Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Climate Engineers Sucking Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 133 posts

Re: Climate Engineers Sucking Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere

#41

Post by intended »

gadders wrote: post #36
intended wrote: post #6

I find that the idea of "climate engineers" and "geo engineering" has markers which will make it appeal to the same people currently peddling climate denial. My running bet/prediction is that 1) the imbroglio in America on climate denial will continue, 2) most of the world will feel happy that they are doing less than it should, but more than the stat 3) Eventually someone will sell the idea of !!GEO ENGINEERING!! to…

I think a lot of global warming activists/campaigners hate the idea of a technological solution as it won't allow them to tackle things like "global inequality" which they see as important as fixing global warming itself.

Oh don't get me wrong. I think that global warming activists have lost, and that the end goal for the planet is set.

I'm not campaigning, I'm cooking near the fire.

I make assumptions about the world, and in the end I realized the best way for me to hold myself honest, is to make a prediction and then see how it pans out.

This is one of the predictions I am confident enough about that I can moan about it on HN.

I hope I am wrong, that either some technique is actually found where pumping MORE heat into a heat engine makes it cooler, or people ditch the idea.

But this is not about conservation or global warming campaigning. I think the ship has sailed on that one.

This is just a prediction about a new product.

Re: Climate Engineers Sucking Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere

#42

Post by blkhawk »

wow - This technology is the future - as per the article each plant sequesters about 11 Cars worth of CO2 each year. Since there are currently about 1.015 billion motor vehicles (lets assume those are cars) we would only need 93 million of these things - how much energy do they use and can they suck more CO2 running them causes?

Re: Climate Engineers Sucking Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere

#43

Post by intended »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #29
intended wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will have to forgive me when I cannot fathom how actively meddling with a complex system, which requires a substantial investment by our species in terms of scientists, research departments, universities, government offices - is going to result in a tightly controlled, well predicted result. As opposed to getting a project with moving targets, hard to prove results, great optics and massive funding requirements.…

Climate is a complex, dynamic system, but is not magic. I have the feeling that most people desperately try to pretend everything is a static system (so it can be described, once, in a non-time-evolving form, and then called done), and in the few cases it fails, they throw their hands up and say "it's complex, dynamic, beyond human comprehension". I mean, you could use the same argument against entire modern medicine…

And the first bone setters and medicine men killed a phenomenal amount of people as much as they helped, and solutions were terrible until the modern methods arrived on the scene.

Similarly Humanity has been inadvertently geo-engineering the planet.

Modern techniques are here, and they tell us that the best way to treat the patient is not via geo-engineering.

Look my point is cynical and its not about climate science.

MUCH More importantly I am saying that it is the kind of pseudo-science-hope-springs-eternal-last-ditch-effort that people LOVE to support.

Its a product in itself. That is what I am highlighting.

I believe that Climate engineering/geo engineering sits at a special hype junction, a future sweet spot that is going to be irresistible to politicians, media types and lay people who are scared and desperate.

And YES - I hope and keep my mind open to the possibility that we find good tech that helps reduce global temps which is not "pollute less".

This would truly be a magic bullet which would let us continue to grow as we have for so long, while stopping the effects of climate change, and it is something to earnestly hope for.

Re: Climate Engineers Sucking Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere

#44

Post by Beltiras »

intended wrote: post #38
Beltiras wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one-time energy cost of removal might offset the constant cost of having the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's dependant on the energy cost of removal of course.

Right, but a one time energy cost of removal? Our environment built itself out of eons of incremental changes using self replicating systems using the entirety of habitable surface area. I think its extremely unlikely that there will be a single one time way of removing carbon from the air (I'd bet on it). So we will be left with constant and continuous systems cleaning the air. Instead of not mucking it up in the fi…

There are sequestration methods today like storing CO2 in rocks: https://www.or.is/english/carbfix-project

Re: Climate Engineers Sucking Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere

#45

Post by dalbasal »

dogma1138 wrote: post #15
dalbasal wrote: post #14

These sorts of ideas are in a weird place. To many who are actively seeking better performance in our carbon reduction efforts, ideas like this could be seen as a threat to those efforts. ATM, the debate is (1)"is the carbon-climate problem real?" and (2) "If so, how do we reduce carbon emissions?". "Climate Engineering" would complicate 2 a lot, probably splitting political support. Politically, they open the door t…

There is no debate and no climate scientist sees this as a threat. Reduction is needed but it won't cut it its too late for natural carbon sequestering at its normal pace. People who work on reduction also often work on sequestering and if not do not see these efforts as a threat to any of their work.

Sure there's a debate. We're debating and discussing right now.

Re: Climate Engineers Sucking Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere

#47

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

jtraffic wrote: post #46

For some reason I thought the runaway in temps will come from water vapor from melting permafrost, which is starting now. In other words, the CO2 ship has sailed, no?

Why would melting permafrost release more water vapor than the warming oceans, which are massively larger?

Re: Climate Engineers Sucking Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere

#48

Post by ericd »

Beltiras wrote: post #44
intended wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but a one time energy cost of removal? Our environment built itself out of eons of incremental changes using self replicating systems using the entirety of habitable surface area. I think its extremely unlikely that there will be a single one time way of removing carbon from the air (I'd bet on it). So we will be left with constant and continuous systems cleaning the air. Instead of not mucking it up in the fi…

There are sequestration methods today like storing CO2 in rocks: https://www.or.is/english/carbfix-project

Can we do it at the enormous scale we'd need to in order to offset the enormous amount of oil, coal, and gas we've burnt, though?

Re: Climate Engineers Sucking Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere

#49

Post by tryingagainbro »

dumb question: say they take xxxx tons from somewhere in Switzerland. How long does it take for the air to mix with the rest so the co2 is averaged worldwide?

This looks like a great thing. The state can tax emissions and force emitters to pay such carbon gathering companies to become carbon neutral. You release xxxxx tons a years, show that you sequestered at least the same or pay a tax.

You could also have a Bill Gates type donate all his money to a such company. Or the government can fund them. If this works, it's just a matter of cash and we have it /can find it.

Re: Climate Engineers Sucking Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere

#50

Post by credit_guy »

intended wrote: post #25
chr1 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhy climate engineering as a whole gets very negative responses from people who care about environment. But the climate we had in 1800s was not particularly great either. 1/3 of the land surface was still desert, hurricanes and droughts were common too, so the strategy of reducing human population, using only clean energy, etc. won't get us to a much better place. Of course some ideas are not great, but it doesn'…

You will have to forgive me when I cannot fathom how actively meddling with a complex system, which requires a substantial investment by our species in terms of scientists, research departments, universities, government offices - is going to result in a tightly controlled, well predicted result. As opposed to getting a project with moving targets, hard to prove results, great optics and massive funding requirements.…

Why can't we use the climate models?
Post reply on HN