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

$100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

xprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 469 posts

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#111

Post by ars »

fy20 wrote: post #90
mabbo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, most of the carbon in the ground that we're burning are long-buried trees, right? I wonder what it would take to just bury a lot of trees and let them regrow naturally. This paper has some interesting ideas: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0... My approach would be to find the best CO2/$ types of trees, buy them straight from the lumber industry, and sequester them in no-longer-used q…

At the time coal deposits formed the bacteria that broke down lingin and cellulose hadn't yet evolved, so just burying trees wouldn't work today as they would decay. You could probably burn the wood to produce charcoal (burning it in a low oxygen environment), and the bury that, but just cutting down a forest and burying it won't work.

In a low oxygen, low water environment it would work fine.

For example an old coal mine and then seal it.

Old coal mines are too dangerous for humans to enter so you need some kind of robotics to load them up with trees and other biomatter to bury.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#112

Post by ars »

axaxs wrote: post #88
gruez wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems much more complicated than just planting some fast growing plant (eg. bamboo), converting it to charcoal, and burying it somewhere. That achieves the same carbon sequestration effect, without having to worry about petrification.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Bamboo has to be one of the fastest growing therefore carbon sucking plants, right?

Switchgrass is faster, and grows in more climates.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#113

Post by giantg2 »

mumblemumble wrote: post #85
mabbo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, most of the carbon in the ground that we're burning are long-buried trees, right? I wonder what it would take to just bury a lot of trees and let them regrow naturally. This paper has some interesting ideas: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0... My approach would be to find the best CO2/$ types of trees, buy them straight from the lumber industry, and sequester them in no-longer-used q…

I'm no chemist, but, wild guess, you might actually make things worse by favoring decomposition into methane instead of CO2. I would think that a proper solution would require figuring out how to get all that carbon into a chemical form that is chemically stable and won't biodegrade. The ideal looks a whole lot like coal, I'd guess?

Yep methane is multiple times more potent as a greenhouse gas.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#115

Post by rob_c »

Why not invest that directly in various different prototyped technologies already being developed for this _now_ to accelerate the process?

It feels like offering free swimming floats to the first one who can swim out to get them.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#116

Post by [deleted] »

songzme wrote: post #110
kisamoto wrote: post #56

There'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…

Trees do much more than remove carbon from the air. Carbon removal machine could potentially create c02 deficit regions, creating hostile environments for trees. We can't possibly build a machine for every function a tree does.

[deleted]

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#117

Post by kisamoto »

giantg2 wrote: post #102
kisamoto wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually what would be really good is instead of looking at carbon capture you could use that invention brain to find solutions to reduce our emissions. Carbon neutral or negative alternatives to energy production, concrete production, travel (flight), meat and many others would be incredible. The best emissions are the ones never emitted in the first place.

Eliminating emissions would be carbon neutral. The competition wants carbon negative solutions for sequestering carbon in the atmosphere or oceans. Sure there are some carbon negative things like the replacement for concrete that reacts with CO2, but the negative impact is not extensible beyond a specific point without better mining/refining tech.

True although I wasn't referring just to the competition - it would be good to come up with sustainable solutions in general.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#118

Post by systemvoltage »

datameta wrote: post #109
mchusma wrote: post #94

Elon is such an amazing force in the world. This prize is great, and overdue. Not surprised to see Elon involved.

Everything he does is in some way to make the post-scarcity far future of The Culture more attainable. For all of his social flaws this thought alone gives him my deep respect. I don't think he is infallible but in my opinion a lot of attempts at character assassination don't truly understand the underlying purpose of why he does what he does. I still look at developments in his companies with a critical eye - for ex…

"But he is manipulating the Crypto market"

Good. If you invested without thinking into crypto, 100% full responsibility is on you. Elon is just a litmus test how fragile crypto currencies are and how they can be manipulated. Fully functional adults need to be a bit more cautious with their funds. We're not talking about people with mental issues here.

Elon has got a shitty attitude regarding his popularity/celebrity status but the things he has done to improve the world dwarfs his misdeeds. For some reason public loves grocery-store aisle tabloids and Elon is no exception to this gossip. The tabloid now is in the form of Twitter.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#119

Post by traverseda »

typeformer wrote: post #58
filleokus wrote: post #45

I 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-...

Are they really sequestering it? If I understand their tech correctly they are recycling it back into fuel which then gets burned and the CO2 goes back into the air? It’s a fascinating process but unlikely to undue our decades of harm.

They claim that their technology will "replace fossil fuels". If it actually hits a price point where that's possible than I'd expect it to not be a problem either way.

I guess in that future we're getting power mainly from renewables and using hydrocarbons as power storage? We'd probably be using those same hydrocarbons to make plastics and the like as well.

Still, halting new fossil fuel extraction would be an excellent first step, even though the energy costs don't make much sense to me.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#120

Post by kisamoto »

rob_c wrote: post #115

Why not invest that directly in various different prototyped technologies already being developed for this _now_ to accelerate the process? It feels like offering free swimming floats to the first one who can swim out to get them.

I don't think this prize disqualifies those right? It's looking for any scalable carbon removal technology
Post reply on HN