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

The impact of direct air carbon capture on climate change

cognitivemedium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 147 posts

Re: The impact of direct air carbon capture on climate change

#31

Post by shawnb576 »

scarygliders wrote: post #27

Here goes for further downvotes... The entire edifice of this "human caused climate change" hypothesis rests on the premise that carbon dioxide is /the/ control knob for this planet's temperature. There is zero proof that this is true. Zero. So if I were you, I'd be very, very cautious before going ahead with capturing CO2, by any method. It's way too early for this sort of thing. Vastly more research is required bef…

Ugh, I shouldn't feed trolls...

1) AGM has hit the gold-standard of proof, it's not an open question at this point, and CO2 is the primary driver along with other GHG [1]

2) What exactly are the "potentially disastrous" consequences of going back to 300ppm, roughly where we were for 10k years?

[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperature...

Re: The impact of direct air carbon capture on climate change

#32

Post by thisisbrians »

scarygliders wrote: post #27

Here goes for further downvotes... The entire edifice of this "human caused climate change" hypothesis rests on the premise that carbon dioxide is /the/ control knob for this planet's temperature. There is zero proof that this is true. Zero. So if I were you, I'd be very, very cautious before going ahead with capturing CO2, by any method. It's way too early for this sort of thing. Vastly more research is required bef…

[flagged]

Re: The impact of direct air carbon capture on climate change

#34

Post by [deleted] »

zozbot234 wrote: post #19
gibybo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> extracting carbon from the air always takes more energy that was gained by burning the fossil fuel to make that carbon. This sounds true at first glance, but is it always? It seems like it's obviously true for simple reactions like burning methane and converting it back to methane since the energy you get from it is equal to or less than the energy required to turn it back into methane, but might there be some othe…

Yes, there are rocks that will "extract" carbon from the air on their own if crushed into sand. They are even reasonably abundant, so it seems like they would be a feasible tool for carbon capture. It would basically amount to speeding up the natural carbon cycle, which normally keeps carbon dioxide concentrations relatively stable in the very long run.

[deleted]

Re: The impact of direct air carbon capture on climate change

#35

Post by scarygliders »

pipermerriam wrote: post #29
scarygliders wrote: post #27

Here goes for further downvotes... The entire edifice of this "human caused climate change" hypothesis rests on the premise that carbon dioxide is /the/ control knob for this planet's temperature. There is zero proof that this is true. Zero. So if I were you, I'd be very, very cautious before going ahead with capturing CO2, by any method. It's way too early for this sort of thing. Vastly more research is required bef…

Can you provide anything beyond conjecture that there is any merit to what you've stated? My understanding is that the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are pretty well understood at this point.

I can only ask that you read some Stuff From The Other Side Of The Argument...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/ is a good start on that.

I'm already being downvoted on here - proof that there are a substantial number of HN users who have Made Up Their Minds on this, and simply do not want to even consider that they have been bamboozled by various interested parties. I realise that no one likes to either admit they've been fooled by someone/a group of people, or simply that their view of the world around them is simply wrong - still, no reason to use HN's downvoting as a weapon against those who would otherwise try to post a contrary view. Still, it's fascinating to be downvoted simply for offering a contrary opinion.

As an interesting but connected sidenote: I've noticed on here that numerous HN submissions which tend towards CO2 demonization get upvoted and are filled with the Convinced, whereas the various articles I have submitted which tend to question this either get zero attention or are downvoted to obliviion. Whatever, and so be it.

Re: The impact of direct air carbon capture on climate change

#36

Post by throwawayhhakdl »

btilly wrote: post #20

I would have liked to see https://projectvesta.org/ commented on in the article. They claim to be able to sequester carbon by scattering olivine rock in an active and warm coast. The cost of the rock is $25/ton now, with the prospect of $10/ton in the future. Plus whatever it costs to break it up and scatter it. That makes it at an interesting price point if it works as advertised. Even more interesting to me is that…

I would aggressively vote and promote a us presidential candidate who stated they would negotiate an arrangement to do this for financial compensation on coastal equator countries- and failing that, a hostile military invasion to force it upon them.

Probably no need for the latter, but having it on the table makes the former easier to negotiate.

This process could release deadly nickel into the water. It probably would harm the coral reefs more than help... but I really feel like much of the ocean is pretty f*ed longer term anyway. Also the countries most poised to do this are the ones most at risk from climate change both in terms of heat, tidal forces, and horrible storms.

I feel it would be a powerful platform. It makes an optimistic message out of an otherwise negative concept- and it makes America the hero saving the world. Who wouldn’t vote for that?

Re: The impact of direct air carbon capture on climate change

#37

Post by scarygliders »

shawnb576 wrote: post #31
scarygliders wrote: post #27

Here goes for further downvotes... The entire edifice of this "human caused climate change" hypothesis rests on the premise that carbon dioxide is /the/ control knob for this planet's temperature. There is zero proof that this is true. Zero. So if I were you, I'd be very, very cautious before going ahead with capturing CO2, by any method. It's way too early for this sort of thing. Vastly more research is required bef…

Ugh, I shouldn't feed trolls... 1) AGM has hit the gold-standard of proof, it's not an open question at this point, and CO2 is the primary driver along with other GHG [1] 2) What exactly are the "potentially disastrous" consequences of going back to 300ppm, roughly where we were for 10k years? [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperature...

Being called a troll for questioning a false premise amuses me no end.

Have you ever read any of the other side's information, or do you solely read Reuters and other "CO2 is the demon!" mainstream media sources?

Re: The impact of direct air carbon capture on climate change

#38

Post by kijin »

Robotbeat wrote: post #23
jarvist wrote: post #6

I'm not sure if this article hammers home the key point: extracting carbon from the air always takes more energy that was gained by burning the fossil fuel to make that carbon. This is inevitable due to the entropy cost of de-mixing CO2 from the air, and from the limited efficiencies of thermal power generation (~33-40% for a coal power plant, perhaps 20% in an internal combustion engine), and limited efficiency of t…

Not objectively true, as plants and even rocks grab CO2 out of the air pretty efficiently. From a thermodynamics standpoint, you can burn fossil fuels at 50-70% efficient (50% is not uncommon), and the actual theoretical lower bound of CO2 direct air capture is ~20 kJ/mol,[0] or about 1.7MJ/kg of elemental carbon, compared to 33MJ/kg for burning elemental carbon (same as high grade coal). (Burning methane is even bet…

> Burning methane is even better

Actually, burning is probably the best way to deal with any excess methane. Methane has a significantly higher warming potential than CO2 does. So if there's any methane we're venting into the atmosphere, we should burn it to convert it into CO2. Bonus points if you can use the generated energy to capture the CO2 as well.

Re: The impact of direct air carbon capture on climate change

#39

Post by throwawayhhakdl »

scarygliders wrote: post #35
pipermerriam wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide anything beyond conjecture that there is any merit to what you've stated? My understanding is that the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are pretty well understood at this point.

I can only ask that you read some Stuff From The Other Side Of The Argument... http://www.drroyspencer.com/ is a good start on that. I'm already being downvoted on here - proof that there are a substantial number of HN users who have Made Up Their Minds on this, and simply do not want to even consider that they have been bamboozled by various interested parties. I realise that no one likes to either admit they've bee…

Link looks a lot of garbage cherry picking of individual bad or flawed actors and arguments as misleading rhetoric that fallaciously implies the underlying belief is incorrect... as per usual...
Post reply on HN