261–270 of 347 posts
Wouldn't it be more efficient to remove CO2 from the sea where it has been accumulating as the oceans act as sinks for atmospheric pollutants and ocean acidification is actually more of a problem in the short term?
That's massively simplified, but this video gives more information and there are plenty of engineering challenges to overcome - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL3AZGw9xZM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Removing CO₂ is far more doable, because you don't have to convince/force 7 billion people to do something. Anyone with the right equipment can just do it, without asking permission, just like CO₂ emitters can.
CO₂ is not the only factor driving ecological damage and indeed, the mass extinction event currently in progress. There are simply too many humans for the way in which we as a species currently behave. Either we need single parent families, globally, for a few generations, to get numbers down to a sustainable level, or , we have to convince/force 7 billion people to accept and adhere to major changes in how they live…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A stationary algae bloom using otherwise unused sunlight can be a lot cheaper than trying to fly a heavy battery along with 300 passengers. The alternative isn't just trying to fit a heavy battery into a plane, it's to scoop the algae up and use it to make carbon-neutral biofuels to run the plane. > Earth is also full of natural alkaline minerals that can be used as cements or for soil enrichment while naturally ab…
It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants to take a hit on their economy to force the transition to happen.
Any ideas on what groups this would affect most?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bear in mind that (a) you're just pulling it from the atmosphere and burying it, not splitting the C from O2 so you can use it as fuel again, and (b) there are applications like long-haul jets and cement production where eliminating emissions isn't that easy. To put some numbers on (a), David MacKay's book has some numbers[1]: > The laws of physics say that the energy required must be at least 0.2 kWh per kg of CO2..…
> there are applications like long-haul jets and cement production where eliminating emissions isn't that easy. I disagree, there's an easy solution to eliminating those emissions: have zero long-haul jets and zero cement production. Before this gets (inevitably) downvoted, the more interesting question is why do we need either, what alternatives are there, how fundamentally we're willing to question our biases and e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not actually easy to ban long-haul travel. It's technologically simple, which is probably the angle you are looking from, but politically very difficult.
We can drastically reduce our usage of jets though. There is no reason why people should be flying between SF and LA, or NYC and Boston. Those are well within comfortable range of high speed rail, which is electric. Once we’ve shifted all the excess air travel over to rail, that will leave a much smaller set of jet travel to offset.
The other thing is, people move around. Airlines can change flights easily to map to demographic changes; that's a major strength of air travel. Not as easy to rip up tracks and start over.
Carbon recapture is essential for humanitarian purposes. Countries like China, India, and Bangladesh, won’t forgo industrialization to go to net zero CO2 emissions. I’m from Bangladesh and there’s just zero political will to do that. Maintaining the 6-7% annual GDP growth is literally what the legitimacy of the government is built upon. So it’s imperative for the developed world to build the technology to recapture t…
It is ironic as Bangladesh is going to be one of the countries hardest hit by rising sea levels and climate change.
But there is zero appetite for curbing growth. Bangladesh is a miracle of capitalism. When my dad was a kid 1 out of 3 children died by age 5. Now it’s 1 out of 40 and the life expectancy is 72 years. (Closing in on white Americans.) Nobody wants to change course on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There isn't a single rocket fuel. Some launch systems fly on hypergols (hydrazine is one of them; it is not used in the West anymore as a main fuel, being too toxic), some burn hydrogen with oxygen, some burn kerosene (RP-1), a new system is coming online that actually uses methane (Starship). And these were just the liquid propellants. There are also solid fuel rockets.
Are you implying that any of those isn't or couldn't be produced synthetically or as a biofuel?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants to take a hit on their economy to force the transition to happen.
> make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate Any ideas on what groups this would affect most?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the difference between smelting the steel in Australia and shipping it to China, vs shipping the coal to China and smelting the steel on location? I don't think there is any material difference there.
The marine fuel used to transport 60%+ more stuff, it increases the carbon cost in a way that’s hugely inefficient. I worked on a project for an unnamed Australian mining company trying to optimise the shipping routes and I just see this sort of thing as profoundly wasteful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate Any ideas on what groups this would affect most?
It's very important to consider the impact on marginalized groups and offset any impact through transfers.