Out of curiosity, what would you get if you added say $200/Mg CO2 DAC cost, and then mandate a net0 overall output. Would it come up with the same Mia’s as a $200bMg CO2 tax? I guess it would depend on if you modeled its energy use on top of that…
I like to think I'm a free speech absolutist. But if I became King of the world, I'd be sorely tempted to ban the foul term netzero, and ship all the netzerians to Guantanamo, where they would be subject to soap and water mouth washing until they recanted. This would only require adding soap to existing harsh interrogation techniques, so all the necessary infrastructure is in place.
What is this obsession with netzero? Our job is to reduce CO2 economically. AFAIK tell DAC at more than $500/ton CO2, if and only if you have low cost, very low CO2 power is one of the least economic means of reducing CO2. And that assumes you have a place to put a 170 bar gas and then you have to hope it stays there.
We have a whole range of measures for reducing CO2 which are cheaper than DAC. But just about all of them, like DAC, depend on 24/7, truly cheap, truly low CO2 power. Let's get that before we are allowed to utter the forbidden word again.
Completely agree. If we never gave the least consideration for CO2 emissions, the world would have more power and produce less CO2 emissions than it does now. We would have built big natural gas plants with no wind or solar, and added nuclear as the technology gradually won over the public.
Out of curiosity, what would you get if you added say $200/Mg CO2 DAC cost, and then mandate a net0 overall output. Would it come up with the same Mia’s as a $200bMg CO2 tax? I guess it would depend on if you modeled its energy use on top of that…
Jesse,
I like to think I'm a free speech absolutist. But if I became King of the world, I'd be sorely tempted to ban the foul term netzero, and ship all the netzerians to Guantanamo, where they would be subject to soap and water mouth washing until they recanted. This would only require adding soap to existing harsh interrogation techniques, so all the necessary infrastructure is in place.
What is this obsession with netzero? Our job is to reduce CO2 economically. AFAIK tell DAC at more than $500/ton CO2, if and only if you have low cost, very low CO2 power is one of the least economic means of reducing CO2. And that assumes you have a place to put a 170 bar gas and then you have to hope it stays there.
We have a whole range of measures for reducing CO2 which are cheaper than DAC. But just about all of them, like DAC, depend on 24/7, truly cheap, truly low CO2 power. Let's get that before we are allowed to utter the forbidden word again.
Completely agree. If we never gave the least consideration for CO2 emissions, the world would have more power and produce less CO2 emissions than it does now. We would have built big natural gas plants with no wind or solar, and added nuclear as the technology gradually won over the public.