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

131–140 of 469 posts

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#131

Post by topkai22 »

Interesting. The grand prize timeline is 4 years from now. That seems VERY fast. However, I like the aggressiveness- if this can produce viable demonstrations of the technology at anywhere near what the aformentioned Prometheus Fuels ($36/ton) claims, then that produces a huge line in the sand for policy makers on carbon pricing and mitigation.

$36/ton would raise the price of gasoline about 36 cents. The cost to capture ALL 6.5B tons of US emissions would be about $236B per year, or 1.1% of GDP. I think even getting it down to a $100/ton would change the discussion.

These are real, manageable numbers that should undermine opposition to mitigating climate change and get something resembling a carbon tax based on a feasible number. Policies like "A 39 cent/gallon tax on gasoline" is much more understandable and politically feasible then "you'll have to change everything you do." And then, once in place, we'll see the economic effects of taxing carbon accelerate movement away from carbon emitting solutions, which are already becoming non-competitive in many scenarios.

None of this means we shouldn't do things SOONER, espicially since DACC might never get that cheap, but I like the way this XPrize has the potential to change people's political calculus.

Sources: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php#:...

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas....

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?location...

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#132

Post by kisamoto »

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.

Are there any sources of this?

As I understand it the air carrying the CO₂ is constantly moving and will not create any deficit regions?

Besides, with the large over concentration of carbon dioxide we have at the moment I think increasing temperatures have a higher chance of creating hostile environments.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#133

Post by p_j_w »

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.

I think the point GP was making was that just planting trees is not enough, not that we shouldn't be doing it. If all we do is plant trees, we're still running full bore up shit creek.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#134

Post by [deleted] »

abathur wrote: post #97

I don't mean to be a wet blanket (I imagine the prize will be a net good) but I want to talk into the void about something I've been befuddled by... I feel like I see/hear a lot of uncritical faith in (techno|market|competition)-solutions, with little discussion of what Nth-order effects may travel with those approaches. Just some scattered thoughts: - The best case for progress is probably technology that leads to p…

[deleted]

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#135

Post by hitpointdrew »

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…

>For some context, if we planted trees wherever we could around the world we can only undo a decades worth of emissions[0].

Not even, say you could transform the Sahara to rain forest, awesome right? I mean it would be an incredible feat, but it would give you exactly 0 with reducing carbon. Contrary to popular belief the Amazon rain forest aren't the "lungs" of the planet, the Amazon rain forest is basically net 0. Why? Because the rain forest also has a tremendous amount of life/animals, those animals use the oxygen and produce carbon. The real "lungs" of the planet are in the ocean.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#136

Post by tito »

For startups going after Elon's prize, AirMiners partnered with XPRIZE and CDL to create the AirMiners Launchpad. Founders should check out https://launchpad.airminers.org/ Applications for Batch #2 close August 31st

Also check out AirMiners, the hub for everything carbon removal at https://airminers.org/

And those who are interested in a 5 week group discussion on carbon removal basics check out Boot Up: https://bootup.airminers.org/

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#137

Post by tohmasu »

I get the feeling there's a "snake eating its own tail" aspect here.

Assuming carbon sequestration can be done at scale, it will likely require energy, maybe even a lot of energy.

So where's this energy going to come from? Well... global energy demand is increasing as-is and the winners are: coal, oil and "natural" gas (which is a fossil fuel): https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-global-...

Even assuming the forecast 5x increase in "renewables*" (I can't find the double asterisk footnote) until 2050, it seems unreasonable that a ~250EJ "blue team" (hydro, nuclear, other renewables) could plug a ~500EJ hole created by the "red team" (coal, oil, fossil gas).

We need a magnitude more clean power and all the wind, solar and wishful thinking in the world aren't going to cut it.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#138

Post by dd36 »

tohmasu wrote: post #137

I get the feeling there's a "snake eating its own tail" aspect here. Assuming carbon sequestration can be done at scale, it will likely require energy, maybe even a lot of energy. So where's this energy going to come from? Well... global energy demand is increasing as-is and the winners are: coal, oil and "natural" gas (which is a fossil fuel): https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-global-... Even assu…

Nuclear.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#140

Post by kisamoto »

Zababa wrote: post #123
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.

Actually yes, planting trees (especially the wrong trees) is not always a good thing. Darker leaves will attract more heat (imagine if it was possible to turn the polar regions into trees - this would have a very negative effect).

Also mono cultures and replacing natural vegetation with man-made forestation can actually be more limited to the amount of carbon they can capture long term.

Source: https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/bitstream/10044/1/80271/6...

Post reply on HN