Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#141

Post by gamblor956 » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

Scea91 wrote: post #105

undreren wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All chemical energy available through coal and oil stored in the earth is the product of a massive amount of highly ineffecient capture of energy from sunlight. [0] All wind is caused directly by unequal warming of our planet through sunlight. The average hurricane individually releases more energy than entire world population has exhausted, since the dawn of time. [1] Sunlight is plenty enough. The problem is cheap,…

Another problem is energy density as I said. How much solar energy can you harvest from one square kilometer? I am so surprised that people just handwave this basic fundamental limits away and don't realize that we would have to build solar panels on an enormous percentage of planet for it to be able to replace fossil fuels. Also managing the lifecycle and production of these panels is another issue. And don't forget…

A single solar farm of 1km sq can provide enough power for several ten thousand homes, and we have several million square miles of unusuable land lying around in the countries that receive the most sunlight, so land isn't the issue.

That doesn't include solar panels that could actually be installed on the homes. A single roof entirely covered by solar panels can power a LEED-certified home when used in conjunction with battery storage. (Most solar panel setups do not cover the entire rough but still provide sufficient power for all but the most intensive uses, like refrigerators and A/C.)

Farmland, by and large, isn't the best land for solar panels anyway, so the two would generally not come into conflict.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#142

Post by eanzenberg » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

samfriedman wrote: post #52

matt42 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Gaia theory suggests that the world is full of these stabilizing systems. Earth may have tricks to save its ecosystem, one of them could be temporarily increase temperatures and sea levels, just enough to end humanity.

Something I think of often when people say things like "we need to stop climate change and save the world!" The world will be fine, it's not going anywhere: humans and the species we like on the other hand...

Humans will be fine. Dumb humans on the other hand...

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#143

Post by CuriousSkeptic » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

mbostleman wrote: post #131

jschwartzi wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes from a very explicit reading of Ayn Rand, who frequently likens law and regulation to the explicit use of force. To be fair, it's true but the literal statement of the fact misses a lot of the nuance of living in a civil society.

Of course it's true, no need for your generosity of fairness. Just don't obey the law and see what happens. Continue to do so and eventually you'll be looking down the barrel of a gun. Pointing this out is not Randian. It's just reality. There are no nuances of living in a civil society when solutions are implemented by law. If it's by law, then it's by gun. I don't know of any law that works otherwise. I think the n…

Even in a fully laizes fair community you would sooner or later be “looking down the barrel of a gun” for some reason or other. Laws at least makes it a bit easier to predict what reasons that would be.

But regarding the need for knowing exactly how things works and who should have rights to do what. I could equally argue that your contribution to raising the CO2 concentration of our shared resource, the atmosphere, is not sanctioned by me. So why is it not you that should prove it is safe before asking me to just accept your doing so?

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#144

Post by propman » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 6:11 PM UTC

Scea91 wrote: post #105

undreren wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All chemical energy available through coal and oil stored in the earth is the product of a massive amount of highly ineffecient capture of energy from sunlight. [0] All wind is caused directly by unequal warming of our planet through sunlight. The average hurricane individually releases more energy than entire world population has exhausted, since the dawn of time. [1] Sunlight is plenty enough. The problem is cheap,…

Another problem is energy density as I said. How much solar energy can you harvest from one square kilometer? I am so surprised that people just handwave this basic fundamental limits away and don't realize that we would have to build solar panels on an enormous percentage of planet for it to be able to replace fossil fuels. Also managing the lifecycle and production of these panels is another issue. And don't forget…

The Mojave Desert. It’s 48,000 square miles and almost uninhabited. We need 2% of that for almost 1000 sq miles. The Trump admin has approved that land for solar but the environmentalists are fighting hard against it, making bidding companies wary that it won’t be worth it. The location is perfect to supply Vegas, Phoenix, LA, and Texas easy. And can also do NorCal and more. It’ll get you 167GW capacity of solar. More than our current wind and solar combined and almost 10% of electricity generation of the country. Rooftop solar on the 30 biggest businesses in America would also yield a ton of solar, read a study the other day on that.

But...you do have a point even though the first part was wrong. Honestly, anything above 50% solar and wind is useless. Need to make up that cost via hydro, nuclear, or storage.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#145

Post by Pete_D » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

louthy wrote: post #70

dub4u wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

For a shorter period of time [1] > The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds…

Even then, it's worse by weight over most timescales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential: "In the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, methane has a lifetime of 12.4 years and with climate-carbon feedbacks a global warming potential of 86 over 20 years and 34 over 100 years in response to emissions."

(CO2, being the baseline, has a GWP of 1.)

