ocean, carbon is not the limiting nutrient. It's usually micro nutrients like iron, nitrogen, or phosphorus. Carbon doesn't even hit the top 5 limiting nutrients in most systems.
This headline has been known by scientists for at least 50 years probably more than 100.
TheRetenor t1_j952r34 wrote
Life also needs carbon in the air. It's just that there's a bit too much of it in it, for both cases.
burnt-out-b t1_j92mua1 wrote
They say "0.77 mWh per ton"... Is this a typo? I'm reading this as milliwatt hours per ton, which seems too good to be true. Though megawatt hours per ton seems too high to be viable...
JesusIsMyLord666 t1_j92yeq7 wrote
0,77MWh is not bad at all. That's like charging an electric car about 7-8 times or less than the monthly power usage of an average household.
A typical older nuclear reactors produce about 800MW. Which is 1000ton/h or 8,8 million a year. 5 reactors would be enough to almost completely offset a country like Sweden.
Almost sounds too good to be true imo.
chris_p_bacon1 t1_j94xonh wrote
You still have to store it somewhere.
E_Snap t1_j95bawr wrote
Make limestone
Jeffy29 t1_j95g98w wrote
We should find some really big canyon and dump it all there.
fractal_snow t1_j95vfsg wrote
What a grand idea!
musicantz t1_j976v1n wrote
Storage isn’t that big of an issue at the moment. We have plenty of reservoirs where we have/are pumping oil out
[deleted] t1_j93j27r wrote
[deleted]
scythefalcon t1_j973lhw wrote
So that's about .385 lbs of CO2 captured per kWh of electricity which is right about where the emissions from electricity generation are in the most efficient states. Using excess daytime solar generation, I can see states with zero emissions targets using this method as an offset for nighttime fossil fuel based generation.
JesusIsMyLord666 t1_j9a886s wrote
It's about 20g/kWh in Sweden. But the focus should be to phase out fossil fuels first. Once that is done we can start restoring our climate with co2 capture.
burnt-out-b t1_j92ncdc wrote
Okay. It is megawatt hours... Apparently, the theoretical maximum efficiency is around 0.2MWh per ton.
ukezi t1_j9580ud wrote
It's MWh. However in comparison, direct air capture is at about 1.2MWh/t.
djkuhl t1_j94xx8h wrote
taisui t1_j958hho wrote
and they are delicious!
Able-Tip240 t1_j96v7ce wrote
Kelp and long rooted grass have shown to be the 2 best carbon capture methods for like a decade. Everyone trying to just not do the most effective thing since it isn't super profitable.
[deleted] t1_j96s5dn wrote
[removed]
helloiamrobot t1_j9jcxqw wrote
kelp can't grow everywhere -- you need relatively clear, shallow water of appropriate temperatures. These can be complimentary things.
djkuhl t1_j9kp6al wrote
Over 40% of the world's kelp forests are gone because of fishing nets. It should be replanted.
mr_dumpster t1_j94j8vn wrote
Capture the carbon dioxide from sea water, mash it at high temperature and pressure back into useful hydrocarbon chains (using green energy), and continue using the worldwide liquid hydrocarbon logistics chain to supply the world with energy on a carbon neutral basis until they can stand up their own green infrastructure
Jeffy29 t1_j95gdrt wrote
fossil fuel
iskilikecatpoo t1_j95ugtq wrote
How about we don’t. Carbon needs to be sequestered permanently.
Ok_Marionberry_9932 t1_j93ir1k wrote
That’s fucking brilliant
b4ckl4nds t1_j92wldg wrote
Big, if true!
VELOCIRAPTOR_ANUS t1_j94rako wrote
True, if big!
jhansen858 t1_j94prij wrote
What if i told you there was already a machine that runs on solar, captures carbon with almost 0 cost and costs almost nothing to build. Its called a tree. Has anyone ever analyzed how much $ per ton of carbon capture this method would cost?
icbmike_for_realz t1_j94y2kr wrote
Trees take a while to mature and take up land area that can be used for agriculture or living.
Hell of a lot of sea out there
jhansen858 t1_j957wmy wrote
there is a lot of unused land with no trees on it. especially in the midwest.
try_cannibalism t1_j94w865 wrote
Planting them is less effective than just not cutting the existing ones, and likely not carbon neutral let-alone negative. So if you want to use trees, just convince everyone to stop cutting trees.
jhansen858 t1_j94wdbu wrote
do you have a source for this? seems hard to believe since it takes about 5 minutes to plant a tree.
try_cannibalism t1_j94wz9r wrote
Source: planting trees is my job.
- All but a tiny percentage of trees are planted for forestry. They're planted as a crop, to be harvested.
- The amount of F350 fuel and helicopter fuel to get me to work and back each day is not insignificant
- Even if 100% of the biomass of the trees, once cut, was used for wood products and never biodegrade, that's only just carbon neutral, if you pretend those helicopters and f350s and logging trucks don't exist.
