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

341–350 of 469 posts

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#341

Post by Smoosh »

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…

> Tesla made some people want an electric car really badly

The emphasis here is on some people.

Observe the morons who think they are clever/funny "rolling coal".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK6Amk4Hf4Y

My personal belief is that all governments should implement carbon tax/trading schemes which are either revenue neutral or 100% of the revenue is invested into carbon capture schemes.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#342

Post by ant6n »

kisamoto wrote: post #125
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 re…

> Agreed. Removal and reductions are not mutually exclusive.

Making people believe that some magic techno fix will swoop in and somehow solve the climate change problem is undesirable. People need to accept that a large reduction in emissions is necessary and this will require many people to change at least some of their habits.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#343

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#345

Post by shadilay »

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.

Trees are nature's best solution after millions of years of evolution. The R&D cost is low as well as the complexity. The problem is that dead trees turn back into CO2 so there will need to be some kind of sequestration like burying lumber.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#346

Post by ant6n »

slothtrop wrote: post #207
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…

Those 36 gigatons aren't largely a result of consumer behaviors, but industry (which, admittedly, increases as a function of demand) Reducing footprints through innovation will go a ways. Changing "culture" (i.e. coerced minimalism) is a thing, but it's a band-aid solution on a leaking hoover-dam; virtue signaling for the most part. Carbon footprints scale up with population. Everyone eats, wants gadgets, wants a hom…

The co2 producer most lagging behind in terms of reduction is transportation. This is a field where endusers have giant impacts, and it will likely not be solved by making those giant SUVs electric.

This is also where the US is pretty bad, because of a culture that aspires to urban sprawl.

More dense cities, more mixed use planning, more active transportation, less detached housing, less parking etc. are ways in which developed countries could really reduce their transportation carbon footprints (and incidentally also footprints related to AC/heating).

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#347

Post by danielmarkbruce »

Elon Musk appears to always think crazy big. This seems crazy small?

Doesn't it seem that if you want serious teams / companies putting serious people on this for 4 years you need the prize to be $1 billion+?

Google had 100's of highly paid engineers working on virtual reality for a few years. Amazon had/has 100's working on Alexa. That's 100's of millions per year in each case. To incentivize several teams of 10's or 100's of really solid engineers, there has to be a pretty crazy high payoff given the chances of failure.

Elon how about a prize of $1 billion in Tesla stock?

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#348

Post by diordiderot »

chickenpotpie wrote: post #253
cowvin wrote: post #192

What we need is a cryptocurrency that is somehow mined by pulling carbon out of the atmosphere.

Sadly I think this would cause a cobra effect and people would start creating carbon emissions to mine it more cost effectively

Imagine a world where people are creating 36000000000000 kilograms of snakes every year

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#350

Post by gammarator »

fooker wrote: post #224
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.

>There's no reason not to plant trees in addition to everything else we'll need to do to fix this problem. Yes, there is. Trees take a up valuable real estate. As long as people can do something even remotely profitable with land they own, this can not work.

The US government already pays many farmers to plant things other than commodity crops.
Post reply on HN