Sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere.......

[Moonbeam]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/magazine/climeworks-business-climate-change.html

Why doesn't(don't) the government(s) fund a war on climate change like this?

 

[UglyCasanova]

I’d be for it.

 

[Paratus]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/magazine/climeworks-business-climate-change.html

Why doesn't(don't) the government(s) fund a war on climate change like this?

Seriously.

Plus if you can capture it you can convert it into CH4 which is the building blocks for fossil fuels. Except these would be carbon neutral. Why is that important because airplanes can run on it and there’s no other real good replacement for jet turbines.

It could also propel heavy shipping if you weren’t inclined towards nuclear.

 

[Moonbeam]

Seriously.

Plus if you can capture it you can convert it into CH4 which is the building blocks for fossil fuels. Except these would be carbon neutral. Why is that important because airplanes can run on it and there’s no other real good replacement for jet turbines.

It could also propel heavy shipping if you weren’t inclined towards nuclear.

Seems like it should be Manhattan Project material to me.

 

[crashtech]

Seems like it should be Manhattan Project material to me.

A touch ironic, since the natural energy source for a power hungry carbon sequestering system would be nuclear. Just a little friendly poke, don't mind me.

 

[Paratus]

Seems like it should be Manhattan Project material to me.

Except it’s really not.
To borrow from NASA:

The Manhattan project basically started at Technology Readiness Level 1.

The example you posted about is already at a TRL equivalent of 6 or 7. We already know the theory works, the hardware has been prototypes and it’s been successfully tested in the appropriate environment.

Now it would be rolling the technology out on scale more like the interstate system was rather than the Manhattan project.

 

[Moonbeam]

Except it’s really not.

Now it would be rolling the technology out on scale more like the interstate system was rather than the Manhattan project.

Could we do a Manhattan Project level roll out then?

 

[Moonbeam]

A touch ironic, since the natural energy source for a power hungry carbon sequestering system would be nuclear. Just a little friendly poke, don't mind me.

Good gravy no. You don’t want carbon 14 methane burning in you kitchen stove.

 

[Paratus]

Could we do a Manhattan Project level roll out then?

Guess I’m not sure what you mean. The Manhattan project took some of the most intelligent scientists and engineers ever to develop an entirely new branch of physics, the theories to support it, and the equipment to experimentally confirm it and turn it into a working weapons system. This was done in complete secrecy and a massive budget. Meaning it could be done and completed without outside challenge.

Climate change mitigation doesn’t require massive new technologies to fight it. It needs evolutionary improvements to what we already know. It needs a much more massive roll out and because it can’t be done in secrecy detractors both directly and indirectly can slow it down.

 

[cytg111]

Iceland is already pumping it out of the air and storing it in the ground, IIRC many other countries is looking into doing the same trick.

 

[Moonbeam]

Iceland is already pumping it out of the air and storing it in the ground, IIRC many other countries is looking into doing the same trick.

To respond to this and maybe say @Paratus what I mean:

I am aware that the idea is not new. What could be new, as I got the impression from the link, is that the technology may have reached a level of development that will continue to advance in accordance with market forces. That means that commercial viability will proceed according to how much money can be made. I think that owing to the dangers implied by climate change and the economic disaster that can come with it, perhaps the timeline for development could be vastly ramped up by making funding a non issue.

At the very least, I would like to know much more about the benefits, if any, there may be to deal for this technology to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels.

 

[cytg111]

To respond to this and maybe say @Paratus what I mean:

I am aware that the idea is not new. What could be new, as I got the impression from the link, is that the technology may have reached a level of development that will continue to advance in accordance with market forces. That means that commercial viability will proceed according to how much money can be made. I think that owing to the dangers implied by climate change and the economic disaster that can come with it, perhaps the timeline for development could be vastly ramped up by making funding a non issue.

At the very least, I would like to know much more about the benefits, if any, there may be to deal for this technology to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels.

I think it would be deeply irresponsible for any governemt to not fund this kind of research if it has the slightest chance of hitting critical mass.. Of course if we manage to terra control the planet like this a planet wide agreement would have to be met in regards to what the correct amount of co2 in the atm. is.
Some stand to loose some to win from climate change..

 

[K1052]

I've read about these guys before, interesting technology. The idea of negative emissions power plants is very interesting and one of the few things that could remove carbon at the kind of sale we would require. A number of other companies are also working on this. The Brits are converting one of their wood burning power plants to test capture carbon with a new solvent. If somebody can make this work relatively cheaply in the next decade all the increasingly obsolete coal burners could come in handy.

 

[Paratus]

I think it would be deeply irresponsible for any governemt to not fund this kind of research if it has the slightest chance of hitting critical mass.. Of course if we manage to terra control the planet like this a planet wide agreement would have to be met in regards to what the correct amount of co2 in the atm. is.
Some stand to loose some to win from climate change..

No. Not really. In the long run everyone loses. So the deeply irresponsible thing is all of us continuing to dump CO2 into the atmosphere without paying for the costs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This may have some potential for cleaning up a mess but it's best to stop making the mess to begin with. Scrubbing a planet may turn out to be more difficult than it seems as warming accelerates to melt the permafrost. As I once heard said I'd piss on a sparkplug if I thought it would help so yes, let's investigate, develop and deploy what works.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No. Not really. In the long run everyone loses. So the deeply irresponsible thing is all of us continuing to dump CO2 into the atmosphere without paying for the costs.

"I don't care because I'll be gone by then". We've heard the like before.

 

[cytg111]

No. Not really. In the long run everyone loses. So the deeply irresponsible thing is all of us continuing to dump CO2 into the atmosphere without paying for the costs.

I cant imagine a scenario where this is NOT a geopolitical debate.. debate at best.

 

[realibrad]

The reason this is not a thing is because its nowhere close to being as efficient as other ways to reduce emissions. If we are going to spend money on climate change, then it should go to the things that are most efficient and most productive. Considering how big of an issue this is, we need to maximize every dollar spent. This aint it, not yet at least.

 

[cytg111]

emerging technologies takes time to emerge, you cant just throw 2x money at it and hame it emerge in half the time..

 

[realibrad]

emerging technologies takes time to emerge, you cant just throw 2x money at it and hame it emerge in half the time..

But, it has a massive way to go before this becomes viable. At $500-$600/metric ton, that is impossibly expensive. Further, these things currently take massive amounts of energy to run. For this system to have any real impact, you need to build more of these than the world has money. So, you need to build more power plants, then build these systems.

 

[cytg111]

But, it has a massive way to go before this becomes viable. At $500-$600/metric ton, that is impossibly expensive. Further, these things currently take massive amounts of energy to run. For this system to have any real impact, you need to build more of these than the world has money. So, you need to build more power plants, then build these systems.

Putting it on your basic science budget will serve to get that cost down.. Hence emerging.

 

[realibrad]

Putting it on your basic science budget will serve to get that cost down.. Hence emerging.

There are other technologies that have lower cost, and could do far more right now. If people want to privately fund this, then more power to them. But, if we are going to throw gov dollars, it should be at things that work now and have a much much much larger impact.

 

[cytg111]

ok whatevs.

 

[realibrad]

ok whatevs.

OP asked why don't we do this, and I gave the answer.

 

[Genx87]

This is the type of technology that we should be looking into. All the other green initiatives reduce or try to get to carbon neutral. But they do not take CO2 out of the atmosphere. We should keep pushing forward with other green initiatives. But we also need to realize people will support these green deals until their lives are altered. This type of technology acknowledges we wont put the genie back in the bottle. And instead will mitigate the damage by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it.