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

81–90 of 147 posts

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

#81

Post by AstralStorm »

killjoywashere wrote: post #76
xbmcuser wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With solar prices hitting negative rates for some periods in a day capturing carbon and converting into burnable fuel will probably start making sense in the next few years.

Think we could frack with corn syrup? Inject that carbon back into the ground?

Not corn syrup. That takes way too much CO2 and water to produce. Not even corn itself I suspect.

It's partly the problem alleged marshland and forest sequestration schemes face, alongside the assumption they're going to grow well in the changed climate.

(Limited experimental data suggests this works up to some 500 ppm as long as there's excess water and minerals. If the conditions are bad you lose capture potential. And what do you do with the methane releases from these systems? It's much more diffuse than from landfills.)

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

#82

Post by ahartman00 »

dx034 wrote: post #77
pfdietz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would worry about nickel and chromium pollution.

Why is that? I couldn't find any reference to that on their homepage. Is it a byproduct of the process?

"mineral processing approach using carbon dioxide to promote mineral alterations that lead to improved extractability of nickel from olivine ((Mg,Fe)2SiO4)"

"main products of the carbonation reaction include quasi-amorphous colloidal silica, chromium-rich metallic particles, and ferro-magnesite ((Mg1−x,Fex)CO3)"

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/5/3/1620/htm

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

#83

Post by fastbeef »

tedk-42 wrote: post #52
SystemOut wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Landfills do collect and burn methane. Those pipe like structures you see sticking out of a completed landfill are part of the process. https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/solutions/technol...

TIL. Now we just need to execute the second part of his plan to capture the carbon from the energy produced

Or capture the methane, upgrade it and run generators/cars/busses of it. It's existing tech

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

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

#84

Post by baq »

dwoozle wrote: post #64

If carbon capture is good then why do they encourage composting? Shouldn’t we be taking that organic material and burying it somewhere?

we should, preferably in shut down coal mines where the carbon came from, but that takes time, money and fuel.

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

#85

Post by ahartman00 »

pfdietz wrote: post #58
WalterBright wrote: post #40

Just plant trees. They're cheap, solar powered, and convert CO2 to building materials.

They use too much land.

To be specific, arable land. Not all land is fertile. And as the old saying goes, they arent making any more :)

Then there is the time aspect. They dont grow as fast as one would like.

"The need for arable land to feed human populations and the needs of wildlife have been in tension for millennia. One can look to Easter Island to see what the end game of man's resource overexploitation can lead to. Currently more than 1.4 billion hectares of land have been committed to agriculture. As human populations swell, especially in lower latitudes, even more forests will be cut, surface water and aquifers tapped, fertilizers applied, and pesticides broadcasted—all of which threaten insects and other biodiversity either directly (e.g., land conversion and pesticide exposure) or indirectly (e.g., water use and nitrogen and phosphorus pollution). Savannahs, prairies, and grasslands, with their deep fertile soils, lend themselves to immediate use for crop and pasturelands, and as consequence are collectively among the most threatened biomes on the planet. The clearing of tropical forests for farming and pastureland is happening at alarming rates and will have especially grave consequences for insect species diversity"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci...

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

#86

Post by WalterBright »

adrianN wrote: post #80
WalterBright wrote: post #40

Just plant trees. They're cheap, solar powered, and convert CO2 to building materials.

Start by protecting existing forests. We're still losing rainforests ever more rapidly.

Planting more trees will reduce pressure to cut down existing forests.

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

#87

Post by pjc50 »

throwawayhhakdl wrote: post #36
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 wou…

> and failing that, a hostile military invasion to force it upon them.

Eco-fascism! I mean, once you're willing to murder people to reduce carbon emissions, there are simpler ways to do it. But make sure you've got suitable carbon offsets for the invasion and the crematoriums.

> optimistic message

"Good news: America is going to improve the world at gunpoint again!"

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

#88

Post by pjc50 »

mmanfrin wrote: post #26
tathougies wrote: post #9

Good analysis, but fails to take into account the storage costs of whatever CO2 is sequestered (or the potential to offset those costs by selling the CO2 to whatever industry uses them).

> storage costs of whatever CO2 is sequestered CO2 is not spent uranium.

No, but you do have to keep it somewhere where it won't leak back into the atmosphere again any time soon. Which means deep underground.

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

#89

Post by pjc50 »

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…

> Vastly more research

We've done a vast amount of research. You've dismissed it. How much more research should be done to convince you, personally?

I guess you're not old enough to have noticed the seasonal temperature changes in your lifetime.

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

#90

Post by riffraff »

pinkfoot wrote: post #68
aidenn0 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the Vox article is that just switching from gas to electric isn't going to be enough. The argument is that without large-scale carbon capture we will not hit the 1.5C goal. Large-scale carbon capture is still untested. Reforestation is the only well established large-scale carbon capture but is very land intensive.

Spekboom (Portulacaria afra) is said to sequester up 10 times the carbon of a rain forest by area. This is largely due to a special mechanism that continues photosynthesis at night. And it grows best in semi-arid regions. Where people don't live or farm.

interesting, the Portulaca Oleracea is edible, I wonder if it has the same property and whether we should plant a ton of it.
Post reply on HN