• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year 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

        • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year 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.