Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

seedanrun t1_j59b947 wrote

>About 0.1% of carbon removal — around 2.3 million tonnes per year — is performed by new technologies.

So 99.9% of that 2 Billion tons is just nature doing it's thing (like forests growing).

We would need to ramp up our technological carbon capture 100,000% to cancel production.

Burning one ton of coal produces a bit over two tons of CO2 (because oxygen is heavier than carbon). Whole sale coal costs about $50 a ton. Current carbon capture is about $600 per ton. So currently we would be spending $1,200 to capture coal that cost $50 to burn.

Prevention of coal use is definitely the smart investment currently.

Still worth researching capture, but we need new creative techniques that can increase cost effectiveness about 100 times before they will start having any real life application.

4

PartyYogurtcloset267 t1_j5jyb3x wrote

> So currently we would be spending $1,200 to capture coal that cost $50 to burn.

The way I see it is that this means coal should cost $1,250 per ton. As a society, we're just paying $50 in cash and putting the rest on our credit card. It's time that we wake up and start scaling back because our lifestyle is just unsustainable.

1

seedanrun t1_j5kjfpk wrote

Exactly! We can probably fund coal PREVETION for around $25 per ton (ie spend 50% more to use an alternate power source).

The numbers just don't support carbon capture - though I am not against spending on more carbon capture research to keep looking for a 100x more efficient method.

2

PartyYogurtcloset267 t1_j5kt2pl wrote

>The numbers just don't support carbon capture

But caputalism does. Imagine how much money these companies can make out of government subsidies. It's awesome if you're an investor.

1