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

211–220 of 469 posts

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#211

Post by elevaet »

kisamoto wrote: post #158
mbgerring wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason not to plant trees in addition to everything else we'll need to do to fix this problem. The advantage of planting trees is that we know it works, it's cheap, and we can do it right now. So some people should be doing that, and others should be doing R&D on other means of carbon removal. No need to pit one against the other.

I totally agree and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that trees should not be part of a solution. Trees (and other nature based methods) should definitely not be neglected. I merely wanted to try and raise some awareness to those who question the need for technological removal methods as there is a bit of a toxic "trees will save us" attitude when things like this get mentioned.

This kind of civil discourse is what makes HN such a gem on the internet.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#212

Post by apendleton »

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 the general consensus is that where it's possible to eliminate emissions, that's much better than emitting and then capturing later, but there are huge disparities across emitters as to how easy that is to do, and there's a likely outcome where getting to net zero (or even net negative) emissions involves eliminating emissions in most industries and then using capture to deal with the laggards.

Getting less abstract: there are no real technological hurdles for eliminating emissions for personal vehicles, and probably-manageable ones for other surface transport (cargo shipping, etc.). Decarbonizing the electric grid has some technological challenges to solve (mostly around intermittency and storage if we go all renewables, or cost if we go mixed renewables and nuclear), but there are reasonably clear paths forward. On the other hand, we really don't know how to do zero-carbon long haul aviation, or concrete production and curing, or aluminum smelting, or trans-oceanic shipping -- maybe portable/modular nuclear could be used for the last two, but it's still pretty pie-in-the-sky. So, maybe in the future we have electric cars but carbon capture for long-haul jets, or something.

(Aside: the recent Bill Gates climate book has a pretty thorough rundown of all the major current emitters and the levels of technological readiness for decarbonizing each.)

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#213

Post by newsclues »

joshuawarner32 wrote: post #43
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?

That’s covered under ‘natural’ solutions, also eligible for the prize. All you need to do is develop a plan to scale that economically to gigaton/year capacity and claim your prize! Should be easy, right? So just do it!

Nuclear power plants for desalination plants and the build out water pipelines and rail into the Sahara desert from the ocean.

Use irrigation canals covered in solar power panels for pumps etc.

Plant vegetation and build up forests slowly. Slowly expand across the desert and connect both ends the block off grids and repeat irrigation and planting until the desert is gone.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#214

Post by abathur »

sauwan wrote: post #152
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…

With the exception of the last item, these are all problems I would love to have considering our current situation. Graft and administrative burden is a real concern, though, although I don't think it should stop us from trying.

For sure. I don't see these as comprehensive, nor as reasons not to try (nor even think it'd be possible to stop others from trying them).

But I worry that this path is already the one we're disposed to fail/default into, and that a rose-tinted view of it will only make it easier for other opportunities slip through our fingers while gobs of smart people focus on the technological half of the moon-shot.

Put another way, the degree of optimism I hear on these approaches smells like the kind of hubris that causes people to lose races they think they've won.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#215

Post by ralusek »

mrfusion wrote: post #157
tekstar wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Has anyone checked if earths total biomass has increased as co2 increases?

There is more greenery/forestation, and likely more biomass downstream, but I would expect other effects to cancel those effects beyond certain thresholds. For example, even though plankton and algae might benefit from additional carbon and heat, acidification of the ocean might lead to a net decrease in both.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#216

Post by Nydhal »

There's a few "Plants and trees won't do" comments here, which really misses the entire point of regenerative methods. Earth is an entire complex living system. Thinking of it as a simple chemical matter of CO2 is a very reductionist take. The point is to sequester carbon but ALSO trigger other cooling dynamics and reducing certain industrial practices that themselves release CO2. Too many engineers need to study complex systems and holistic approaches. The amount of patronizing makes me think of the fatal engineering flaw of "It can't be this simple".

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#217

Post by aaronblohowiak »

brightball wrote: post #193
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…

Depends on the tree. Empress seems to be the ideal candidate. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-08-02/we-alread...

Planting a monoculture would be a disaster, as we've seen when a billion poplars died in china's green wall.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#218

Post by kevmo »

Nydhal wrote: post #216

There's a few "Plants and trees won't do" comments here, which really misses the entire point of regenerative methods. Earth is an entire complex living system. Thinking of it as a simple chemical matter of CO2 is a very reductionist take. The point is to sequester carbon but ALSO trigger other cooling dynamics and reducing certain industrial practices that themselves release CO2. Too many engineers need to study com…

Highly recommend Thinking in Systems or Limits to Growth, both by Donella Meadows.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#220

Post by lvs »

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…

> we can only undo a decades worth of emissions

Sounds like dramatic progress to me. It uses a technology we already have against a problem that is only getting worse by the second. The side effect of fostering sustainable natural resources would be an unquestionable good as well.

Post reply on HN