
A tiny Swiss company thinks it can help stop climate change - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/magazine/climeworks-business-climate-change.html
======
js8
It is an important technology, but it will not really help right now.

It will always be cheaper to prevent creation of CO2 (burning fossil fuels)
than to catch CO2 back from the atmosphere.

So, the first thing we need to do is to move to completely carbon emission
free technology of energy production. Then we can perhaps produce more than we
need (e.g. in the peaks) and can start thinking about catching some CO2 back
from the atmosphere to reverse the climate changes.

Unfortunately, there is not even global consensus on getting to zero
emissions. In this situation, I can't imagine how there can be a consensus on
doing something (like utilizing this technology) on the mass scale that helps
to save the environment for free.

~~~
DennisP
I don't think it's a given that it will _always_ be cheaper to avoid
emissions. Long-haul air travel, for example, isn't likely to go electric
anytime soon, and it could well be that the cheapest option is to absorb their
emissions from the air and inject them into the ground, rather than producing
carbon-neutral jet fuel.

If this technology really does get down to $94/ton, then a $100/ton price on
carbon emissions is likely to give it a role. People can reduce emissions
whenever it costs less than $94/ton to do so, and if it costs more, they could
pay for absorption instead.

$100/ton CO2 would raise the price of gasoline by a dollar a gallon, which
doesn't seem all that unattainable, especially if the collected funds are
redistributed as a dividend.

~~~
fallingfrog
But if you're pulling the CO2 from the air anyway, why not just use the
extracted carbon as fuel rather than pull it out of the ground?

~~~
ARandomerDude
Cost. The average American family uses 24 metric tons a year (at least as of
2007, but we're ball-parking here) [1]. The article says it's $500 - $600 to
extract 1 metric ton of CO2.

(24 metric tons * $550/metric ton) / 12 months = $1,110 per month.

That's $1,100 for raw CO2. Once you factor in CO2 => fuel, then transport,
delivery, etc. your cost is dramatically higher.

Suppose scale could help and the entire process were $1,110 per month. For for
most of us, that's still _much_ more than we pay each month in electricity +
gas.

1\. [http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/02/20/picturing-a-
ton-o...](http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/02/20/picturing-a-ton-of-co2/)

~~~
jdietrich
According to the World Bank, America produced 16.5 tons of CO2 per person in
2014. Germany produced 8.9 tons per person, Britain produced 6.5 tons, France
produced 4.6 tons and Switzerland produced 4.3 tons.

Can we all agree that 16.5 tons per person is an absurdly large amount of CO2?

[https://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&se...](https://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=EN.ATM.CO2E.PC&country=)

~~~
snuxoll
Doesn’t help that so many in the US have no realistic choice for
transportation beyond an automobile.

I’m a 90 minute walk from the nearest bus station, I work from home luckily
(and have no license either) but my wife has to drive literally everywhere. We
bought a used 2006 Prius now almost four years ago, so we’ve reduced our
emissions as much as is feasible for now - but we still use roughly 300
gallons of fuel a year at 40MPG average.

------
gpm
I think there might be another lucrative market for this technology. Creating
low CO2 environments in corporate (or other) buildings.

There's a ton of anecdotal (e.g. [0]) and some scientific [1] evidence that
elevated CO2 levels has negative mental effects. If you could prove this
effect and make office workers 1% more effective that would be worth millions
to a company like Google, _before_ you consider the advertising, recruiting,
tax credit, etc advantages.

PS. I think this is the most dystopian business idea I've ever had.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18959796](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18959796)

[1] This seems to be a good survey paper. Download button at top right doesn't
require a login
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_di...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_serious_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health)

