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

Stripe Climate

stripe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 227 posts

Re: Stripe Climate

#31

Post by theptip »

core-questions wrote: post #25
BlueTemplar wrote: post #13

The history of the carbon removal companies is not good (mostly due to the large incentive to game the measures), and smells of indulgences . However, this industry is still quite young... EDIT : Also this initiative seems to be very research-focused, rather than be just about using already known methods?

It remains to be seen if carbon removal can be done in a way that makes sense thermodynamically (i.e. it takes tremendous energy input to do, where does that energy come from, is it using carbon-emitting energy from elsewhere on the grid, etc). If at any point a carbon-emitting energy source is involved, there's no way that the system is going to be absorbing as much carbon from the air as was emitted for the same am…

Enhanced Rock Weathering was discussed recently[1], and that is cost effective at something like $100/ton. I don’t think there is any question about whether it’s thermodynamically possible (trees do it, as you say), it’s more whether it’s economically possible; without a carbon tax there is no real incentive for most producers to offset. (If we are relying on demand from “ethical consumers” I don’t think we are going to shift things very far.)

1: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/08/spreadin...

Re: Stripe Climate

#32

Post by politician »

immmmmm wrote: post #30

Removing carbon from the atmosphere is a fight against the second law of thermodynamic. To win a fight against Entropy one needs energy, and typically a lot of. My question is simple: where do we find enough energy to capture the carbon that was emitted during the 200 last years? Because we consume already too much energy i fear..

Uranium?

Re: Stripe Climate

#33

Post by theptip »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #27

"In the teaching of the Catholic Church, an indulgence (Latin: indulgentia, from indulgeō, 'permit') is "a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins".[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes an indulgence as "a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain presc…

Unlike sin, CO2 is fungible; if you put it in here and take it out there, the net really is zero.

Re: Stripe Climate

#34

Post by coldpie »

core-questions wrote: post #25
BlueTemplar wrote: post #13

The history of the carbon removal companies is not good (mostly due to the large incentive to game the measures), and smells of indulgences . However, this industry is still quite young... EDIT : Also this initiative seems to be very research-focused, rather than be just about using already known methods?

It remains to be seen if carbon removal can be done in a way that makes sense thermodynamically (i.e. it takes tremendous energy input to do, where does that energy come from, is it using carbon-emitting energy from elsewhere on the grid, etc). If at any point a carbon-emitting energy source is involved, there's no way that the system is going to be absorbing as much carbon from the air as was emitted for the same am…

You're right that energy costs need to be accounted for when examining a potential capture method. But this is so blindingly obvious that of course the researchers are doing it. It is always accounted for when they are making their claims. As a single example see this recent article[1]:

> A simple chemical model estimated the rate of weathering for the crushed rock based on the local soil conditions. They also calculated energy requirements based on distance from likely rock sources, as well as accounting for the energy mix available to run everything. (The more fossil fuel burned to carry out the work, the less CO2 removed from the atmosphere in the final accounting.)

If it was true that any carbon capture method that uses energy will emit more carbon that it captures, then the researchers wouldn't have bothered doing the research. Yet they have, and do. Carbon capture is a very good avenue of research for mitigating climate change in the near term as we transition to new power sources.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/07/spreading-rock-dust-...

Re: Stripe Climate

#35

Post by orbuch »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #13

The history of the carbon removal companies is not good (mostly due to the large incentive to game the measures), and smells of indulgences . However, this industry is still quite young... EDIT : Also this initiative seems to be very research-focused, rather than be just about using already known methods?

Hi! Ryan from the Climate team at Stripe. Yes, the field is super young. Regardless of previous attempts, the world is very likely going to need giagatons of carbon removal, and the necessary technologies won't magically scale without the support of early purchasers. We're taking a portfolio approach and will be expanding the number of projects we support over the coming years. Regarding "indulgences", this is no substitute for emissions reduction, and we aren't purchasing traditional offsets or suggesting this as a mechanism for carbon neutrality. More details on all this in our FAQs if you're curious! https://stripe.com/docs/climate/faqs

Re: Stripe Climate

#36

Post by tima101 »

Nature already has powerful carbon-removing technology, it's called a tree. Why reinvent the wheel? Simply fund reforestation efforts. Plus many wildlife species will be saved from extinction. For example, orangutans in forests of Borneo island.

EDIT And besides, humans will survive climate change, we are 7.8 billion. But we made 1000s of species go extinct. So I say carbon capture is the wrong problem to solve.

Re: Stripe Climate

#37

Post by bpicolo »

tima101 wrote: post #36

Nature already has powerful carbon-removing technology, it's called a tree. Why reinvent the wheel? Simply fund reforestation efforts. Plus many wildlife species will be saved from extinction. For example, orangutans in forests of Borneo island. EDIT And besides, humans will survive climate change, we are 7.8 billion. But we made 1000s of species go extinct. So I say carbon capture is the wrong problem to solve.

This is exactly the sort of effort that this revenue redirection goes to.

You can see their applicants: https://github.com/stripe/negative-emissions-source-material...

Droneseed, for example, is directly applicable

Re: Stripe Climate

#38

Post by coldpie »

immmmmm wrote: post #30

Removing carbon from the atmosphere is a fight against the second law of thermodynamic. To win a fight against Entropy one needs energy, and typically a lot of. My question is simple: where do we find enough energy to capture the carbon that was emitted during the 200 last years? Because we consume already too much energy i fear..

Wind, solar, tidal energy. Your question is like number zero on the list of carbon sequestration questions, obviously they have thought about that problem.

Re: Stripe Climate

#40

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tima101 wrote: post #36

Nature already has powerful carbon-removing technology, it's called a tree. Why reinvent the wheel? Simply fund reforestation efforts. Plus many wildlife species will be saved from extinction. For example, orangutans in forests of Borneo island. EDIT And besides, humans will survive climate change, we are 7.8 billion. But we made 1000s of species go extinct. So I say carbon capture is the wrong problem to solve.

> Nature already has powerful carbon-removing technology, it's called a tree. Why reinvent the wheel?

Trees haven’t been carbon sinks for hundreds of millions of years [1].

They absorb carbon while growing, but release it in decay. Short of planting and burying gigatonnes of forest, trees aren’t going to be our way out of this.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

Post reply on HN