8 ms·

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

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.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dillondoyle 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 https://stripe.com/blog/first-negative-emissions-purchases * [1] https://www.shopify.com/about/environment/sustainability-fund https://www.shopify.com/about/environment/sustainability-fun...
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      This video might be interesting to you https://youtu.be/GmWpFCjh0Fk https://youtu.be/GmWpFCjh0Fk
  - shakezula 5y ago
    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.
salmonfamine 5y ago
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/ 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 5y ago
Okay, but under your assumptions they would reduce carbon concentration by >100 PPM after just 30 years, which actually sounds pretty good.
ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
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 https://www.futuretimeline.net/data-trends/6.htm [2] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/evolution-of-solar-pv-module-cost-by-data-source-1970-2020 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/evolution-of-...
- thereisnospork 5y ago
  >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.
  - k_sze 5y ago
    Also, it’s _possible_ that things got “cheaper” simply because the costs have been externalized.
  - sbierwagen 5y ago
    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
    - comboy 5y ago
      I must say I'm quite impressed with creativity of redefining US dollar as a means of making something cheaper.
    - sa1 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dillondoyle 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 https://stripe.com/blog/first-negative-emissions-purchases * [1] https://www.shopify.com/about/environment/sustainability-fund https://www.shopify.com/about/environment/sustainability-fun...
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    This video might be interesting to you https://youtu.be/GmWpFCjh0Fk https://youtu.be/GmWpFCjh0Fk
- shakezula 5y ago
  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.

salmonfamine 5y ago

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/ 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 5y ago

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

ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago

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 https://www.futuretimeline.net/data-trends/6.htm [2] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/evolution-of-solar-pv-module-cost-by-data-source-1970-2020 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/evolution-of-...

thereisnospork 5y ago
>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.
- k_sze 5y ago
  Also, it’s _possible_ that things got “cheaper” simply because the costs have been externalized.
- sbierwagen 5y ago
  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
  - comboy 5y ago
    I must say I'm quite impressed with creativity of redefining US dollar as a means of making something cheaper.
  - sa1 5y ago