~~~
Iwan-Zotow
Well, Google solution would be a lot simpler - oxygenate the buildings.
Probably would contribute a bit TOWARD GW

~~~
gpm
Also a good idea - but it's not necessarily an either or sort of thing, since
the (potential) issue with CO2 is toxicity not lack of O2.

------
bskinny129
> A Climeworks app could be installed on my smartphone, he explained. It could
> then be activated by my handset’s location services. “You fly over here to
> Europe,” he explained, “and the app tells you that you have just burned 1.7
> tons of CO₂. Do you want to remove that? Well, Climeworks can remove it for
> you. Click here. We’ll charge your credit card. And then you’ll get a stone
> made from CO₂ for every ton you sequester.” He sat back and sighed. “That
> would be my dream,” he said.

That's what I'm working on! Get people who care to take personal
responsibility for their own travel. It is just $2-4 dollars a week - a tiny
sum for people who fly frequently. In beta for iOS now if you are interested
in giving it a shot: [https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/pledge-
balance](https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/pledge-balance)

An independent app has the benefit of not being stuck with just this
Climeworks best case $100/ton direct air capture. Soils and grasslands seem to
be a low hanging fruit closer to $10/ton.

~~~
lazyjones
Someone less convinced about these issues will react to this by saying: „good
idea, make those who are interested in this climate thing pay and leave the
rest of us alone“.

~~~
bskinny129
Hopefully this is a more palatable solution for skeptics than a big carbon tax
or even doing nothing. There is an obvious connection between cars and
airplanes spewing gunk into the air, you don't need to make a case with global
warming models - just be responsible for your own mess and nothing more.
Everyone understands pollution and being responsible for their direct actions.

~~~
Tade0
_Everyone understands pollution and being responsible for their direct
actions._

And yet still only 2% of the population is vegan.

I don't suppose it will work if we just leave this to the people who care.
Most people do care, but enough to sacrifice their comfort.

~~~
bskinny129
I would argue being vegan is a very hard change, equivalent in my mind to
asking people who care about the environment to never fly or get in a car with
an internal combustion engine. Those people exist, but man is that a lot to
ask!

It is a much smaller ask to opt into paying 5 cents more for a burger to
offset. But with travel the connection to emissions is more obvious and
wealthy people have a larger share (a rich person doesn't eat 10x more steak
than average, but does fly 10x more).

~~~
luigibosco
You lost me on the comparison between never flying/driving and eating
responsibly and well, but i think the "never" part of the equation is going to
cause a lot of friction.

If being a vegan is hard, use condiments! Don't be a vegan, just eat way less
meat (especially red) and stuff made with palm oil which would both benefit
both the climate and your health. Actually the heck with the planet, heart
disease will take your number faster than climate change.

"By 2020, 90% of Ford’s North American sales will consist of larger vehicles
with lower fuel economy" Not buying an SUV that never leaves the pavement
which rides on GIANT tires might also be something to consider in the personal
choices category. If you really need to see above everyone else, install a
periscope.

------
thinkcontext
Capturing CO2 from air seems like a very difficult task. Its only 0.041% by
volume, which means you need huge volumes of air, hence all the fans. One
promising technology I've seen involves taking CO2 out of seawater,
sequestering it as a mineral and producing H2 as a byproduct, called
electrogeochemistry [0]. They claim it can be done relatively cheaply but are
still lab scale.

The other negative emissions technologies I've seen are biomass energy plus
carbon capture and storage (BECCS). That involves using biomass for some
energy purpose, say making ethanol or burning woods chips, and capturing and
storing the resulting CO2.

[0]
[https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/06/electrogeochemistry.html](https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/06/electrogeochemistry.html)

~~~
m_mueller
Could someone point out to me how BECCS compares to just using solar/wins plus
batteries for energy? Independence from local climate/geography? I assume that
the vast majority of people live in areas where alternative energies are
viable, the main missing piece in thar puzzle is cheap battery tech. For
housing purposes this is already pretty much solved, it‘s called a water tank
(for thermal storage).

------
spenrose
"it costs the firm between $500 and $600 to remove a metric ton of CO₂ from
the air"

Ricke et alia center their cost-of-carbon estimates at $417:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y)
. Climeworks is already very close.

------
pjc50
"At the moment, global CO₂ emissions are about 37 billion metric tons per
year"

"Still, greenhouses and soda bubbles together represent a small global market
— perhaps six million metric tons of CO₂ annually."

Hmm... as they point out later on, this only starts to make a difference if
they get the whole air-capture-to-hydrocarbons thing working, fuelled by
surplus renewable energy, _and_ there's a global moratorium or limitation on
oil/gas exploration and drilling.

------
growlist
A couple of positive notes: firstly the soon-to-be world's largest windfarm
started supplying power for the first time this week:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/11/biggest-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/11/biggest-
offshore-windfarm-to-start-uk-supply-this-week)

Secondly I've just become aware of how much e-bikes have come on, to the point
that they could feasibly replace more and more journeys in future. Sadly in
the UK the legislation lags behind the technology at present in that either
you have a 250w/15.5 mph limited bike, or you have to go full blown motor
vehicle registration with number plate, insurance, etc., whereas in Europe
they recognise a third category between the two. Hoping this gets sorted out
in future (no Brexit comments, please..).

