←back to thread

MIT engineers make converting CO2 into useful products more practical

(news.mit.edu)
173 points rbanffy | 7 comments | 13 Nov 24 15:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.215s | source | bottom
Show context
jandrese ◴[13 Nov 24 17:05 UTC] No.42127841[source]▶
The article annoyingly failed to close the loop from the $1,000/ton figure at the top and do the math on the economic efficiency potential of this approach. How much electricity is required to sequester each ton of CO2 using this method, assuming you can amortize the construction costs over some long duration? I assume the intended installation is on the exhaust of a fossil fuel burning facility, but is it possible to install this next to a solar field and generate ethylene from excess mid-day production? Large scale carbon sequestration is one of the major unsolved problems of the 21st century and we have to expect many false starts before the really viable technologies emerge.
replies(4): >>42127972 #>>42128070 #>>42128429 #>>42129607 #
slwvx ◴[13 Nov 24 17:18 UTC] No.42127972[source]▶
One place to look for some math on the economic efficiencies is the blog of Terraform industries. Here's a start:

https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2024/04/01/terrafo...

replies(1): >>42128046 #
1. jandrese ◴[13 Nov 24 17:24 UTC] No.42128046[source]▶
> There is no hand waving about economies of scale or subsidies here, though we are eligible for the full IRA 45V green hydrogen tax credit, worth $3/kg-H2.

Their business model may have a slight problem.

replies(2): >>42128227 #>>42129227 #
2. bryanlarsen ◴[13 Nov 24 17:43 UTC] No.42128227[source]▶
They're saying that they don't need the green hydrogen tax credit. The tax credit makes their product profitable sooner, but as long as solar keeps following it's cost curve for a couple more years they'll be fine without it.
3. fao_ ◴[13 Nov 24 19:47 UTC] No.42129227[source]▶
> Their business model may have a slight problem.

Oil is subsidized to a much higher amount by the US government

replies(2): >>42130851 #>>42132229 #
4. jandrese ◴[13 Nov 24 22:26 UTC] No.42130851[source]▶
Yeah, but that subsidy is not likely to disappear in 2 months.
5. HPsquared ◴[14 Nov 24 01:34 UTC] No.42132229[source]▶
Subsidized in what way? I've heard many dubious things in the UK / EU called "fossil fuel subsidies" when it's mostly generic things like electricity having a lower VAT rate than the usual 20% (or whatever) on most consumer goods. This is the sort of thing that gets called a fossil fuel subsidy. I think a lot of these things are grasping at straws.
replies(2): >>42132793 #>>42137752 #
6. lotsofpulp ◴[14 Nov 24 16:22 UTC] No.42137752{3}[source]▶
The top subsidy of fuels that emit carbon emissions is the externalities experienced by future generations. Not really measured in numbers, it will just be a change in quality of life.
replies(1): >>42177667 #
7. sourdoughness ◴[18 Nov 24 22:10 UTC] No.42177667{4}[source]▶
That is an extremely interesting and potent way of phrasing it - thank you!