I wonder if there's any possibilities in engineering a quick-growing trash tree that would have a higher percentage of mineralization, or properties that facilitate quick pseudo-petrification, so that it can be embedded in concrete without worrying about rot. They would serve the same purpose as rebar, but with greater volume meaning less concrete needed. And it would be a near-permanent carbon sink.
$100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
61–70 of 469 posts
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#62There's a few "plant trees" or "terraform the sahara" comments in here. For some context, if we planted trees wherever we could around the world we can only undo a decades worth of emissions[0]. Not only that but it would still take a century for the trees to reach maturity. Our use of technology threw nature out of balance and we need to use technology to get the balance back again. [0] https://science.sciencemag.or…
Also, planting trees sequesters co2 into the biosphere. That is not good enough, we need to be sequestering co2 into the geosphere if we want to remove it from the equation
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can, how many have you planted? The problem is the space issue and that it takes a decade or two for there to be meaningful carbon uptake. Most land is private so you can't go around planting willy nilly. What's worse is that you are technically not allowed to plant on most public land either, although for small amounts of native species, you can sneak by.
Ahem.. Not OP, but Canadian ex-treeplanter here, and I've planted 1.2M trees. I have many friends who've planted more, a couple probably up into the 10M+ range. It seems insane that we aren't looking at trees more seriously. Here we have a self-reproducing, exponential, solar powered, organic, low-tech, carbon capture system. We don't even have to plant them, we can simply allocate land and let them do their thing on…
Trees follow a slow-fast-slow pattern for capturing carbon.
Small new trees don't capture much.
Middle-aged trees capture a lot as they grow.
Old-growth trees don't capture as much as they reach the end of their life-cycle.
As others have said, trees are only temporary as they eventually die and need to be replanted. They're also slow to start, and need to be maintained (which costs carbon as well).
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least for terrestrial plants, the math just doesn't work out. Plants are really not fast or efficient enough to suck up carbon in meaningful quantities. Algae can be >100 times as efficient at that than terrestrial plants, so there might be a there there, but even still, fracking basalt probably beats that by a couple of orders of magnitude.
I understand this concern but I was blown away when I heard this fact which I wanted to share with you. > Certain species of bamboo can grow 910 mm (36 in) within a 24-hour period, at a rate of almost 40 mm (11⁄2 in) an hour (a growth around 1 mm every 90 seconds, or 1 inch {2.54 centimeters} every 40 minutes). At least it's better than no trees at all.
That's really cool.
As long as we don't end up with monocultures (also bad for the environment) they should be part of the solution!
We could plant fast growing bamboo and turn it into biochar/bio-oil? Or use it for sustainable housing?
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#65Why cant we just plant more trees? Or let the trees we have grow bigger, to soak up all that extra carbon?
>"Why cant we just plant more trees?" We can, and we certainly should, but that does not solve the problem because those trees will eventually die and that carbon will cycle back through the biosphere. Mankind extracted a ton of carbon from the ground, where it was locked away, and we put it back into the air. People are trying to find ways of putting all that extra carbon back somewhere where it won't affect the cyc…
If you cut down trees (sustainable forestry with selective, not clear cutting) and use the logs in durable housing construction, furniture making etc you are taking that carbon out of the loop for a hundred+ years if the housing/furniture is well looked after. Most housing could be built with timber. It might be temporary but buys us time, and trees are amazing CO2 capture machines that are cheap to scale up - they run for free on solar energy and look after themselves.
Stopping deforestation and massively boosting reforestation is one of the most effective things we can already do at scale. At this point we also need active carbon capture and significant reduction in emissions too, though - a multi-pronged approach.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#66[deleted]
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand this concern but I was blown away when I heard this fact which I wanted to share with you. > Certain species of bamboo can grow 910 mm (36 in) within a 24-hour period, at a rate of almost 40 mm (11⁄2 in) an hour (a growth around 1 mm every 90 seconds, or 1 inch {2.54 centimeters} every 40 minutes). At least it's better than no trees at all.
While it makes for impenetrable forest (scrub? Bush) when mature, you’d have to imagine that the acreage requires to sequester meaningful amounts of carbon would be absolutely vast. Bamboo just isn’t that dense.
My personal experience of having bamboo on my property is that it seems incredibly dense. Bamboo is a actually a grass and has root systems similar to grasses, it grows very close together. here is another resource about the carbon sequestration of bamboo: https://drawdown.org/solutions/bamboo-production
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#68Here's my proposal, take that $100M and find a Saudi/Venezuela oil well operator. Give him the $100M in exchange for not pumping $100M worth of oil out of the ground.
That's basically carbon cap and trade. One of the problems is how do you ensure that the oil well remains blocked off forever? The risk of fraud is pretty high, especially when you consider that the involved parties are these huge practically untouchable corporations.
Burn it at the site of extraction. That way, nobody will be able to use it !
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#69Why cant we just plant more trees? Or let the trees we have grow bigger, to soak up all that extra carbon?
Forests are basically carbon neutral once they're mature, peat bogs would probably be much more effective as carbon is continually sequestered underwater.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#70I wonder how YC backed Prometheus Fuels will stack up. They claimed that they are able to sequester Co2 directly from the air for around 36 USD / ton [0]. If they truly can scale it at that price point, it seems very competitive. [0]: https://www.prometheusfuels.com/on-the-road/happy-earth-day-...
Sounds interesting/almost too good to be true. Do they have a working system?