[DivisionSol]

Random unverified search: 1ppm is 7.8x10^9. Just say 300ppm is reasonable. Currently 417ppm.

7.8x10^11 tonnes of Carbon to remove from the atmosphere to return to “normal” (Handwavy approximations)

This was 4.16x10^2, in, let’s just say 12 months.

Assuming an absurd 100% increase in volume year over year... they’ll drop the carbon ppm by 1 after... 24 years.

Not meant to doom/gloom, just curious.

[ad404b8a372f2b9]

In the 1980s it cost 100000 dollars to launch a kg low Earth orbit, today it's 1000. [1]

In the 1970s solar cells cost 100 USD/Watt, today 0.2 USD/Watt. [2]

These napkin calculations are fairly meaningless on those time scales with emerging technologies, 30 years is a long time. In fact they don't even hold for this year. They finished delivering 150 tons in January of this year and the rest in march so that'd be 300 tons in 3 months.

[1] https://www.futuretimeline.net/data-trends/6.htm

[2] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/evolution-of-...

[thereisnospork]

>These napkin calculations are fairly meaningless on those time scales with emerging technologies

Not all technologies are subject to the same scaling laws and it is foolish to act as if they are. Carbon removal won't get 1000 times cheaper, because thermodynamics.

[ad404b8a372f2b9]

I don't find much value in these kind of out of hand dismissals. Do you have industry knowledge or do you at least care to expand? The experts certainly seem to think they'll be able to get to scale, I think they'll be devastated to have to scrap it all and fire their teams of experts "because thermodynamics".

[8note]

Carbon dioxide has a low concentration in the atmosphere, the atmosphere is really big, and diffusion is not a particularly fast process.

Adding to that, industrial processes tend to be big and heavy, and also take fossils fuels to make. Even the outputs of these processes are measured in tonnes of carbon

No less, whatever format you're storing the carbon in will be very energy dense, either via compression, or by chemically removing the oxygens.

So, there's limits to how quickly your apparatus can interact with new carbon molecules, on moving it to new carbon molecules, and on making sure the products of you apparatus stay sequestered.

If they're thinking they can scale, it's by setting up on top of carbon emitters, but doing that is net carbon positive(some will leak, and carbon emitters will continue to scale up), rather than negative

[sbierwagen]

It won't get 1000x cheaper in terms of energy inputs, no. There are many different things you could do to make it economically 1000x cheaper, though. Redefine the US dollar in units of sequestered carbon, for instance. Self-replicating carbon sequestration units, if you like science fiction. Etc etc

[sa1]

> Self-replicating carbon sequestration units, if you like science fiction

That's just trees.

[adrianN]

Technically you need someone to cut the tree down, turn it into a stable form of carbon (say biochar), and bury it. Otherwise most (all?) of the carbon captured will be released fairly quickly after the tree dies.

[sa1]

And captured back by the next generation of trees. Carbon sequestered remains stable(generally) in forests.

[comboy]

I must say I'm quite impressed with creativity of redefining US dollar as a means of making something cheaper.

[k_sze]

Also, it’s _possible_ that things got “cheaper” simply because the costs have been externalized.

[dillondoyle]

Does anyone know the rough cost per /tonne? I doubt Stripe is investing much.

a 100% increase in volume doesn't sound ridiculous to me. zoom alone grew revenue over 100% in like a month - dumb example but there are lots of others. The triple, triple, double, double, double unicorn formula is widely marketed as another example.

There would surely be scale efficiencies in all these techniques too?

I think we are past catastrophe at this point and even with your math that sounds like more of a win than I would have guessed!

We have spent Trillions in the last year on stimi. that could have been targeted for dual purpose... and especially the proposed infrastructure bill should be changed but that would be another longgg thread.

Just trying to argue a point that even 'small' and maybe even not feasible at the moment ideas need to be actively pursued and scaled when they work, even if not as efficient as a HN engineer's dream we need to have basically an immediate all out war to fight climate catastrophe at this point.

Do this on 1000 different ideas and spend much bigger much faster we might stand a chance..

[kisamoto]

Stripe bought 416 tons at $600/ton [0] and Shopify has committed $5million annually[1] to carbon removal (including Charm at what I presume is a similar price point)

I am heavily bullish at the growth of carbon removal. Not as an excuse to continue emitting but as a growing awareness of necessity to restore more natural CO₂ levels.

* [0] https://stripe.com/blog/first-negative-emissions-purchases * [1] https://www.shopify.com/about/environment/sustainability-fun...

[shakezula]

It's truly the only way we'll be able to curve carbon emissions and CO2 ppms. We need a carbon tax now, to create a framework for companies to become accountable for their emissions.

[dillondoyle]

Thanks very interesting. I agree. And if we end up killing our civilation maybe we'll be burying new oil for some future peoples to get similar explosive growth from basically free energy - and hope they learn from our mistakes ;)

Though seems like a tree can easily be more than a tonne and way cheaper than that. Even if worried about keeping the carbon in the forest could bury it too!

[mstipetic]

This video might be interesting to you https://youtu.be/GmWpFCjh0Fk

[salmonfamine]

Depending on investment, greater than 100% growth is not necessarily absurd. The article is about the carbon capturing capability of a single, essentially PoC plant. Carbon Engineering is building a plant that will -- according to their own press release, anyway -- capture up to a megaton of carbon annually (https://carbonengineering.com/our-story/)

Either way, it remains to be seen how effective carbon capture plants will be. A lot depends on investment and proving a business model. Renewables have the upper hand on fossil fuels now, because they solve a proven business problem, cheaper. Carbon capture companies have to prove that there's even a market for their services. Although, some would advocate for a Keynesian approach to building out mass DaC infrastructure funded directly from federal spending.

Changing agricultural practices probably has a better outlook for carbon sequestration at the moment.

[tango118]

Okay, but under your assumptions they would reduce carbon concentration by >100 PPM after just 30 years, which actually sounds pretty good.