~~~
kakarot
Is that 15.5mph limit only for motor output on flat ground? I routinely hit
40-50mph downhill while commuting on my non-motorized road bike.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
That’s the point where the motor stops assisting, to go faster you just need
to peddle harder.

In reality it’s fairly easy to deresrict these bikes, the only problem is most
car drivers won’t expect you to be going so fast.

~~~
growlist
> the only problem is most car drivers won’t expect you to be going so fast.

Not the only problem - if you get caught there's also possible prosecution,
points on your driving license etc. What's doubly annoying is that even if you
want to do the right thing and register your 1000w e-bike as a moped there are
still barriers in the way, e.g. finding insurance, getting it MOT-d. Still
another issue is that once it's registered as a moped it cannot be used on
cycle paths etc. It really is ridiculous at present and the law needs
updating.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
I’m not sure allowing 1000W unrestricted bikes on cycle lanes is a good idea.

~~~
growlist
..hence the fact there should be a middle category, to remove the temptation.
It does make me pretty cynical about political rhetoric on climate change when
the opportunity to act fast to promote new technology is there, and they
apparently do sweet FA.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Actually thinking about it I'd really like to see something down about
electric scooters, the type that companies like Bird rent out. Currently they
are illegal because they have a hand throttle.

------
lozenge
"Last year, when David Keith and his associates at Carbon Engineering
published figures projecting that their carbon-capture technology could bring
costs as low as $94 a metric ton, Herzog was not convinced. Keith nevertheless
made the case to me that two new investors in Carbon Engineering — Chevron
Technology Ventures and a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum — scrutinized his
company’s numbers to an exhaustive degree and agreed the economics of the
venture were solid enough to merit putting up substantial amounts in a $60
million investment round."

This is the most interesting part. The investors are oil companies. Perhaps
they are just funding the story that there is no need for government to
curtail or tax their activities, because DAC will be able to "reverse time"
for us in the future? The article has already debunked this quite well, like
the quote from Hal Harvey. But at the same time, these technologies are still
pencilled in by the I.P.C.C.[1] and of course, Chevron when they say they will
abide by the Paris agreement but still increase their year-on-year output of
fossil fuels[2].

Carbon Engineering does seem to get outsize coverage in the news. Hope sells
better than despair, or the idea that we would actually need to change our
lifestyles (fly much less, eat less meat, etc) to combat climate change.

Carbon Engineering is also based in Calgary, home to a lot of the O&G
industry, but are not working on the thermodynamically easier problem -
extracting CO2 from the pollution output of power plants, where it's 25% of
the output instead of 0.04%.

[1]
[http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2018/10/response-t...](http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2018/10/response-
to-the-ipcc-1-5c-special-report/)

[2]
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-07/chevron-p...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-07/chevron-
pledges-alignment-with-paris-accord-but-won-t-cap-output)

~~~
photoguy112
I am really curious what goes on in the minds of the people working at these
companies in top positions. How do they sleep at night? Do they simply say to
themselves "I'm just one person, I can't do anything about a global problem
and I need money"?

I find it hard to believe that there is some sinister plot to do damage as
long as possible to make the most money. Surely these people realize we are
all doomed no matter the amount of money you have in the end? Or perhaps
that's it... perhaps they know we are doomed and just want to live out their
lives in the most comfort possible and buy whatever comfort money may afford
for their children?

