Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering • Hacker News Board

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#221

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

Teever wrote: post #217

BurningFrog wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The geoengineering goal here is to release the particles into the stratosphere, which is at 10-30 km altitude, and not generally breathed by the people on the ground. Let's not pretend that releasing 500g of sulfur dioxide there has any impact on people on the ground.

If it has no effect, why are they bothering to do it? Does releasing 500g of co2 have any impact on tbe people on the ground?

I think the intention is to test the release mechanism, and maybe the immediate blocking effect at the site.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#222

Post by stonogo » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

callmetom wrote: post #116

stonogo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plan is for the balloon to partially vent at a target altitude, and a separate cloud chamber to release then. This test is of an off-the-shelf balloon kit, presumably to validate altitude targets and flight predictions. They've been pretty open about exactly what they're doing and when, and even had (still have, technically) a feedback form for you to submit your advice.

None of that "plan" or "test" actually needs to release any sulfur dioxide, especially because they don't seem to be doing any kind of measurements of the substance once released. Pretending this is anything but an intentional act of provocation isn't "pretty open about exactly what they're doing". This is really all somebody needs to read to know what is going on: > Luke Iseman, a serial inventor and the former dire…

You seem to be upset that they're charging money for something, and then you separately seem to be upset that they're trying to do the actual work needed to fulfill the promises made via the sales. Is Luke Iseman supposed to just sit down and stop having a job, or does he merely need your signoff before he starts a new project? What, in the end, is your point?

I'm not sure I'm ready to join you in outrage that someone started a business for the purpose of earning money.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#223

Post by stonogo » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 4:43 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #187

stonogo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is how engineering works. They calibrate their equipment's altitude and flight pattern predictions, then modify the equipment to vent at the target altitude (both the balloon gas, to arrest ascent, and the cloud chamber, to disperse the chemical), then test to make sure their modifications are working correctly. Then they finalize that design and enter into production of a calibrated device whose target alt…

That's not how engineering works. But what do you expect from someone with a Bachelor of Science from Wharton Business school and no education in anything engineering related?

Do you have a form founders can fill out to make sure their credentials meet your approval before they get too far down the startup pipeline? I'd hate to see anyone miss out on criticism as helpful and as insightful as this.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#224

Post by p0pcult » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 4:43 PM UTC

dubcanada wrote: post #79

I really don’t like the idea of solar geoengineering. If we start sending up sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere and it fixes the problem. What do you think we’re going to do? Stop caring about global warming entirely, and pump way more green house gases… why wouldn’t we? We can just fix it with more sulfur dioxide. Then you send up more and more and more. And eventually something breaks. Now for some reason a countri…

I really like the idea of solar geoengineering. It works[1], and we appear to be facing a literal existential crisis in anthropogenic climate change.

[1] Mt. Pinatubo

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#225

Post by Scoundreller » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 4:44 PM UTC

mrpopo wrote: post #92

schiffern wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If nations don't have national sovereignty over their slice of the atmosphere, then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime? [For clarity I don't particularly disagree with this stance, but my mostly-overlooked point is that:] If people really think this, why is it that (on HN in particular) we overwhelmingly hear this point made in the context of geoengineering, and not for regular old pollution? I…

It's also brought up for "regular old pollution". Neighbouring countries of Germany are pushing for Germany to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal. South Korean associations are making efforts in China to stop them from building incinerators on their east coast, outside of Beijing. You probably are just not living in an area of concern.

I totally built my coal plants in the corner of the city in SimCity

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#226

Post by p0pcult » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 4:46 PM UTC

sonofhans wrote: post #5

> The tiny startup Make Sunsets, which had been experimenting with releasing sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight in order to cool the earth. This is the mechanism in Neal Stephenson’s _Termination Shock_. The book’s plot depends on a future US government which is non-functional, thus no one can shut them down. These folks were planning to release 500g of sulfur dioxide — that’s completely insignifi…

I'd recommend the book, not because of the writing per se, but because of the hypotheses it delivers about the necessity and efficacy of solar geoengineering.

There are lots of reasons to read books.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#227

Post by rurp » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 4:47 PM UTC

The democratization of screwing with the environment is something I worry about a lot. It's a very complex critical system.

"Should we?" is increasingly a more important question than "Can we?", and the way to manage those issues is social/political, not technical. Despite immense technological progress in recent decades our social and political systems have been degrading, which is a scary path to be on.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#228

Post by kragen » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #206

eloff wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plan was to release 10 to 500 grams of sulfur dioxide. I don’t think it would affect anything at all. The experiment seems of questionable value, but it doesn’t seem dangerous.

The question isn’t whether 3 balloons of 500 grams of sulphur dioxide is dangerous, the question is should rando startups be allowed to put toxic chemicals in our air. What if they decided their experiment of 1.5kb of sulphur dioxide was a success? What is the obvious next step? 1500kg, 1.5Mg? Ten more startups doing the same, realizing whoever gets there first will make money?

presumably the point at which it's potentially dangerous is the point at which governments have a plausible justification to start getting involved, not when you're doing safe experiments to find out whether the potentially dangerous thing has potential benefits that might justify riskier experiments

also sulfite isn't within the usual meaning of 'toxic chemical', it's a common antioxidant food additive, although like acetic acid it's corrosive enough to have killed people in high concentrations

the last time I inhaled a bunch of it, it was not an enjoyable experience

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#229

Post by p0pcult » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #216

varjag wrote: post #154

This is literally a plot device from Stephenson's _Termination Shock_.

One of the scariest book openings I've read (edit: see reply below). Climate change has never been presented to me in a more horrifying way.

Try "Ministry For The Future" if you want an even more horrifying opening to an climate change thriller. (They also end up using geoengineering to mitigate climate change in that novel.)

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#230

Post by vkou » Thu, Jan 26, 2023, 4:54 PM UTC

Zuiii wrote: post #220

vkou wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you describe the primary purpose of your automobile's exhaust pipe?

Something that is legal and regulated.

Why should it be legal? It spews massive amounts of chemicals and harmful pollution into the atmosphere.

To the order of ~600g of SO2 and ~90 tonnes of CO2 over the average vehicle's lifespan.

It's weird how, as mentioned in other parts of this thread, nobody gives two figs[1] about the atmospheric geoengineering we're all doing with our cars and our natural gas power plants. The Paris accord came and went and we are solidly on the worst-case do-nothing track.

[1] We are, at most, taking steps to consider thinking about taking steps fifteen years from now.