Article is subject to a paywall, which can be bypassed by clearing cookies for the site, and registering with a made-up email address (it's checked for syntax but nothing else)
I'll note that this is a tiny and incredibly expensive part of what needs to happen
6 Comments
PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com · 8 pts · 3y
Stephen304@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 3y
Would that be done through mineralizing the carbon that's dissolved in the water? I remember hearing about some mineral you could spread in the water that would react with the carbon. I wonder what it would take to produce and spread that at scale with a low re-emission rate.
silence7@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 3y
There is discussion around enhanced rock weathering, but none of it is a proved technology at this point, even at pilot scale, in the way that direct air capture is.
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3y
That’s a bingo!
magmaus3@szmer.info · 6 pts · 3y
alternative link (also bypasses paywall): https://archive.ph/h0KNS
cxtinac@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 3y
Interesting, but there's no mention in the article of the $/ton CO2 they will pay that I could see.
Presumably it will have to be close to the market (say $100 $/ton today?).
If they go lower there will be no uptake, if they go much higher they will burn through the $3.5B and only achieve a short blip in the market for no real long term benefit.
But I imagine $3.5B used carefully might have some interesting effects.
Edit: I'm not sure $3.5B is the relevant number (but the only one quoted in the article).
Akasazh@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 3y
So having trees will earn you money? /s