this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
351 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

58133 readers
4469 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Form a Fortune article:

While Heirloom declined to disclose the price tag to build the California facility, the company aims to operate at a cost of $100 per ton of carbon removed by 2030

From a Techwire article:

Heirloom estimates that the current cost of the technology ranges from $600 to $1,000 per ton of CO2 removed.

I could not find any article on how much the carbon cost was to run such a facility and move the raw materials to/from it.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, they're using renewable energy to power it. The limestone looks like it's just constantly recycled, so it would be just the initial transport there. Their output is tanks of compressed carbon dioxide which is sent to a concrete maker, so it really depends on how far away the concrete maker is. There's a thing called industrial symbiosis, where manufacturers co-locate so that one factory's waste easily becomes the factory next door's input.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I'm not very familiar with all this but shouldn't we be hiding the CO2 somehow? I feel like concrete is just going to nudge the can down the road until it breaks down in like 50 years

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

While in 50 years it might not be a great building anymore, it will still be a fantastic pile of rubble. Basically landfill, but it can be reused as gravel for new building projects, too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

That all makes sense, thank you!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

The concrete frkm the berlin wall is probably being used in some industrial parking lot somewhere.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The concrete won't release the CO2 when it breaks down, since the quicklime in the cement reacts with CO2 to form limestone. The catch is that quicklime is mainly produced by heating limestone to release CO2, so making extra concrete won't result in net carbon capture. But if the concrete was going to be produced anyway, I suppose it's better to have it absorb the CO2 sooner rather than later.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Hmm, well that's less exciting than I had hoped but yeah at least it is something and honestly anything to get new tech funded is probably good overall

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Roman concrete structures still exist after 2000 years. If you want to "hide" the CO2 somehow, then concrete doesn't seem like a bad idea.