Carbon Removal Technologies

Re:Carbon Removal Technologies by Brakenshire on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @06:07PM (#18287935)

The problem is the existence of these techniques will be used to justify inaction elsewhere. They also do nothing to tackle acidification.

And it’s not as if the world has been standing still over the last decades, huge progress has been made and many technologies are at the borderline of being economical or cheaper than the alternatives, and are continually falling in price. Once we push the boulder over the crest of the hill it will roll down unaided. The economy can change much quicker than we think.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Removal Technologies by philipkglass on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @06:43PM (#18288146)

Some of the active countermeasures contemplated, like ocean fertilization and accelerated olivine weathering, also tackle acidification if they work at scale. Solar radiation management does nothing to fix acidification though it can possibly interrupt feedback loops that would make acidification even worse.

I agree that many technologies for replacing fossil usage have now achieved or are close to economic superiority, and that change can come very rapidly with economic superiority. But I also think that reaching this point has taken too long and now we will need active measures as well as emissions cuts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Removal Technologies by joe_the_user on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @07:22PM (#18288379)

The problem is that while solar energy may have already achieved superiority over the net cost of finding, drilling-off and extracting hydrocarbons, solar energy is not going achieve superiority over hydrocarbons people already have. The cost of already found oil is just the cost of pumping it out of the ground and with easy fields, no energy source is going to beat that (the cheapest Saudi cost less $10/barrel to pump and that's light, easy to refine oil).

So, due to these different marginal costs, there's no way even completely practical, economical solar can stop fossil fuel usage quickly without active regulator intervention.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Removal Technologies by philipkglass on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @09:10PM (#18288888)

Yes, it's harder to out-compete fossil projects that have already been built, already paid off their capital costs, and incur just operational costs going forward. Some of those fossil projects (like Saudi oil fields that cost only $10/barrel) are not going to be economically forced into early retirement by any foreseeable lower-emissions energy source.

Note that there is also quite a bit of already-built fossil capacity that can be retired early by economic pressures. Not every big fossil project has operational costs as low as Saudi oil.

For example, the Navajo Generating Station is the largest American coal plant west of the Mississippi River. It was built in the 1970s. It has a stable, low cost for coal since it is supplied by the nearby dedicated Kayenta Mine. Just a few years ago it was planned to run until 2044. But the falling costs of gas and renewables have made it economically uncompetitive. It's now going to close at the end of 2019, 25 years early:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/energy/2017/0...

I agree on the broader point that fossil fuel emissions won't be curbed quickly without active regulator intervention. Since that intervention may arrive late-or-never in different nations, it's one of the reasons that I believe active carbon dioxide removal measures will be necessary in addition to emissions reduction efforts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Removal Technologies by joe_the_user on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @10:32PM (#18289246)

Since that intervention may arrive late-or-never in different nations, it's one of the reasons that I believe active carbon dioxide removal measures will be necessary in addition to emissions reduction efforts.

Both regulating carbon emissions and active carbon dioxide removal measures will, in the end, come down to some state or world body acting in a coordinated way to push money at this problem. It seems like people are imagining active removal would be easier in this fashion than basic regulation. Why?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Removal Technologies by njarboe on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @11:04PM (#18289382)

If most countries decide to use basic regulation but, say, Russia, does not, then the other countries could use active removal to offset the Russian emissions. Not likely a world body is forcing Russia to do anything (although if Europe stopped using their gas, they would have a lot less power).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Removal Technologies by namibj on Wednesday October 24, 2018 @03:46AM (#18290428)

Find a way to build georedundant electricity links from stable solar fields in e.g. the Sahara or so, up to Europe, with a reliable capacity of ~ 1 TW or maybe even closer to 5 TW, along the feeding solar arrays, and we can use existing ways to store energy for nightly use to wean Europe of natural gas in about a decade.

The largest one build seems to be 10 GW between Xinjiang and Anhui. It's still quite a bit from the scale we'd need to wean of natural gas however.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carbon Removal Technologies by semi-extrinsic on Wednesday October 24, 2018 @02:24AM (#18290138)

My hope is that newly-built or soon-to-be-built O&G production sites will be converted to have CO2 capture and just export electricity or hydrogen. We have all the tech, it's just that someone needs to force O&G operators to do it.

Operators, by the way, love this concept. It means they can continue production basically forever, if they want. But there's a big economic disadvantage in being the first mover, which is why we need government regulations forcing it.

[ Parent | on HN ]