- Forestry is incredibly wasteful, a large portion of biomass is cut and left to biodegrade or gets burned. Burning is better because it releases no methane which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas.
- Carbon is released from the soil when forests are cut, not just the tree. Not even sure if that gets replenished by a tree farm between cuts.
- Bonus: for a pro it's more like 6 seconds per tree all day long not 5 minutes, but that doesn't change the above
zosolm t1_j96mr18 wrote
Just to nitpick point 3; disregarding the helicopters and trucks, if the wood never biodegrades isn’t that permanent sequestration rather than just carbon neutral?
try_cannibalism t1_j9888kl wrote
If you're making new forests our of desert, it could be considered permanent sequestration if you assume none of the biomass will biodegrade, be burned, harvested, or otherwise released.
If you harvested 100% of the biomass and locked it away in a non-biodegradable product, like concrete.
But 99% of the time, you're only replanting the forest that was cut last year, most of the biomass is wasted, and all the products are either immediately consumable or eventually break down (how many wood buildings/furniture products even last 100 years these days?)
[deleted] t1_j96mprb wrote
[deleted]
BabylonDrifter t1_j94xu93 wrote
Cutting them down and allowing them to re-grow is actually a better way to sequester carbon.
INTERGALACTIC_CAGR t1_j94qow0 wrote
but they're such an eye sore! /s
BlueCoastDoge t1_j94w2fe wrote
Plant a shit ton of trees and close down the 28% of land mass dedicated to mass livestock production which feeds a very small portion of the human population.
radewagon t1_j93lbbu wrote
Okay, so what do we do with an excess of CO2 once it's captured? Seems like a half-measure.
Drekalo t1_j93ncov wrote
Make a LOT of very big diamonds.
sknnbones t1_j93ocsj wrote
https://www.c2es.org/content/carbon-capture/
> carbon dioxide has been used to extract additional oil from developed oil fields in the United States. U.S. companies are also investing in new technologies to re-use captured carbon emissions in innovative ways, including jet fuel and automobile seats. Spurred by the NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE, researchers are exploring even more uses, such as transforming carbon emissions into algae biofuels and building materials.
>The largest consumer is the fertilizer industry, where 130 Mt CO2 is used in urea manufacturing, followed by oil and gas, with a consumption of 70 to 80 Mt CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Other commercial applications include food and beverage production, metal fabrication, cooling, fire suppression and stimulating plant growth in greenhouses.
elaborating further on use as "building materials" (https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/05/29/co2-utilization-profits)
> CO2 gas can be turned into a solid aggregate for concrete; this can be done with only minimal external energy—which is one reason why CO2 use in concrete has the largest potential in the short term. CO2 can also be used to cure concrete. For this strategy, wet concrete is infused with CO2, which reacts with water and calcium to form solid calcium carbonates. This spontaneous chemical reaction, which also does not require much added energy, results in concrete that is four percent CO2. Incorporating CO2 into cement could sequester it for hundreds of years in buildings, sidewalks and walls.
also
> The carbon in CO2 enables the conversion of hydrogen into a fuel that is easier to handle and use, for example as an aviation fuel. CO2 can also replace fossil fuels as a raw material in chemicals and polymers. Less energy-intensive pathways include reacting CO2 with minerals or waste streams, such as iron slag, to form carbonates for building materials.
pseudocultist t1_j94dgs3 wrote
>carbon dioxide has been used to extract additional oil from developed oil fields in the United States.
Wait so the first example given is them turning captured carbon into more fossil fuel production? Is this akin to the "first high is free" from the drug dealer, trying to lure capitalists into carbon capture?
throwclose_mm t1_j94jg1d wrote
Yeah that made me do a double take
sknnbones t1_j94huhq wrote
tHiNk oF tHe MoNeY!
jawshoeaw t1_j94535o wrote
I’m thinking we pump it into the atmosphere where it can dissipate naturally. Wait ….
CharlieMurpheee t1_j94q43g wrote
Definitely being green that way. Let it go up to the sky and turn into stars
Cum_on_doorknob t1_j96uebj wrote
That doesn’t sound right, but I don’t know enough about stars to refute it.
catoodles9ii t1_j948xz8 wrote
Hope you like carbonated beverages cuz you’re about to get a shitload!
[deleted] t1_j94904j wrote
[removed]
kwereddit t1_j951ma7 wrote
​
let the plankton do it. All they need is some iron.
Cum_on_doorknob t1_j96uhvp wrote
I ain’t lettin the government take muh iron!
