Giant machines that remove CO2 from the atmosphere are finally here. Could we build them in Australia?
ABC Science
/
By technology reporter James Purtill
roughbarked said:
Giant machines that remove CO2 from the atmosphere are finally here. Could we build them in Australia?
ABC Science
/
By technology reporter James Purtill
Sounds Right
it’s a good start
if they use a multi
approach such as an
“All Of The Above” strategy.
Begin with the CC Machines
powered by a Solar Display while
they continue to work on actual uses
for the Carbon they’ll be collecting while
working on more attractive arrays to make it
more acceptable thus marketable to the public
while continuing on re-educating people on the idea
of population reduction, re-thinking diet away from protein
on-the-hoof thus repurposing land toward re-forestation which
simultaneously creates oxygen/removes CO2/cools the earths surface.
By aiming toward the goal from all angles at the same time you’d be ahead
of the game once it all comes together far ahead of the proposed 2050 DEADline.
Standing in place spinning our wheel contemplating THE Perfect Solution is a waste of Time
thus far sitting around watching icebergs melt is not the ideal way to kill time
We hear they just need to shove some of them into SA schools.
Anyway the important bit we guess.
—
A tree, of course, is a pre-existing and relatively cheap technology that sequesters CO2 in wood and other biomass. When scaled up, it’s called a forest.
“My first thought was why not plant more trees,” Professor D’Alessandro said. “And then I did the numbers and stood in awe of them.”
By her own calculations, using reforesting to capture Australia’s CO2 emissions for two years, (about 1 billion tonnes), would require an area of land equivalent to the size of New South Wales.
DAC could do the same with 99.7 per cent less space, she said.
SCIENCE said:
We hear they just need to shove some of them into SA schools.Anyway the important bit we guess.
—
A tree, of course, is a pre-existing and relatively cheap technology that sequesters CO2 in wood and other biomass. When scaled up, it’s called a forest.
“My first thought was why not plant more trees,” Professor D’Alessandro said. “And then I did the numbers and stood in awe of them.”
By her own calculations, using reforesting to capture Australia’s CO2 emissions for two years, (about 1 billion tonnes), would require an area of land equivalent to the size of New South Wales.
DAC could do the same with 99.7 per cent less space, she said.
Yes but a forest also has the ecosystem benefits, the habitat, the diversity.
Well that’s the global warming problem solved.
I wonder what the next big thing will be?
Peak Warming Man said:
Well that’s the global warming problem solved.
I wonder what the next big thing will be?
silly boy,
devising solutions are
a far cry from implementing them
lets get to work
_DAC is currently prohibitively expensive, mainly due to the cost of energy.
Climeworks has priced its DAC offsets at about $US775 ($1,094) a tonne and says this will fall as low as $US250 ($353) by the end of the decade.
Call me sceptical, but if the energy cost is the main input how are they going to cut their costs by a third in 8 years?
sibeen said:
_DAC is currently prohibitively expensive, mainly due to the cost of energy.Climeworks has priced its DAC offsets at about $US775 ($1,094) a tonne and says this will fall as low as $US250 ($353) by the end of the decade.
Call me sceptical, but if the energy cost is the main input how are they going to cut their costs by a third in 8 years?
renewables.
ChrispenEvan said:
sibeen said:
_DAC is currently prohibitively expensive, mainly due to the cost of energy.Climeworks has priced its DAC offsets at about $US775 ($1,094) a tonne and says this will fall as low as $US250 ($353) by the end of the decade.
Call me sceptical, but if the energy cost is the main input how are they going to cut their costs by a third in 8 years?
renewables.
Yea, nah.
ChrispenEvan said:
sibeen said:
_DAC is currently prohibitively expensive, mainly due to the cost of energy.Climeworks has priced its DAC offsets at about $US775 ($1,094) a tonne and says this will fall as low as $US250 ($353) by the end of the decade.
Call me sceptical, but if the energy cost is the main input how are they going to cut their costs by a third in 8 years?
renewables.
I missed the bit about energy cost being the main input.
In that case they can get their energy for nothing when there is surplus capacity, and all the energy storage device are full.
I wonder how it compares in cost with generating hydrogen (or other non-carbon fuel) with surplus renewable capacity.
sibeen said:
ChrispenEvan said:
sibeen said:
_DAC is currently prohibitively expensive, mainly due to the cost of energy.Climeworks has priced its DAC offsets at about $US775 ($1,094) a tonne and says this will fall as low as $US250 ($353) by the end of the decade.
Call me sceptical, but if the energy cost is the main input how are they going to cut their costs by a third in 8 years?
renewables.
Yea, nah.
Yea is quite a nice town.
