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

331–340 of 469 posts

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#331

Post by hitpointdrew »

eloff wrote: post #198
hitpointdrew wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

The Amazon rain forest is not net zero because of animals. It's net zero (actually net negative last I heard) because humans are burning it to make way for agriculture. Trees sequester carbon. They also return that carbon to the atmosphere eventually, but as long as they're replaced by new trees, that's fine. That's not what's happening in the Amazon. From a carbon perspective forests for timber are even better becau…

> The Amazon rain forest is not net zero because of animals. It's net zero (actually net negative last I heard) because humans are burning it to make way for agriculture.

According to the documentary "One Strange Rock", which I admit I have not fact checked, your statement is absolutely false. The documentary claims 100% of the oxygen produced by the Amazon rain forest is used up by the animals that live in it.

EDIT:

Also this PBS article backups the claim. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-won...

"Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests – and indeed, all land plants – is very close to zero."

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#333

Post by AtlasBarfed »

mbgerring wrote: post #148
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…

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.

Yes, the "magic bullet" mentality typical of media, politicians, and dumb Americans just isn't going to cut it. BEVs + wind + solar + storage. Tree planting. Efficiency. Insulation. Nuclear power. Synthetic fuels. Carbon taxes. Sequestration. Olivine. Seeding the ocean. Vegetarianism/cultured meat/fake meat.

We don't need to wait 100 years for maturation of the wood in forests, the nice thing about wood is that you can use it for paper and construction, and that effectively sequesters the carbon.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#334

Post by ant6n »

detritus wrote: post #311
wanderingmind wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how do you move the wet waste from London to Mediterranean and Sahara. Also soil is one part of equation. Water is another. Poor soil results in poor vegetation that leads to poor rainfall and water sources. So soil also needs to be coupled with water increase. I think preservation is probably more feasible than rejuvenation. India for example is losing top soil at unprecedented rates that can have devastating co…

Start making it in Egypt or Tripoli? People in deserts shit too, I think.

Well people have been shitting in the desert for centuries, but there’s no jungle yet, so something appears to be missing.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#335

Post by abeppu »

lutorm wrote: post #121
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.

I agree that reducing emissions is about will, but I'm frightened that we seem not especially willful. And that does seem like a matter of culture, which could be changed. We just don't have a robust framework for deliberately creating those changes. We gave a portfolio of expensive one-offs.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#336

Post by endisneigh »

I have absolutely no knowledge of physics or mechanical engineering.

that being said, is it possible to just send up a vacuum into space with two very long and wide hoses and a solar panel into lower earth orbit and just have it literally suck out the carbon and blow it into space?

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#337

Post by insulanus »

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 need technology, but more important is business and government. We have all the data on what is causing the problem, but we are not making value judgements, and taking action based on those judgements.

Until our technology catches up and provides net carbon-neutral energy, we have to pollute less. And that may be and doing less, and "consuming" less. And that will require force. Public pressure, social pressure, and regulation. No business will do it voluntarily, and no government will make itself unpopular voluntarily.

Long term we need green energy technology. Short term, we need technology is to help force change in our habits.

Do all the other stuff too, sure, but it seems like most of the pollution currently comes from Industry, Agriculture and transport. Things that enhance human quality of life. We need to decide which enhancements are most essential, and cut back.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#338

Post by schiffern »

BurningFrog wrote: post #326
schiffern wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you'd intentionally plant many small/short trees that will act as nice crash barriers, not large strong trees that act like brick walls. Orchards tend to be short trees anyway. Hitting the tree equivalent of those sand-filled barrels sounds a lot better than dissipating that same energy by either A) flipping, or B) colliding with oncoming traffic. It would be interesting to see the videos of "crash testing…

Sure, but small trees contain little carbon.

Grass contains even less carbon, and it doesn't produce anything of economic value.

As I wrote elsewhere in the thread, it's all about maximizing the total carbon stored per hectare. That means more trees in the median, more trees in our suburbs, more trees in the city, and (most importantly) more trees in agriculture.

There's a small set of "farmer's trees" (eg black locust) that coexist with crops right up to the trunk, drop copious mulch, have deep tap roots that bring up minerals, and make nutritious pods that are good fodder for animals. Planting 15-20 of these trees per hectare will actually increase the crop yield beneath.

Tons more carbon stored, better crop yield, cuts down wind erosion, and free fodder too. The cost is that the farmer has to drive around the trees. It's a non-zero cost yes, but it's a much easier switch than transitioning to full-on agroforestry.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#339

Post by Arubis »

endisneigh wrote: post #336

I have absolutely no knowledge of physics or mechanical engineering. that being said, is it possible to just send up a vacuum into space with two very long and wide hoses and a solar panel into lower earth orbit and just have it literally suck out the carbon and blow it into space?

Putting aside whether this would be effective or a good idea: if you literally mean _carbon_, no, because it’s usually a solid.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#340

Post by contingencies »

Ween the world off the industrial agricultural complex, unseasonal consumption patterns, overconsumption of animal protein and the use of fossil fuels... concrete global regulatory steps would be antitrust and breakup of big-ag, big-food and big-energy... and cars.
Post reply on HN