[epistasis]

The answer of course is no, not yet:

> Tarek Soliman, a London-based climate change analyst at HSBC Global Research, says the launch in Reykjavik is not the sort of “quantum leap” that would prove the technology can reach the scale and cost required to have a real impact on climate change.

However, we have only a very short amount of time to operationalize a way to store gigatons of carbon per year, because after 2050 it is necessary to stop the worst effects of climate change.

This Climeworks project is helpful for learning costs of this particular technology. But we had better find something with a really fantastic learning curve, where scaling the industry makes it really cheap, otherwise we will fail at our goals in the future.

It's hard enough to imagine any country paying for their past emissions from 2050 out, in the form of using tech like this to scale. But we must do it. Perhaps there will be a war.

[goatlover]

If fusion ever becomes a reality, that can be used to power lots of carbon capture, along with desalination and electrical power plants. Short of that, it will likely require a combination of approaches, including planting more trees, and spreading olivine on beaches.

I suppose major advances in molecular nanotech could perform the carbon capture. That's what Drexler proposed years ago.

Three decades with increasing urgency and likely more government funding can make a lot of progress. I wouldn't be surprised if we do have a major technological breakthrough to mitigate climate change.

[epistasis]

It seems extremely unlikely that fusion will be able to compete in any way with solar for the next 30-50 years. It is on a completely exponential cost decrease curve, and we haven't even seen a hint of bottoming out yet.

New technological and manufacturing advances happen nearly daily. We may have panels that last for 60-90 years within a decade, meaning that costs will drop even further.

Solar also has the advantage of being extremely scalable and decentralized, so that a massive installation can be put in cheap land far from any people, without having to run transmission lines to a big centralized power generator. Of the current average cost of $0.13/kWh in the US for electricity, $0.08/kWh is for transmission and distribution costs, and only $0.05 is for power generation. That 8 cents isn't falling in cost, and so halving the cost of generation, or even making it a fifth of the cost, doesn't help a lot unless the power generation can be located closer to where it's needed.

For super cheap energy, it's going to be nearly impossible to beat solar PV.

[yuppie_scum]

How do you feel about wind farms?

[epistasis]

I have been surprised at how they have been able to continually cut costs as well. 10 years ago, the idea of somehow improving cost efficiency to our current levels seemed like a fantasy. The solution was apparently to just build bigger and bigger and model a lot more. The current limitation to terrestrial wind turbines seems to be transportation of larger and larger parts.

Floating and sea-floor-mounted ocean wind turbines are also getting super cheap.

For regular grid use, iron batteries are really coming along well too, both flow batteries and solid batteries look like they will be economical with current grid costs. So the glue needed to last for a low-wind week seems to be nearly ready.