Biden Set to Bet Billions on Tech That Sucks Carbon Out of the Air

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow, I see this thread has the usual partisan nutcases chiming in. Honestly, you guys should spend more time researching and less time posting. First off, this was not some "omnibus spending". It was part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It passed with Bipartisan support, 69 votes in the Senate. Both the senators from North Carolina voted for the bill, both are Republicans.

Then the claim that these contracts are rewarded based on bribes runs counter to what you numbnut Trumpbots have been screaming about for months. Occidental Petroleum is getting the majority of the money. I thought all the oil exploration companies were closing up job because of Biden? I mean which is it? Are they closing up shop or do they have Biden in their backpockets? Consistency isn't you guys strong suit.

Then we get some rocket scientist that says we already have carbon removal technology, plants. Well Du- Huh, no shit. But this technology, called Direct Air Capture, is far more efficient, and it provides measurable results. The World Economic Forum has stated that DAC must be implemented in order for us to get to a net zero CO2 emissions position.

At this point, only the most ignorant of people can be global warming deniers. And what is really comical, if you love your gasoline powered cars, love your oil fired furnace, love your natural gas stove, and even support coal fired power plants, well damn, then DAC should be right up your ally. Because for every bit of CO2 captured with DAC, well CO2 can be released by all those sources.

So, want to bitch about solar and wind, go for it. But you can't support the burning of fossil fuels and oppose DAC. Like I said, consistency is not you guys strong suit.

First off, this was not some "omnibus spending". It was part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It passed with Bipartisan support, 69 votes in the Senate. Both the senators from North Carolina voted for the bill, both are Republicans.

Stupid spending, even stupid green spending, is a bipartisan failing.
Even something as monumentally stupid as filtering CO2 out of the air.

But this technology, called Direct Air Capture, is far more efficient, and it provides measurable results.

That's awesome! How much does it cost to remove a ton of CO2 from the air?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What a nutbar! "Yeah, we'll suck the CO2 out of the air and pipe it miles and miles to an underground facility."

And your dumbass is all onboard with that and claiming it's efficient!

I'm guessing by your post that you have some education but not much real world experience.

DAC bullshit is completely unnecessary and horribly inefficient, and in this instance they're going to take the money and

run, just like Solyndra and "Green energy" scams while Obama was president.

It's almost as if he's behind the levers of power right now.

And your dumbass is all onboard with that and claiming it's efficient!

Maybe efficient at kicking 10% back to the Big Guy.

 

[The Duke]

First off, this was not some "omnibus spending". It was part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It passed with Bipartisan support, 69 votes in the Senate. Both the senators from North Carolina voted for the bill, both are Republicans.

Stupid spending, even stupid green spending, is a bipartisan failing.
Even something as monumentally stupid as filtering CO2 out of the air.

But this technology, called Direct Air Capture, is far more efficient, and it provides measurable results.

That's awesome! How much does it cost to remove a ton of CO2 from the air?

Monumentally stupid.

Movie's not related, but why not?

It's something Americans should see.

 

[sparky]

Cant we just suck Biden outta the WH?....~S~

 

[The Duke]

Cant we just suck Biden outta the WH?....~S~

Pretty sure Biden will suck himself out of The White House by 2024, in fact he probably already has.

 

[Winston]

First off, this was not some "omnibus spending". It was part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It passed with Bipartisan support, 69 votes in the Senate. Both the senators from North Carolina voted for the bill, both are Republicans.

Stupid spending, even stupid green spending, is a bipartisan failing.
Even something as monumentally stupid as filtering CO2 out of the air.

But this technology, called Direct Air Capture, is far more efficient, and it provides measurable results.

That's awesome! How much does it cost to remove a ton of CO2 from the air?

The cost to remove CO2 from the air with DAC is about $600 a ton. But the cost curve is dropping, and this investment will accelerate that process. It doesn't become economically viable until those cost drop to under $200 a ton. And it will, and you will still bitch. Just like renewable energy is now cost competitive with fossil fuels, and yet those that think like you still bitch.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The cost to remove CO2 from the air with DAC is about $600 a ton. But the cost curve is dropping, and this investment will accelerate that process. It doesn't become economically viable until those cost drop to under $200 a ton. And it will, and you will still bitch. Just like renewable energy is now cost competitive with fossil fuels, and yet those that think like you still bitch.

It doesn't become economically viable until those cost drop to under $200 a ton.

How is that economically viable? Who's your end customer?

Just like renewable energy is now cost competitive with fossil fuels

As long as you ignore the cost of the dispatchable power to cover their unreliability.

 

[Winston]

It doesn't become economically viable until those cost drop to under $200 a ton.

How is that economically viable? Who's your end customer?

Just like renewable energy is now cost competitive with fossil fuels

As long as you ignore the cost of the dispatchable power to cover their unreliability.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629620304606?via%3Dihub

 

[The Duke]

The cost to remove CO2 from the air with DAC is about $600 a ton. But the cost curve is dropping, and this investment will accelerate that process. It doesn't become economically viable until those cost drop to under $200 a ton. And it will, and you will still bitch. Just like renewable energy is now cost competitive with fossil fuels, and yet those that think like you still bitch.

The absolute lunacy of the entire concept is staggering!

This is like "The Emperor has no Clothes".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629620304606?via%3Dihub

It's not economically viable, it won't make money, but it will save "hidden costs"?
That's hilarious!
What happens if we spend $1 trillion, at $200 a ton, to remove 5 billion tons of CO2
and China adds 5 billion additional tons?