Neo1331 t1_j96ou9d wrote
So man made islands with carbon capture and hydrogen generation. Ships can fuel at the island and carbon capture can be run by hydrogen and then inject the carbon into the subsea rock bed. Amazing
Mistborn_First_Era t1_j97rkjk wrote
fishtank skimmer, but for the ocean. Too bad most sinks iirc. This will probably mess up the deep ocean where aquatic organisms feed on the carbons
TequilaCamper t1_j9qgchi wrote
Can we pick out all the plastic while we are doing it?
dpm59 t1_j94j50z wrote
Taking CO2 from the ocean will not have any significant impact on the % CO2 in the atmosphere at least not for a long long time.
zosolm t1_j96nbo2 wrote
Why do you think this
dpm59 t1_j9hx65f wrote
The CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule compared to the total CO2 in the oceans. So if you are taking CO2 from the oceans and believe that removing a tiny time percentage will some how magically lower atmospheric levels of CO2, I think you are wrong. Please keep in mind man’s scientific understanding of the total CO2 cycle is surprisingly poor. 95% of total CO2 released into the atmosphere is done naturally with the CO2 cycle. Please tell me who can accurately measure the natural sources of CO2 with a greater degree of certainty of +- 5%?
zosolm t1_j9j1ugh wrote
As atmospheric carbon concentrations rise, carbon dioxide begins to dissolve into seawater. The ocean currently soaks up some 30-40% of all humanity's annual carbon emissions, and maintains a constant free exchange with the air. Suck the carbon out of the seawater, and it'll suck more out of the air to re-balance the concentrations.
K30 is a CO2 sensor which has 3% error bars, NDIR is another which is accurate to 0.005%. What is it we don’t understand about the carbon cycle? I learned it in high school. What does it mean that 95% of CO2 is done naturally with the CO2 cycle?
Edit: i understand what you meant now about 95% of CO2 is done naturally; it’s that thing of 95% of atmospheric CO2 comes from natural sources. So while that’s true in a way, it misunderstands the nature of the carbon cycle; decomposing and composting organisms, fires and all kinds of other natural processes do release carbon, but it’s carbon that was captured from the atmosphere by the growth of those organisms in the first place so there’s no net increase of carbon in the system. They do cycle through a lot of carbon, but they also take a lot up too when stuff grows. As for volcanoes, human activity releases 60-100 times more carbon than volcanoes. One of the problems with coal and oil is that it’s not part of the carbon cycle until we burn it so it’s disrupting that system by adding more carbon into it. In order to mitigate that, we need technologies that can capture what we’ve put out otherwise we’ll have to deal with the impact of there being more carbon in the system now than before we got all the oil out
dpm59 t1_j9j65uj wrote
My comment about the lack of understanding of the carbon cycle refers more to the quantification of the natural sources of CO2 in the carbon cycle. The assumption is that before the Industrial age the cycle was in balance and man disrupted that. While this may indeed be true. ( but we have been warming since the last ice age) If the scientific community can not accurately quantify the natural release and absorption of CO2 it remains a hypothesis.
I have yet to find any accurate data on the natural sources with less than 5-10% accuracy. My personal opinion is that if more time was spent understanding the natural sources they also could be mitigated and possible more cost effectively.
Fundamentally I am against condemning man, which to be fair had made incredible progress lowering CO2 emissions on a productivity based over the past 100 years. Think about the progress moving from Wood to Coal to Oil to natural gas to nuclear, wind, solar, battery storage etc. Burning stuff enabled mankind, it is the differentiator between us and other living things. Without fire we wouldn’t excite today nor would any of our technology.
zosolm t1_j9jb4yu wrote
Sure, I basically agree that condemning is pointless and am not interested in condemning anyone. That’s not what climate science is about. I guess that’s maybe more what happens in the political spheres? Idk
Just regarding the 5-10% accuracy thing (and without meaning to nitpick, just explaining what assumption I’m making from what you said); I guess you meant more than 5-10% accuracy because if you’re yet to find data with less than 5-10% accuracy that means you’ve only found data that’s more accurate than that.
If you’ve not found data that’s more accurate than 5-10% you might want to check again. The CO2 analyzer that was installed at Mauna Loa (an active volcano) uses a technique called Cavity Ring-Down Spectroscopy (CRDS). (Prior to this, an analyzer was used based on infrared absorption). CDRS I think is about 99% accurate and infrared absorption I am not too certain of but I’m sure it’s more than 5-10%.
They measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It doesn’t really matter if it’s coming from humans or not (incidentally, some of it is, but that’s irrelevant). The point is that we know the effect of more CO2 in the system is that the planet warms, and having modelled that we understand that’s going to cause problems for us. There’s things we can do about it like carbon capture and switching from fossil fuels. Which is cool.
Odd_Ingenuity8163 t1_j93xtnm wrote
I love this but I find it funny that it says companies won’t pay that tax. Okay then don’t operate 🤷♀️ why are we giving them an option. I don’t get an option on my income, property, retail tax.