~~~
carapace
I was reading a "biography" of (I think it was the) Nature Conservancy (or a
similar legal activist group.)

They got their start when they had figured out that PG&E (California's
electric company) could meet their projected demand while saving money and
reducing pollution by improving efficiency of existing infrastructure instead
of building new power plants. They couldn't convince management to even look
at the numbers. They had to sue them to get them to do something obvious that
was in their own best interests. That's how gung ho the executives were to
"build, baby build". It wasn't a conspiracy, it was just systemic cultural
dumbness.

------
cryptos
I think it would be far more manageable to just plant more trees. They were
optimized for millions of years to pull CO2 out of the air and store it in the
form of wood which is a fantastic material by the way. And trees are not only
a simple but a scalable solution.

~~~
jartelt
Trees are scalable in that you can keep planting them at low cost, but no
where near effective enough at sequestering carbon. Even if you cover all
agricultural land in the world with trees, you won't sequester enough carbon
to prevent climate change.

~~~
bwreilly
We can achieve ⅓ of the global emissions reductions called for in The Paris
Agreement with ‘Natural Climate Solutions’ - replanting trees, rangelands, and
fire response and restoration.

[https://nature4climate.org/resource-
centre/messaging/](https://nature4climate.org/resource-centre/messaging/)

------
rb808
I do believe taking CO2 from the air is critically important.

But meanwhile not far away from this site, all around Europe, power stations
are burning mountains of coal. Surely its easier to stop that than scrubbing
it.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
This is one of those areas where nuclear power might be useful. The main
expensive input to this process is energy. If you had several nuclear power
plants powering this process, you could remove a substantial amount of CO2
from the air. Additional energy input could be used to create hydrocarbons,
and you could have a carbon neutral fuel that is ultimately nuclear powered.

------
ForHackernews
No one can "stop" climate change. It's far too late for that. All we can do
now is hope to blunt the force of the impact.

~~~
Angostura
Well, its already occurring. We can certainly still aim to reduce the actual
continued worsening of climate change, _as well_ as mitigating its effects.

If cheap, easy commercially viable fusion power was unveiled tomorrow I'd have
hope that we could stop climate change in 10 years. A real, cheap commercial
way to remove carbon from the atmosphere in massive amounts could also stop
it. I can't say that this company feels like they have that.

~~~
pojzon
There is only one issue with that thinking. Till people who directly profit
from destroying environment can lobby our democratic system, we cant do
anything with big enough influence. We would have to introduce totalitarism
lead by Gandalfs to change that.

~~~
Angostura
If you equate concerted international government-lead action to
totalitarianism, you are part of the problem.

------
misterprime
If this was scaled up and functioning in a significant number of cities and
energy production centers, would it matter?

From what I understood, the troublesome area for CO2 in our atmosphere is in a
level way above where we live and work, so we need scrubbing up there, not
down here closer to the ocean.

------
photoguy112
I think this is one of many approaches stated in this video:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/chad_frischmann_100_solutions_to_c...](https://www.ted.com/talks/chad_frischmann_100_solutions_to_climate_change)

------
crankylinuxuser
Doing some bandaid solution doesn't solve the root of the problem. And that is
that companies are running through natural resources with wanton abandon.

We have deserts (California) with acre-feet of water pumped in to water almond
trees, while we destroy freshwater aquifers. We burn dead dinosaurs and leave
the toxic accumulants to hang out in atmo. We inject nasty carcinogens and
then blow up the ground to salvage more oil. We dump all sorts of things in
the ocean for 'someone else' to deal with.

Sure we individuals can do a few conservative things for ecology. But the bulk
is the companies are allowed to leverage natural resources and the tragedy of
the commons of the world to make a few more $$$. And these tiny companies with
some carbon sequestration makes people feel good, but ultimately means that we
buy a few more weeks, months, or perhaps years before we're completely fucked.

