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

121–130 of 469 posts

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#121

Post by lutorm »

abeppu wrote: post #96

This sounds cool from a tech-nerd perspective, but of course it all is pretty futile if we don't get emissions under control. The video says 10 gigatons/yr by 2050. Our 2019 emissions were ~36 gigatons. I.e. even if capture is successful, it needs to be accompanied by aggressive emissions reductions for us to even get to neutral, let alone reversing damage. I'm guessing Musk had some thought process around the expect…

I think at this point emissions reductions is a matter of will, not technology. Rather than waiting for some technological magic bullet when it comes to emissions reductions, we need to take aggressive action.

But we're going to need CCS technologies to start pulling the carbon back out if we want to avoid really bad outcomes, and those technologies are much less developed.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#122

Post by giantg2 »

kisamoto wrote: post #117
giantg2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, but I'm not interested since the real solutions are generally off limits. The $100M is what I really want (or even $1M would be nice). In fact what i really want is to be employed to enter competitions like this and Gates' toilet competition. I'm just too dumb.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#123

Post by Zababa »

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…

I've heard that planting trees in the Sahara would be worse because since they're darker they would absorb way more heat.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#124

Post by lutorm »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #31
re-al wrote: post #28

Why 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…

Trees, unless you clearcut them (or they die off due to climate change) permanently lock up carbon. Yes, some die and decompose, but new ones grow up to take their place. It's just the total amount of biomass created that matters.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#125

Post by kisamoto »

abeppu wrote: post #96

This sounds cool from a tech-nerd perspective, but of course it all is pretty futile if we don't get emissions under control. The video says 10 gigatons/yr by 2050. Our 2019 emissions were ~36 gigatons. I.e. even if capture is successful, it needs to be accompanied by aggressive emissions reductions for us to even get to neutral, let alone reversing damage. I'm guessing Musk had some thought process around the expect…

Agreed. Removal and reductions are not mutually exclusive.

One huge positive I see from the creation of this prize is the publicity and interest in carbon removal. From my experience more people are learning about the requirement for carbon removal and realizing how expensive it is.

For those of us who want to leave a minimal footprint, becoming aware of how expensive it is to undo our footprint incentivizes us to reduce too.

(Credit where credit is due, Stripe, Shopify and Microsoft are also really helping this area grow too. )

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#126

Post by soperj »

krastanov wrote: post #91
soperj wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it break down into methane instead though? I doubt that building buildings are carbon neutral, let alone a carbon sink.

Dried up wooden building material is pretty stable and a fairly common (even commercialized) suggestion for a carbon sink. If you let it rot/burn, then no, it is not a carbon sink.

Sure, but the way we build buildings, there's no way that's actually the case. Transport alone to the sawmill, then the lumber yard, then the job site might actually release more carbon than the tree is storing.

A 25 year old maple will sequester 400 pounds of co2 in it's lifetime. An average commuter car will emit that in 2 weeks. Hauling all that carbon out of the forest will likely emit far more than that.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#128

Post by rob_c »

kisamoto wrote: post #120
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

No I don't think it does. (and for disclosure I'm unlikely to ever read the details enough to know for myself for certain)

I just wish it was tiered such that proper seed money backs various alternatives and the best proven tech (not just the first) gets a big boost when attempting to scale.

But not my millions to spend so I just hope it had a good impact.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#129

Post by vkou »

kisamoto wrote: post #60
wyager wrote: post #3

How is the answer to “carbon removal” not just “turn deserts into plant areas” or “encourage algae blooms” or something? It seems implausible to me that any chemical carbon extraction process has superior externalities to just planting more trees or something.

There is no silver bullet. It has to be a combination of: 1) Reduce emissions to zero (will take some time). 2) Use more natural solutions (trees, algae, kelp etc. - will also take time). 3) Enhance natural solutions with tech (enhanced weathering). 4) Develop carbon capture tech to reverse the damage done by the fossil-fuel burning tech.

> 1) Reduce emissions to zero (will take some time).

How many centuries is it going to take to reduce global emissions to... Half of their current levels?

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#130

Post by path411 »

smoovb wrote: post #93
knodi123 wrote: post #61

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.

Yes, it's called bamboo and it sequesters 3x the carbon and grows to maturity 10x faster than a normal forest (3 years vs 30 years). And bamboo has some of the qualities of rebar, so should mix nicely with concrete. Of course it is best grown in tropical regions, hence why most of the talk here is about trees.

Bamboo is also incredibly invasive which is great for self propitiating the carbon solution, but terrible if we ruin all of our eco systems for
Post reply on HN