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

371–380 of 469 posts

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#371

Post by [deleted] »

shadilay wrote: post #345
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.

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.

[deleted]

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#373

Post by flavius29663 »

Mizza wrote: post #319
flavius29663 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but that's not how it works...plants absorb a quarter of total emissions and the oceans about a quarter too. So half the emissions are absorbed, and half are not.

I think you're making a very common mistake, which is misunderstanding the carbon cycle. We could, theoretically, grow enough plants to get down to pre-industrial levels. However, plants decompose when they die, re-releasing their carbon into the atmosphere, and lots of the plants alive to die are grown using petrochemical fertilizer, which was taken from under the ground, not the atmosphere.. So, we'd have to keep a…

You're oversimplifying it. First of all, the ocean is a sink for CO2, it absorbs it and mix it down in the depths, not release it back.

Plants don't sequester the carbon, like you said. But on the other hand, the extra CO2 is causing a bigger plant mass growth. So called greening of the deserts (but not just deserts). So basically the living biosphere is growing and absorbing CO2 as it does, because it can.

The plants evolved when there was more CO2 around, 200-300 is very close to starvation, they thrive in 1000+ environments.

Total Earth biomass is 550 gigatons, much larger than 36 which is what we emit every year. But obviously it cannot keep up...since the year 1750 we emitted 1700 gigatons, so more than 3 times the weight of the biosphere. That being said, I can see how the biosphere can grow by 2% with all the extra CO2 and go from 550 to 560, 570 and so on.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#374

Post by vimy »

sha256kira wrote: post #367
rcpt wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem unlikely that we'd be able to control temperatures without resorting to sulfur dioxide. It'll probably start a war, but once natural resources start getting scarce I fully expect the affected nation to deploy SO2.

Can somebody please explain the SO2 thing? Im googling to no avail...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#376

Post by rootusrootus »

burgessaccount wrote: post #327
rcpt wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting thanks. Why disasterous?

Particulate matter in the air causes precipitation. Spraying large amounts of particulate matter into the sky is likely to drastically change global rainfall patterns - so you might get a ton of rain in the Sahara, where it’s useless, and none at all in the American Midwest. The result could be drastic food shortages and famines. Major volcanic eruptions have been associated with droughts and famines. I think geoengi…

Isn't the upside of this kind of geoengineering the reversibility? If we inject SO2, and we don't like the effect, we stop. IIRC it doesn't hang around that long.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#378

Post by pcmaffey »

burgessaccount wrote: post #259
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…

A few other problems - 1) trees take a lot of water to grow, and 2) all the carbon they sequester can go right back into the atmosphere in a forest fire. Some very scrupulous carbon-offset companies (like YC co terraformation!) are careful to plant diverse, native species in a way that rebuilds habitat and fits local water supplies. But there are a huge number of irresponsible tree-planting orgs that plant monocultur…

Trees rarely burn to the ground in a wildfire. Their foliage burns quickly and the bark chars, but it takes years for even trees in the hottest spots to finally fall and then, many more years to decompose back into the soil.

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#379

Post by thamer »

kisamoto wrote: post #168
tito wrote: post #162

I'm curious what people here think about their own role in a prize like this. Are you interested in joining a team? Starting a company? Working on gigaton scale carbon removal? I've been working on carbon removal for the past few years, eager to help anyone who is considering actually making a leap into this industry for their own curiosity or even career. That said there are plenty of other massive juicy challenges…

I choose to help people support a portfolio of carbon removal at https://carbonremoved.com If you're working on carbon removal or want to support carbon removal please feel free to email me directly: ewan (at) above website

Great initiative!

I offset my emissions with Wren (https://wren.co – I am not affiliated) and wonder how it compares to Carbon Removed. My current plan there is ~$23 to offset 200% of my emissions for a total of 1.3 tons of CO2/month (if that seems low: I have no car, no commute, live in a 1-bedroom apartment and rarely eat meat).

The plans for Carbon Removed are at $15 for 100 kg, $42 for 300 kg, and $65 for 500 kg. Why such a difference? That's $0.13-0.15/kg for Carbon Removed and $0.018/kg at Wren.

Where is the difference coming from?

Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

#380

Post by shigawire »

rootusrootus wrote: post #376
burgessaccount wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particulate matter in the air causes precipitation. Spraying large amounts of particulate matter into the sky is likely to drastically change global rainfall patterns - so you might get a ton of rain in the Sahara, where it’s useless, and none at all in the American Midwest. The result could be drastic food shortages and famines. Major volcanic eruptions have been associated with droughts and famines. I think geoengi…

Isn't the upside of this kind of geoengineering the reversibility? If we inject SO2, and we don't like the effect, we stop. IIRC it doesn't hang around that long.

What is country A likes it but B does not? Seems like a source of conflict.

Similar to the GERD but in the sky.

Post reply on HN