• MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Not at all. At $500/t the 1.4million people would not emit $262.5million worth of carbon.

    • Sorry, I’m not following what you’re disputing with the “Not at all” or where the $262.5M figure is from.

      All I was comparing is that for $1B it removes as much carbon as 1.4M people riding a bike to work per year which is expensive when put in perspective. Granted, the upkeep after that is 500k tonnes x $500/t = $250MM/year. However, that’s still an absurd amount of money to do what a sliver of the population riding a bike can do.

      This is fine as an addition to transitioning to renewables, however the funding and advocacy for carbon capture has come from oil companies from the beginning and it is used as a cost of doing business instead of investing in renewables.

      • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        The $500/t is the total cost of building and operating the plant. So it includes the $1billion construction cost. So 1.4million people would not emit $262.5million/year, which is a lot of money, but also it is not insane. It is only $1.14/l of petrol to remove the CO2 from emitted from the atmosphere again. US cost per of petrol it $0.91/l so we would talk about $2.05/l. Price in the Netherlands is at $2.08/l today.