> Tarek Soliman, a London-based climate change analyst at HSBC Global Research, says the launch in Reykjavik is not the sort of “quantum leap” that would prove the technology can reach the scale and cost required to have a real impact on climate change.
However, we have only a very short amount of time to operationalize a way to store gigatons of carbon per year, because after 2050 it is necessary to stop the worst effects of climate change.
This Climeworks project is helpful for learning costs of this particular technology. But we had better find something with a really fantastic learning curve, where scaling the industry makes it really cheap, otherwise we will fail at our goals in the future.
It's hard enough to imagine any country paying for their past emissions from 2050 out, in the form of using tech like this to scale. But we must do it. Perhaps there will be a war.
I suppose major advances in molecular nanotech could perform the carbon capture. That's what Drexler proposed years ago.
Three decades with increasing urgency and likely more government funding can make a lot of progress. I wouldn't be surprised if we do have a major technological breakthrough to mitigate climate change.
New technological and manufacturing advances happen nearly daily. We may have panels that last for 60-90 years within a decade, meaning that costs will drop even further.
Solar also has the advantage of being extremely scalable and decentralized, so that a massive installation can be put in cheap land far from any people, without having to run transmission lines to a big centralized power generator. Of the current average cost of $0.13/kWh in the US for electricity, $0.08/kWh is for transmission and distribution costs, and only $0.05 is for power generation. That 8 cents isn't falling in cost, and so halving the cost of generation, or even making it a fifth of the cost, doesn't help a lot unless the power generation can be located closer to where it's needed.
For super cheap energy, it's going to be nearly impossible to beat solar PV.
I wish governments would stop bickering about political goals, all of which literally do nothing to change CO2 levels, and focus on actually technological goals of pulling CO2 out of the air to meet whatever target is decided. That is the practical solution, but it has no political value, so instead we argue about "science" and try and hamfist socialist politics into every climate change solution.
What do you mean by this?
