10x cheaper energy - presumably mostly nuclear sourced electricity - totally changes the incentives for using fossil fuels because now their extraction and transport is more expensive. I doubt this will happen but it would be good if it did.
I totally agree that the most likely ways to reduce CO2 are oceanic and that the CO2 reduction will be a byproduct not the initial goal. Fish protein seems like the most likely given the growing desire for protein of richer nations
Great thinking here, Quico. That said, I don't think the math works out in your scenarios. Being a physicist, engineer, and entrepreneur, I'm big on having the math work out before making plans.
10x cheaper energy is probably good for tourism and consumption but won't change the climate. The problem with direct air capture (DAC) isn't just the cost of energy, it's the ridiculously high capital cost compared to smart OIF and the slow rate of DAC build-out: after 10 years it's up to about 1 millionth of what's needed to measurably impact CO2 levels. If they scale up 2X every year, in 20 years they'll be able to make a measurable dent, at a cost of most of the global GDP. Yes, DAC is good for oil companies--they need the pure CO2 for oil extraction and refining--but that's not beneficial to the climate.
Sargassum is a great resource for hydrocarbons, nutrients and such. It just doesn't scale up to make a significant climate difference. At this point reports say there are 13 million tons of sargassum growing when we need to remove 60,000 million tons of CO2 per year. That's about 4,000 times too small to make a difference in the climate.
WHOI is doing really great work in ocean science to understand how to remove 1 to 4 Gt CO2 per year. But understanding ocean science doesn't remove CO2 from the air. WHOI is not investigating the engineering aspects of downwelling eddies that appear to be the key to Nature's 20 Gt CO2 removal in 1992. That kind of work is probably not in their remit. The 1992 event happened one time--but not after the other large eruptions (1963 and 1980) that also caused half-degree cooling. That uniqueness makes it not very relevant for a science institution (they have to wait for another similar eruption and take the data). But very relevant for removing CO2 at the rate needed to restore safe CO2 levels for our children.
I urge you to do the math before you publish. If you don't who will?
I like this kind of thinking. I agree with you that anything that requires a carbon market isn’t going to go- that just won’t be something that can sustain itself over time. The startups looking to get billionaire money for carbon indulgences will all run out of money before scaling- this isn’t a zero to one problem.
It will be due to some other shorter run benefit, which cheaper energy, fish, etc. would provide and climate benefit will be a side effect.
You write about climate with a combination of authority and optimism that I’ve not heard elsewhere. Thank you for that! Hoping that your voice will be amplified.
So happy to find you here. I always find the best content out there :-)
Glimmers of hope are welcomed these days. With the US trying to stop and reverse any decarbonization efforts and stop any funding for research on the topic, we will need the technical might of all the fired scientists that are looking for jobs now to be hired somewhere. Maybe in Asia?
This is the kind of world i'm hoping my kids grow up in. Love the fisheries pathway... It's the equivalent of synthetic nitrogen for farming, except it has a beneficial atmospheric impact.
Mr. Toro, you should talk to David Roberts about getting on his podcast to discuss your ideas. He mostly talks about renewable energy, but the larger goal is decarbonization.
10x cheaper energy - presumably mostly nuclear sourced electricity - totally changes the incentives for using fossil fuels because now their extraction and transport is more expensive. I doubt this will happen but it would be good if it did.
I totally agree that the most likely ways to reduce CO2 are oceanic and that the CO2 reduction will be a byproduct not the initial goal. Fish protein seems like the most likely given the growing desire for protein of richer nations
Great thinking here, Quico. That said, I don't think the math works out in your scenarios. Being a physicist, engineer, and entrepreneur, I'm big on having the math work out before making plans.
10x cheaper energy is probably good for tourism and consumption but won't change the climate. The problem with direct air capture (DAC) isn't just the cost of energy, it's the ridiculously high capital cost compared to smart OIF and the slow rate of DAC build-out: after 10 years it's up to about 1 millionth of what's needed to measurably impact CO2 levels. If they scale up 2X every year, in 20 years they'll be able to make a measurable dent, at a cost of most of the global GDP. Yes, DAC is good for oil companies--they need the pure CO2 for oil extraction and refining--but that's not beneficial to the climate.
Sargassum is a great resource for hydrocarbons, nutrients and such. It just doesn't scale up to make a significant climate difference. At this point reports say there are 13 million tons of sargassum growing when we need to remove 60,000 million tons of CO2 per year. That's about 4,000 times too small to make a difference in the climate.
WHOI is doing really great work in ocean science to understand how to remove 1 to 4 Gt CO2 per year. But understanding ocean science doesn't remove CO2 from the air. WHOI is not investigating the engineering aspects of downwelling eddies that appear to be the key to Nature's 20 Gt CO2 removal in 1992. That kind of work is probably not in their remit. The 1992 event happened one time--but not after the other large eruptions (1963 and 1980) that also caused half-degree cooling. That uniqueness makes it not very relevant for a science institution (they have to wait for another similar eruption and take the data). But very relevant for removing CO2 at the rate needed to restore safe CO2 levels for our children.
I urge you to do the math before you publish. If you don't who will?
I like this kind of thinking. I agree with you that anything that requires a carbon market isn’t going to go- that just won’t be something that can sustain itself over time. The startups looking to get billionaire money for carbon indulgences will all run out of money before scaling- this isn’t a zero to one problem.
It will be due to some other shorter run benefit, which cheaper energy, fish, etc. would provide and climate benefit will be a side effect.
You write about climate with a combination of authority and optimism that I’ve not heard elsewhere. Thank you for that! Hoping that your voice will be amplified.
Thanks! I dunno that my approach fits in too neatly with the Zeitgeist, but it's good to know some people appreciate it.
So happy to find you here. I always find the best content out there :-)
Glimmers of hope are welcomed these days. With the US trying to stop and reverse any decarbonization efforts and stop any funding for research on the topic, we will need the technical might of all the fired scientists that are looking for jobs now to be hired somewhere. Maybe in Asia?
This is the kind of world i'm hoping my kids grow up in. Love the fisheries pathway... It's the equivalent of synthetic nitrogen for farming, except it has a beneficial atmospheric impact.
Mr. Toro, you should talk to David Roberts about getting on his podcast to discuss your ideas. He mostly talks about renewable energy, but the larger goal is decarbonization.
Thx! Tell him, not me!!
I did leave a suggestion in a Volts mail bag thread. I’m not sure there is another way to get the message to him directly.
Thanks!