Yea is pronounced “yay” and it means yes. You would typically use it only under specific circumstances, such as a formal vote. Voting yea means that you are in favor of the proposal. Even less commonly in modern speech, it can also be used instead of “indeed” or when you want to emphasize and reiterate something you just said. Yea is by no means a recent entry into the language—its origin can be traced all the way back to the Old English word gēa.
sibeen said:
ChrispenEvan said:
sibeen said:
_DAC is currently prohibitively expensive, mainly due to the cost of energy.Climeworks has priced its DAC offsets at about $US775 ($1,094) a tonne and says this will fall as low as $US250 ($353) by the end of the decade.
Call me sceptical, but if the energy cost is the main input how are they going to cut their costs by a third in 8 years?
renewables.
Yea, nah.
Why not?
ChrispenEvan said:
sibeen said:
ChrispenEvan said:renewables.
Yea, nah.
Yea is quite a nice town.
Yea is pronounced “yay” and it means yes. You would typically use it only under specific circumstances, such as a formal vote. Voting yea means that you are in favor of the proposal. Even less commonly in modern speech, it can also be used instead of “indeed” or when you want to emphasize and reiterate something you just said. Yea is by no means a recent entry into the language—its origin can be traced all the way back to the Old English word gēa.
Yeah.
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:
ChrispenEvan said:renewables.
Yea, nah.
Why not?
They’re already using renewables as far as I can tell, using a geothermal power plant. I also don’t see renewable energy coming down that much in 8 years.
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:Yea, nah.
Why not?
They’re already using renewables as far as I can tell, using a geothermal power plant. I also don’t see renewable energy coming down that much in 8 years.
Well they are currently negative cost here at times. I don’t think that will last, but just using these things when energy is at a minimum cost will make the energy pretty cheap.
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Why not?
They’re already using renewables as far as I can tell, using a geothermal power plant. I also don’t see renewable energy coming down that much in 8 years.
Well they are currently negative cost here at times. I don’t think that will last, but just using these things when energy is at a minimum cost will make the energy pretty cheap.
Sure, if you only want to run it a few hours a day it could end up costing stuff all.
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:They’re already using renewables as far as I can tell, using a geothermal power plant. I also don’t see renewable energy coming down that much in 8 years.
Well they are currently negative cost here at times. I don’t think that will last, but just using these things when energy is at a minimum cost will make the energy pretty cheap.
Sure, if you only want to run it a few hours a day it could end up costing stuff all.
But i suspect that any excess energy being generated could be put to better use.
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:They’re already using renewables as far as I can tell, using a geothermal power plant. I also don’t see renewable energy coming down that much in 8 years.
Well they are currently negative cost here at times. I don’t think that will last, but just using these things when energy is at a minimum cost will make the energy pretty cheap.
Sure, if you only want to run it a few hours a day it could end up costing stuff all.
Well for the next 30 years or so, it would be pretty dumb to run it if the energy used could be replacing fossil fuel energy instead, wouldn’t it?
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Well they are currently negative cost here at times. I don’t think that will last, but just using these things when energy is at a minimum cost will make the energy pretty cheap.
Sure, if you only want to run it a few hours a day it could end up costing stuff all.
Well for the next 30 years or so, it would be pretty dumb to run it if the energy used could be replacing fossil fuel energy instead, wouldn’t it?
Yes :)
sibeen said:
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Well they are currently negative cost here at times. I don’t think that will last, but just using these things when energy is at a minimum cost will make the energy pretty cheap.
Sure, if you only want to run it a few hours a day it could end up costing stuff all.
But i suspect that any excess energy being generated could be put to better use.
If only there was some way of putting a price on GHG emissions, so we could let the market sort these things out.
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:
sibeen said:
Sure, if you only want to run it a few hours a day it could end up costing stuff all.
But i suspect that any excess energy being generated could be put to better use.
If only there was some way of putting a price on GHG emissions, so we could let the market sort these things out.
quick tell the media that carbon is a major component of precious stones and what they’re capturing is carbon
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:sibeen said:
But i suspect that any excess energy being generated could be put to better use.
If only there was some way of putting a price on GHG emissions, so we could let the market sort these things out.
quick tell the media that carbon is a major component of precious stones and what they’re capturing is carbon
“To my mind, if we’ve gone to the bother of capturing CO2 why not treat it as a resource?”
Another DAC company, Canada’s Carbon Engineering, plans to use captured CO2 as an input to make carbon-neutral synthetic fuels that can substitute for diesel, petrol, or jet fuel.
Logging machines remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
As new trees grow to replace the logged ones, they soak up CO2 out of the atmosphere.
mollwollfumble said:
Logging machines remove CO2 from the atmosphere.As new trees grow to replace the logged ones, they soak up CO2 out of the atmosphere.
:)