Though I am in similar business of capturing air pollution (nanoparticles and PM2.5): more directed towards lower cost methods of PM Carbon removal which are notorious to have direct health impact.
Through history, we "gained" a lot of energy by burning fossil fuels; now, to fully recover our atmosphere from the pollution of that energy generation, we would have to expend just as much, if not more, than that total amount of energy we ever "gained", to essentially un-burn those same fossil fuels. The problem with sequestering CO2 as HC(fuel) is that you need to put a whole load of energy (embodied in the hydrogen you're combining it with) into the ground and leave it there. Carbon sequestration is heavily funded by fossil fuel giants to gain more justification for causing more pollution. Regards, anirudh <http://www.anirudh.me>. On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:53 PM Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:47 PM Anirudh Sharma < > [email protected]> wrote: > > For the last few years, I am scaling Graviky Labs, www.graviky.com that > > captures air pollution particulate matter and recycles it into pigments > and > > inks. > > > > Anirudh, I am curious about what you (and others!) think of this recent > announcement: > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/its-possible-to-reverse-climate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/ > > A team of scientists from Harvard University and the company Carbon > Engineering <http://carbonengineering.com/> announced on Thursday that > they > have found a method to cheaply and directly pull carbon-dioxide pollution > out of the atmosphere. > > If their technique is successfully implemented at scale, it could transform > how humanity thinks about the problem of climate change. It could give > people a decisive new tool in the race against a warming planet, but could > also unsettle the issue’s delicate politics, making it all the harder for > society to adapt. > > Their research <https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3> > seems > almost to smuggle technologies out of the realm of science fiction and into > the real. It suggests that people will soon be able to produce gasoline and > jet fuel from little more than limestone, hydrogen, and air. It hints at > the eventual construction of a vast, industrial-scale network of carbon > scrubbers, capable of removing greenhouse gases directly from the > atmosphere. > > Above all, the new technique is noteworthy because it promises to remove > carbon dioxide *cheaply*. As recently as 2011, a panel of experts estimated > that it would cost at least $600 > < > https://www.princeton.edu/news/2011/05/09/report-direct-removal-carbon-dioxide-air-likely-not-viable > > > to remove a metric ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. > > The new paper says it can remove the same ton for as little as $94, and for > no more than $232. At those rates, it would cost between $1 and $2.50 to > remove the carbon dioxide released by burning a gallon of gasoline in a > modern car. > > “If these costs are real, it is an important result,” said Ken Caldeira > <https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_bio.html>, a > senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science. “This opens up > the possibility that we could stabilize the climate for affordable amounts > of money without changing the entire energy system or changing everyone’s > behavior.” > > <snip> > > -- > > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > ᐧ
