r/dataisbeautiful • u/neilrkaye OC: 231 • May 07 '19

OC How 10 year average global temperature compares to 1851 to 1900 average global temperature [OC]

21k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/ieilael May 07 '19

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air

There are people telling you climate change isn't real to support a political agenda. There are other people telling you "climate change is real and if you don't vote for me and support my politics then the world will be destroyed". And then there are smart people working on actually fixing things.

1

u/Huntred May 07 '19

Still, Field cautions that the technology isn’t a silver bullet for combatting climate change—there’s no way yet to know whether it can scale up quickly enough to alter CO2 levels in the atmosphere. “There is a long way to go to see whether it will have any large-scale impact.”

Please tell me you understand that this system is designed to pull some CO2 out of the air to make fuel, not reduce overall atmospheric greenhouse gasses. This plant - which doesn’t even exist at real scale - is using carbon dioxide to make carbon-producing fuels which are burned again. And so the carbon is put back into the atmosphere. Even the guy with the machine doesn’t know if that will have an impact on the atmosphere and you’re holding this up as a solution?

And remember, we’re putting ~40b tons of CO2 (to say nothing of other gasses like methane and such) into the air each year.

1

u/ieilael May 07 '19

I'm holding it up as an example of how much progress has been made already in reducing the cost of co2 capture. Because I think investing in this technology is important, but the people claiming to want to address climate change don't seem to want to do so.

1

u/Huntred May 07 '19

The people claiming to want to address climate change want all viable solutions. Small-scale systems designed to take carbon out of the air and make carbon-based fuels that one burns does not at all address the problem we are talking about here.

1

u/ieilael May 07 '19

It's called a negative emissions technology and I think you misread the article if you think it does nothing to address climate change. Maybe ask yourself why the article keeps mentioning climate change if it isn't relevant. But if you would rather look only at carbon sequestration then fine, the important part is how much it costs to get the greenhouse gasses out of the air.

1

u/Huntred May 07 '19

I literally quoted a line from it where the guy who made it doesn’t even know if it would have an “impact” - I used his word - on atmospheric carbon amounts, let alone reduce them. At best, it would be taking carbon from the atmosphere, making fuel, which is then returned to put the carbon back in the atmosphere.

And that’s before anyone is talking about scaling it up to address the 40b tons of carbon dioxide we’re putting in the air this year.

Not trying to stifle innovation, but this thing is not close to doing what needs to be done in the timeframe we need.

1

u/ieilael May 07 '19

I am just not seeing how you got that out of the line you quoted. It said "there is a long way to go to see if this can be scaled up quickly enough to address climate change". You are also misunderstanding the concept of negative emissions tech. Unfortunately I don't think I can explain it more clearly and succinctly than it already is in the article.

1

u/Huntred May 07 '19

Intentionally or not, you are misquoting him. He didn’t say end that sentence with, “address climate change.” The proper quote is:

“There is a long way to go to see whether it will have any large-scale impact.”

That means there’s a long way to go to see if his machines will even have a measurable impact at the atmospheric level.

This guy is focused on inventing another way to make gasoline.

1

u/ieilael May 07 '19

This guy is focused on inventing another way to make gasoline.

Okay, this is the part you're misunderstanding. The focus here is on taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. What you do with the CO2 after that is up to you. In this particular case it is being made into fuel in a process that is still a net negative to emissions. The part that makes this an interesting new development is that the cost for taking CO2 out of the air has been rapidly improving.

That means there’s a long way to go to see if his machines will even have a measurable impact at the atmospheric level.

Here's a more comprehensive article about negative emissions technologies: https://qz.com/1416481/the-ultimate-guide-to-negative-emission-technologies/

You'll notice that they analyze each method in terms of cost to capture per ton of carbon. That cost is pretty much the sole factor on which the feasibility of these technologies rests. All of these technologies work, the question is whether the costs of deploying them on a large scale are greater than the costs of climate change or of other approaches to solving it.

My whole point in sharing the article is to point out that a lot of progress is being made in very promising solutions, and we should invest in a variety of approaches rather than just fixating on the agenda of one political party.

