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

291–300 of 469 posts

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#291

Post by dennis_jeeves »

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…

Thank you, you have put it well. By no means I'm nature-knows-best person. But in this case nature does a great job in 'removing' CO2 by expending the least energy, with the least negative impact (actually a net positive) to the environment. Of course it's more nuanced than what even I stated. A wise engineer realizes the breadth of the issues and the 'true' engineering approach IMO will necessarily involve ( but not limited) a lot of trees/plants/algae etc.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#292

Post by liketochill »

zdragnar wrote: post #165
burgessaccount wrote: post #139

Why doesn’t he just use a few of his billions to build free renewable power plants? Emissions reduction, now, is so much more important than the possibility of carbon reduction in ten or fifteen years

Because he has a one-off fortune that would require selling all of his investments to turn into cash. By 2050, all of the power plants he built would be just so much garbage in a landfill. Based on the growth projections of energy consumption, it wouldn't put a dent in the problem long term. By incentivizing economical carbon capture, he might be able to kick off a self-funding industry, which would be an important p…

He kind of has an interest in solar power

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#293

Post by Dylan16807 »

abathur wrote: post #273
Dylan16807 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You quoted someone talking about not-pumping oil as part of your line about subsidies. That's on the production side.

Yes. @knodi123 is joking about fraud. I am talking about fraud.

And I'm saying that kind of fraud shouldn't be a worry, because there shouldn't be any money at all for reducing/preventing production.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#294

Post by motoboi »

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…

Elon tweeted about making rocket fuel out of arrested carbon. This technology could, it seems, be used outside earth as well (other planets, not space).

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#295

Post by flingo »

elevaet wrote: post #211
kisamoto wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Meta-warning;

I'm more into the juxtapositions of interactions between idiots vs experts, specialists vs generalists, startup-billionaire vs unemployed-drug-addict-hacker, and the level of insight that can be gained from these conversations.

I believe that the civility, and desire for unfettered conversation (avoiding ad-hominem, flame-wars. etc···) are more of an instrumental-goal of this process, than the true goal.

I don't really know why the comments on hn are the way they are, and I doubt anyone ever will. But that's what keeps me coming back here. It's the only place on the internet I can get this kind of thing, whatever it is.

I do have to say, there's something special and unique here. Like the userbases of wikipedia, stack overflow, 4chan, or twitter, there's something here that's impossible to recreate and worth preserving.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#296

Post by lutorm »

daddylonglegs wrote: post #249
flavius29663 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our 2019 emissions were ~36 gigatons The plants absorb about 25% of that and the oceans another 25%. If we absorb 10 gigatons yearly by 2050, that might be good enough.

Surely dissolving CO2 in the ocean acts as a buffer, not a sink? We will have to stop emitting all of that CO2 as well (and future generations will have to sequester it). The net absorption / emission from the biosphere involves a lot of emission following from our changes to the planet. We can significantly reduce our emissions (and slowly recover some of them) with better stewardship of the environment but there is…

Moreover, higher CO2 content in the oceans leads to acidification. This is bad for coral and organisms that build shells. I don't recall the exact reason but my understanding is that it tends to dissolve carbonates.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#297

Post by lucb1e »

flavius29663 wrote: post #197
lucb1e wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, 36 originally × .75 from plants × .75 from oceans - 10 captured = 20¼ Gt. I think you're off by about 10 Gt? And that's assuming the ocean and plants will infinitely capture more and more carbon, which I sincerely doubt as well, but I'll go ahead and assume you mean this as a bridging method to get us another decade or two to finalize real solutions.

it's actually 36 - (36x0.25) - (36x0.25) - 10 = 8. But yeah, we would have to reduce our emissions by at least 8GT to get to zero. That is totally doable, advanced economies are already reducing CO2 at a faster rate than 25% over 30 years: the US has reduced it's emissions by 1GT in 10 years (16% reduction).

If you absorb 25% (you wrote "plants absorb about 25%" and same for trees), then 75% remains, so apply ×0.75 twice instead of applying ×0.25 twice.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#298

Post by schiffern »

jpalomaki wrote: post #234
foobarian wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do trees actually help? AFAIK once a forest reaches equilibrium it puts out as much CO2 as it takes in through various decomposition processes.

Using more wood as construction material helps to tie the CO2 for longer period.

Sounds like the real question is, how does 1 hectare of stick frame buildings compare to 1 hectare of mature forest? What stores more carbon-per-hectare, and how many years does the building actually lock up that carbon?

While a hectare of forest may be "only" CO2-neutral, a hectare of buildings are typically net CO2 emitters.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#299

Post by lutorm »

gpt5 wrote: post #268
daddylonglegs wrote: post #236

Most types of carbon capture technology [1] being touted are credit cards for climate change: You burn enough fuel to generate 4MJ worth of heat... Your internal combustion engine generates 1MJ worth of mechanical effort from this... You use this to propel a 2 ton vehicle... Carrying 1 person... To take part in the rat race or indulge in some consumerism. [2] The carbon dioxide sits in the atmosphere for 50 years whe…

Genuine question - if CO2 half life in the atmosphere is less than 50 years, why are we so concerned about it? Wouldn’t the problem solve itself given that we are both reaching peak consumption of fossil fuels and that they are expected to deplete with the next century? In other words, wouldn’t the co2 concentration go down naturally within the next 100 years even if we let thing run naturally?

On short time scales, the oceans take up a lot of CO2 because there's an equilibrium with the atmosphere. However, increased acidification of the oceans is bad on its own, and this buffering hurts when you try to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere since then the oceans will turn into a net contributor.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#300

Post by lucb1e »

rcpt wrote: post #205
lucb1e wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> carbon sequestration [will] likely require energy Yes, but that doesn't mean we won't need it. Take air planes. We can't just put batteries in there: too low energy density or something (I'm no physicist, but they won't fly very far is what I gather). But by capturing the CO2 (at exhaust, or atmospherically) that they put out, we can have both airplanes and a stable climate -- assuming it's all done right. Who want…

> Who wants to have a wind turbine in their back yard? Here in Los Angeles we have honest-to-god oil derricks in our neighborhoods and the NIMBYs don't even notice. Apartments OTOH...

I went to a wind turbine some time because I was curious how loud it would be. It doesn't seem that loud actually. Maybe it's more the looks? (Personally, it's not that terrible and, well, we don't have a choice so define some nature reserves and for the rest go ahead.) Either way, I meant it more in the proverbial NIMBY sense rather than that literally everyone feels the same way about them.
Post reply on HN