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#146

Post by snikeris » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #143

mbostleman wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's true, no need for your generosity of fairness. Just don't obey the law and see what happens. Continue to do so and eventually you'll be looking down the barrel of a gun. Pointing this out is not Randian. It's just reality. There are no nuances of living in a civil society when solutions are implemented by law. If it's by law, then it's by gun. I don't know of any law that works otherwise. I think the n…

Even in a fully laizes fair community you would sooner or later be “looking down the barrel of a gun” for some reason or other. Laws at least makes it a bit easier to predict what reasons that would be. But regarding the need for knowing exactly how things works and who should have rights to do what. I could equally argue that your contribution to raising the CO2 concentration of our shared resource, the atmosphere,…

> I could equally argue that your contribution to raising the CO2 concentration of our shared resource, the atmosphere, is not sanctioned by me.

Then I suppose you should do us all a favor and stop breathing because your breathing is not sanctioned by me. (Just kidding, it is :))

Seriously though, that's just the way it's always been. We're born into the world and we act w/out permission to survive. I don't have to prove to anyone that the next step I take is safe. But if it harms you in some way, then yes, I'm liable.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#147

Post by lozenge » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 6:55 PM UTC

Tharkun wrote: post #114

SiempreViernes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there is a solution that is orders of magnitude more effective: don't buy meat, thereby allowing cow farming to end. Not eating meat is however seen as too 'inconvenient' a solution, so instead someone is trying to sell seaweed fed cows as a "partial solution" where it is really more of a gimmick.

Statements like "don't buy meat" are much more of a gimmick than tinkering with cattle feed. The latter is a realistic option -- which might not make a huge difference, but it will make a difference. The former is a pipe dream. Humans have been eating meat since before they were human. Good luck changing that in the timeframe we have before climate change becomes very painful.

Sorry, it's not a gimmick. There are plenty of cultures which eat far less meat and are very healthy. In my opinion the difference is they know how to cook other food well. Of course I don't expect everybody to stop eating meat entirely, but why isn't it part of the answer to climate change?

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#148

Post by ghostbrainalpha » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 7:21 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #100

ariehkovler wrote: post #3

Really interesting. Makes me think of Daisyworld and the Gaia Hypothesis. Daisyworld is a model Earth covered in black and white daisies, that either absorb or reflect light. In the model, black daisies need less light because they absorb more, increasing the Earth's heat absorption. White daisies absorb less so need more light, but also reflect more light back, increasing the surface albedo of the planet and lowerin…

> Gaia theory suggests that the world is full of these stabilizing systems Doesn’t it go considerably further, into almost suggesting the Earth is a spiritual or conscious entity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

No.

If it did, then it wouldn't be a theory, it would just be a religious belief.

Although, I would agree that many of the people working on the theory, would privately believe something like that.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#149

Post by mistercow » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 7:37 PM UTC

azernik wrote: post #111

ariehkovler wrote: post #3

Really interesting. Makes me think of Daisyworld and the Gaia Hypothesis. Daisyworld is a model Earth covered in black and white daisies, that either absorb or reflect light. In the model, black daisies need less light because they absorb more, increasing the Earth's heat absorption. White daisies absorb less so need more light, but also reflect more light back, increasing the surface albedo of the planet and lowerin…

This is actually not at all what the paper is saying. It's saying that a natural carbon-sequestration process we already knew about is more effective than we thought. It says nothing about the way seaweed growth changes with increased carbon levels.

In other words, it sounds like the above commenter is suggesting that seaweed might unexpectedly save us. But the actual point is almost the opposite: this means we’ve been relying on something all along that we didn’t know we needed to protect.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#150

Post by CuriousSkeptic » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 8:07 PM UTC

snikeris wrote: post #146

CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in a fully laizes fair community you would sooner or later be “looking down the barrel of a gun” for some reason or other. Laws at least makes it a bit easier to predict what reasons that would be. But regarding the need for knowing exactly how things works and who should have rights to do what. I could equally argue that your contribution to raising the CO2 concentration of our shared resource, the atmosphere,…

> I could equally argue that your contribution to raising the CO2 concentration of our shared resource, the atmosphere, is not sanctioned by me. Then I suppose you should do us all a favor and stop breathing because your breathing is not sanctioned by me. (Just kidding, it is :)) Seriously though, that's just the way it's always been. We're born into the world and we act w/out permission to survive. I don't have to p…

I guess there is a fundamental difference in how we see the commons. I take the view that it is not simply “there” as a first come first serve basis, but rather something we have an equal right to, the basis from which private property must be derived. Locke started here.

But I think the breathing thing is actually a good retort. Where do the principles meet...

I guess in the case the differenence is between drinking from the well and pissing in it. It might very well be safe, but certainly not nice