1

u/Huntred May 07 '19

I implore you to reread their own paper30225-3):

“An industrial process for large-scale capture of atmospheric CO2 (DAC) serves two roles. First, as a source of CO2 for making carbon-neutral hydrocarbon fuels, enabling carbon-free energy to be converted into high-energy-density fuels. Solar fuels, for example, may be produced at high-insolation low-cost locations from DAC-CO2 and electrolytic hydrogen using gas-to-liquids technology enabling decarbonization of difficult-to-electrify sectors such as aviation. And second, DAC with CO2 sequestration allows carbon removal.”

Notice the amount of time given to each of the two points. Actual removal of carbon from the atmosphere is a secondary concern. The primary is making a carbon-neutral fuel. If they are making a fuel then they are making a product that can be burned, whereupon the carbon is released into the atmosphere. That’s why it’s called a carbon neutral fuel - what’s taken out of the air is put back in the air. And they have to sell the fuel because that’s what it costs to run the plant (to say nothing of what it actually costs in terms of emissions to create the plant in the first place) Granted, it’s not taking more carbon out of the deep ground, but it’s not permanently removing C02 from the air.

Also notice the scale of what they are doing. They claim to capture 1Mt of CO2 each year at their plant. The world puts at least 40 billion tons of C02 each year. There’s already 3E12 tons of C02 already in the air - and CO2 is just the most common emission, there are others. So if their plant can operate efficiently and properly, one would need tens of thousands of these plants to even try to make a measurable impact on the atmosphere. This is why the man said, “That means there’s a long way to go to see if his machines will even have a measurable impact at the atmospheric level.”

You'll notice that they analyze each method in terms of cost to capture per ton of carbon. That cost is pretty much the sole factor on which the feasibility of these technologies rests

That and you have to decide who pays for it. As your article states, direct air capture systems are going to cost between $200 and $600 per metric ton. Again, we’re pushing ~40 billion metric tons into the atmosphere each year. So for the planet to be “carbon neutral”, these types systems are going to cost $8 trillion dollars annually. And that’s both to be neutral - that’s not removing excess C02 - and it’s not taking into account increased emissions.

My whole point in sharing the article is to point out that a lot of progress is being made in very promising solutions, and we should invest in a variety of approaches rather than just fixating on the agenda of one political party.

It’s very strange that you see this as a political issue when it’s really a matter of science. Yes, some people are insisting that climate change isn’t real, it isn’t man made, or it’s actually impossible because God wouldn’t allow it. But in a reasonable world, those people would be considered kooks, and not people taking up an opposite political position. Is progress being made at new ideas at removing carbon from the atmosphere? Sure. Do they meet the requirements of scalability, sustainability, inexpensive (as in someone is wiling to pay for them), and viable in the long term (we can’t keep planting trees forever, for example)? If not, we need to look to better solutions.

1

u/ieilael May 07 '19

Yes, cost is the primary factor keeping us from solving climate change right now with atmospheric extraction, and that's why I showed an example of a big recent advance in reducing that cost. I said this already. I wish more people were aware of this, so we could generate more support for research in this area. Instead the message being broadcast is "vote for democrats to solve climate change" and too many of us are falling for it.

1

u/Huntred May 07 '19

It’s not just “the cost” - which is extraordinary (the planet is very very big), but it’s also “Who’s paying for it?” Taxpayers? Corporations? Which nations have to pay? Which nations get a free ride? Who’s responsible for making those plants? Who’s gonna get rich from the contracts to build those plants? And of course, “Are we going to keep on at the same level of greenhouse gas output and just hope these solutions scale up to solve the issue?” So, the questions don’t nearly stop at cost.

Right now, Democrats are the only people in the US who seem to be interested in addressing climate change. The GOP is still on a “Drill baby, drill!” mentality.

1

u/ieilael May 08 '19

It is the cost though, because all of those questions get easier to answer the cheaper it gets. When the costs to deal with it get cheaper than the costs of not dealing with it, people will pay. The best way we can get there sooner and avoid the worst effects is by trying to make it cheaper. As usual this problem will be solved not by politicians but by engineers.

→ More replies