~~~
mrpopo
Well, no it doesn't. Although it at least has the merit to shed some light on
the matter, make some cash flow towards the problem, and offer some imperfect
solutions.

I would love the Earth resources to be considered and treated precious by all
of us 8 billion humans, but that's clearly not the case. We in Europe have
been organizing strikes for months, and we are not being listened. If I think
about the USA, where politicians listen to their constituents even less, and
the general opinion is just not concerned enough to VOTE for their president,
much less get involved politically, I fall in despair. I cry. Then I just try
to forget because I want to carry on.

What will you do? Are you getting involved with your local politicians? Are
you doing a few conservative things for ecology? I just hope that you are
doing more than writing critical comments on the internet.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
> If I think about the USA, where politicians listen to their constituents
> even less, and the general opinion is just not concerned enough to VOTE for
> their president, much less get involved politically, I fall in despair. I
> cry. Then I just try to forget because I want to carry on.

I live in the US. Indiana. Our last governor was Mike Pence.

Our state is full of Republicans who wholly reject any idea of global warming
or climate change. Fracking is cool and a good way to make money. Public
institutions are a place to extort more money from students. Our state and
national forests are places the Dept. of Natural Resources have deemed OK to
sell old growth trees for $3 (2.6 euro - yes, pocket change)/tree. A law was
passed 2 years ago banning communities from banning or putting fees on plastic
bags.

Where I live cares nothing for ecology or environmentalism. The crony
politicians only further their own private business interests. I do try to
find city/county local politicians that care, but their hands are tied.

I also live with my wife and practice the 4 R's (Repair, Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle). But that meager effort only goes so far.

------
huhtenberg
> _... at prices cheap enough ..._

Argh. Prices can't be cheap, NYT. They can be low.

/pet-peeve

------
viach
The title sounds like someone is actually seriously working on stopping
climate change, so that there is something to provide some help to. Which is,
well, not the case, no?

------
jchook
So they capture the CO2 then.. release it? Into a greenhouse? Then what? How
much of the CO2 goes back into the atmosphere?

~~~
gknapp
The article mentions what they plan on doing with it:

"What Gebald and Wurzbacher really want to do is to pull vast amounts of CO₂
out of the atmosphere and bury it, forever, deep underground, and sell that
service as an offset. Climeworks’s captured CO₂ has already been injected deep
into rock formations beneath Iceland..."

------
carapace
Check out olivine weathering.

------
porpoisely
Is this an actual article or an advertisement for a gimmicky company and a
part of the company's paid PR campaign? What's news worthy here?

------
vectorEQ
maybe one day they will take out so many co2 from the atmosphere so the
atmosphere becomes toxic. we must stop this madness and use more disel!

~~~
lixtra
Modern Diesel engines are more CO2 efficient than petrol[1].

[1] [https://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-
reall...](https://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-
polluting-than-petrol-cars-76241)

------
fallingfrog
Here's the thing: there's this thing called conservation of mass and energy.

The carbon reaction goes like this: Carbon + Oxygen = CO2 + energy.

You can reverse it, like you can with any chemical reaction, like this: CO2 +
energy = Carbon + Oxygen

This is all high school chemistry stuff. But the long and short is: To
sequester carbon from the atmosphere requires _at least as much energy as you
got by burning the carbon in the first place_.

That's why no scheme to unburn the carbon can ever work.

~~~
jeff_friesen
That kind of dismissive, smug response is never helpful and often
disempowering. While so far we've never gotten around conservation of energy
laws, we've often engineered solutions that met our goals. There are renewable
sources of energy that can power this effort. Many wind-farms and even solar
farms are starting to overproduce in some areas. Nuke plants overproduce
because they can't adapt quickly enough to changing demands. There are
solutions to the problem of powering these sequestration units.

~~~
fallingfrog
Right, but they are always worse than just not burning the CO2 in the first
place.

Also, "So far"? If you believe that we're ever going to break the conservation
of mass and energy, you _literally believe in magic._

~~~
alkonaut
Yup either everyone who talks about carbon capture _literally believe in
magic_ and failed high school chemistry/physics, or there is more nuance to
the issue than you think.