 

[Winston]

It's not economically viable, it won't make money, but it will save "hidden costs"?
That's hilarious!
What happens if we spend $1 trillion, at $200 a ton, to remove 5 billion tons of CO2
and China adds 5 billion additional tons?

We will remove 5 billion tons. And just what is it about carbon offsets that you don't understand? Climeworks runs a DAC plant powered by geothermal energy in Iceland and sells those offsets at over a thousand bucks a ton.

But it is not hidden costs. Those costs are far from "hidden". Increased childhood asthma rates among children living and attending school in high traffic areas are quantifiable. Well water contamination from coal ash pits is measurable and quantifiable. And yes, the cost of global warming is measurable and quantifiable, the heat wave in Phoeniz, the forest fires in Hawaii.

No, the term is not "hidden costs", it is "externalizing costs". Which means making other people pay those costs, not the company that initiates them. And that is what boggles my mind. How can any "free market" proponent accept the externalization of costs? I mean here is an example. Woman on welfare, has two kids already, receives every form of social assistance that there is, from public housing to food stamps. She pops out another kid, but hell, what does she care, more welfare for her. She is EXTERNALIZING the cost of that additional child. Damn but you people on the right raise all kinds of holy hell about it. But an energy company, externalizing their costs with higher asthma rates, global warming, contaminating wells, you guys will line up and defend them. And I know you didn't even bother to scan the white paper I linked. Damn dude, we could finance a whole damn nation of welfare queens for what we allow the energy companies to externalize. Penny wise and pound foolish, that is all you can say.

 

[Winston]

The absolute lunacy of the entire concept is staggering!

This is like "The Emperor has no Clothes".

Honestly, you don't have near the intelligence to even be a part of this discussion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We will remove 5 billion tons. And just what is it about carbon offsets that you don't understand? Climeworks runs a DAC plant powered by geothermal energy in Iceland and sells those offsets at over a thousand bucks a ton.

But it is not hidden costs. Those costs are far from "hidden". Increased childhood asthma rates among children living and attending school in high traffic areas are quantifiable. Well water contamination from coal ash pits is measurable and quantifiable. And yes, the cost of global warming is measurable and quantifiable, the heat wave in Phoeniz, the forest fires in Hawaii.

No, the term is not "hidden costs", it is "externalizing costs". Which means making other people pay those costs, not the company that initiates them. And that is what boggles my mind. How can any "free market" proponent accept the externalization of costs? I mean here is an example. Woman on welfare, has two kids already, receives every form of social assistance that there is, from public housing to food stamps. She pops out another kid, but hell, what does she care, more welfare for her. She is EXTERNALIZING the cost of that additional child. Damn but you people on the right raise all kinds of holy hell about it. But an energy company, externalizing their costs with higher asthma rates, global warming, contaminating wells, you guys will line up and defend them. And I know you didn't even bother to scan the white paper I linked. Damn dude, we could finance a whole damn nation of welfare queens for what we allow the energy companies to externalize. Penny wise and pound foolish, that is all you can say.

We will remove 5 billion tons. And just what is it about carbon offsets that you don't understand?

I don't understand the benefit. Can you explain it?

Those costs are far from "hidden". Increased childhood asthma rates among children living and attending school in high traffic areas are quantifiable.

How is removing CO2 going to reduce asthma.

And yes, the cost of global warming is measurable and quantifiable, the heat wave in Phoeniz, the forest fires in Hawaii.

If we remove 1 million tons, how much will that reduce the heat in Phoenix?
How much will that reduce the fires in Hawaii?

Damn dude, we could finance a whole damn nation of welfare queens for what we allow the energy companies to externalize.

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Climeworks runs a DAC plant powered by geothermal energy in Iceland and sells those offsets at over a thousand bucks a ton.

There are a lot of suckers out there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We will remove 5 billion tons. And just what is it about carbon offsets that you don't understand? Climeworks runs a DAC plant powered by geothermal energy in Iceland and sells those offsets at over a thousand bucks a ton.

But it is not hidden costs. Those costs are far from "hidden". Increased childhood asthma rates among children living and attending school in high traffic areas are quantifiable. Well water contamination from coal ash pits is measurable and quantifiable. And yes, the cost of global warming is measurable and quantifiable, the heat wave in Phoeniz, the forest fires in Hawaii.

No, the term is not "hidden costs", it is "externalizing costs". Which means making other people pay those costs, not the company that initiates them. And that is what boggles my mind. How can any "free market" proponent accept the externalization of costs? I mean here is an example. Woman on welfare, has two kids already, receives every form of social assistance that there is, from public housing to food stamps. She pops out another kid, but hell, what does she care, more welfare for her. She is EXTERNALIZING the cost of that additional child. Damn but you people on the right raise all kinds of holy hell about it. But an energy company, externalizing their costs with higher asthma rates, global warming, contaminating wells, you guys will line up and defend them. And I know you didn't even bother to scan the white paper I linked. Damn dude, we could finance a whole damn nation of welfare queens for what we allow the energy companies to externalize. Penny wise and pound foolish, that is all you can say.

No, the term is not "hidden costs", it is "externalizing costs".... And I know you didn't even bother to scan the white paper I linked.

The paper that said "hidden costs" in the title? DURR

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

A bowl of Jello is smarter than Biden...