
Bill Gates-Backed Carbon Capture Plant Does the Work of 40M Trees - Darmody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHX9pmQ6m_s
======
8bitsrule
Video: CO2 processing cost: "$94-232 per ton".

"According to <i>The Economist</i>, a single round trip flight from New York
to San Fransisco produces two to three tons of carbon dioxide per person; an
American who takes no flights emits roughly 19 tons of carbon in a year." \-
[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jp54zb/nasa-wants-to-
fly-...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jp54zb/nasa-wants-to-fly-electric-
planes-in-20-years)

"On average, one acre of new forest can sequester about 2.5 tons of carbon
annually." \-
[http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm](http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm)

~~~
killlameme99
From that "$94-232 per ton" number I was curious how much it would cost to
"fix" CO2 emissions with just this tech alone.

According to this [1] page I stumbled apon, there's about 3 trillion tonnes of
CO2 in the atmosphere.

Now obviously we don't want to get rid of all of that CO2 or else we would all
die, and a ton isn't quite a tonne, but roughly speaking it means it would
cost on the order of 100 trillion dollars to do a "reset" on the earths CO2
levels with this technology.

Of course I have no idea how long it would take, no idea how the costs may
change with time, no idea what other technologies are used alongside this one
to also help with CO2 emissions, and of course we're continually putting CO2
into the atmosphere so it's not at all the full cost.

But I think it's neat to see a dollar number in some way. Just think, a few
more orders of magnitude lower and it might almost be something we could just
do.

[1] [https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-
co...](https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-
weight-in-the-atmosphere/)

~~~
Felz
For context, that'd be about 1.25 years of current world GDP [1]. If we
maintain a 3.6% growth rate for 100 years, the economy will be 34 times
larger, so it'd take two weeks of the world's total economic output to capture
all that carbon. (In the worst case scenario there'd be about twice as much
carbon by then, so stretch that to a month. [2])

Of course we might not be able to smoothly convert the entire world GDP to
carbon capture plants for a fortnight, and there'd be deleterious global
warming effects in the meanwhile, but overall napkin math paints a pretty
optimistic picture for geoengineering.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product)
[2]
[https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_600xAUTO_stretch_center-c...](https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_600xAUTO_stretch_center-
center/Fig-2.8-01_16x8_a.png) from [https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-
world-passed-a-carbon...](https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-
a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters)

------
mikemoka
"they release pure carbon dioxide which can be stored underground or used to
create products like...fuels"

sounds really smart indeed

ps. they address this issue citing that they would need more federal funding
to bury more co2 underground instead of using it for making fuels carbon
neutral..it's so hard to see that for 100$ now we would sacrifice our very own
life if somebody doesn't pay us $150 to do otherwise

~~~
technicalbard
The thermodynamics of this are a disaster, which will drive their cost of
capture higher than this range. Capturing CO2 from coal fired power plants
costs about $100/tonne and is easier due to substantially higher concentration
than doing so from air. Their pilot plant requires significant electrical and
heat input which they get from burning natural gas -and then capturing that
flue gas. I think this is a PR exercise for the primary investors.

------
peter_d_sherman
Fascinating! Did not know that this was possible before watching this video,
and also did not know that a physical Ton of carbon -- has an
economic/monetary value ($), and that this amount varies by Country due to
markets, tax incentives, etc.

------
tenaciousant666
potentially dumb q, but how are they expecting to expel carbon from
"atmospheric air" when the turbines are mere meters from the ground...?

~~~
Darmody
Well, trees are also several meters from the ground. Algae is underwater and
does its job.

What I like about this is that it can be placed in zones with high CO2
concentration.

~~~
tenaciousant666
thanks, that makes sense

