Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

xPrize Wildfire – $11M Prize Competition

xprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: xPrize Wildfire – $11M Prize Competition

#31

Post by danielvf »

soperj wrote: post #28
exabrial wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of the logging industry is a good thing for the planet. When you log sustainably, you take fixated carbon, turn it into a product that can be used, then allow the area to regrow, fixated more carbon as a building product. The vast majority of the time, it's a win-win. The negatives are supplying things like cheap paper to the post office for marketing departments to across to spam people using US Postal…

I honestly would be very surprised if they didn't make more CO2 logging and turning that tree into a building product than they sequester. Postal spam is likely even more damaging.

Trees are roughly 50% carbon by weight. Each pound of carbon represents 3.67 pounds of cleaned carbon dioxide.

Each pound of lumber represents 1.8 pounds of carbon dioxide our of the air. It looks like both logging trucks and flatbed timber trucks can carry around 24 tons of lumber, which would be 43 tones of carbon dioxide.

Sawmills are efficient, and would make a negligible contribution to total carbon. Transportation would be the biggest carbon cost. At least on the East Cost US there's a lot of timber growing so distances aren't too far. Let's say 200 miles total from logging to sawmill to use. 400 miles round trip. Using average US freight truck emissions that's about 0.07 tons of carbon dioxide released.

So let's round that up a bit and say 43 tons sequestered for for 0.1 tons expended. Seems like a win.

Re: xPrize Wildfire – $11M Prize Competition

#32

Post by pwython »

Relevant article that explains how Trump may have actually been correct in mitigating forest fires by "raking the floor," stemming from a conversation he had with Finland's president:

https://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/finns-mock-trump-on-rakin...

Before the downvotes, please read the article. I have no political affiliation in the US, and this may be one of the only things Trump sorta maybe got right.

Re: xPrize Wildfire – $11M Prize Competition

#33

Post by danielvf »

danielvf wrote: post #31
soperj wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly would be very surprised if they didn't make more CO2 logging and turning that tree into a building product than they sequester. Postal spam is likely even more damaging.

Trees are roughly 50% carbon by weight. Each pound of carbon represents 3.67 pounds of cleaned carbon dioxide. Each pound of lumber represents 1.8 pounds of carbon dioxide our of the air. It looks like both logging trucks and flatbed timber trucks can carry around 24 tons of lumber, which would be 43 tones of carbon dioxide. Sawmills are efficient, and would make a negligible contribution to total carbon. Transportat…

Another way of thinking about this: if you burned 1,600 gallons of gasoline to sequester one 3,000 lb pine tree, you'd be net ahead.

Unless I'm really off on my math.

Re: xPrize Wildfire – $11M Prize Competition

#34

Post by RandallBrown »

idiotsecant wrote: post #22
mrandish wrote: post #7

On one hand this effort sounds like a good way to generate some interesting concepts. On the other hand, as a long-time resident of a rural, wildfire-prone area, it's also important to educate the public and politicians that there is a large body of proven land management best practices that can already significantly improve prevention, control and mitigation. While we can always do better, we often aren't sufficient…

Yep, you don't fight massive fires with whizbang technical novelties. In the context of fires big enough to matter the only tools in your toolbox that are sufficiently scalable are very low tech.

> In the context of fires big enough to matter the only tools in your toolbox that are sufficiently scalable are very low tech.

Isn't that the whole point of this X Prize, to improve the tools available?

Re: xPrize Wildfire – $11M Prize Competition

#35

Post by ortusdux »

RandallBrown wrote: post #34
idiotsecant wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, you don't fight massive fires with whizbang technical novelties. In the context of fires big enough to matter the only tools in your toolbox that are sufficiently scalable are very low tech.

> In the context of fires big enough to matter the only tools in your toolbox that are sufficiently scalable are very low tech. Isn't that the whole point of this X Prize, to improve the tools available?

The #1 tool in our toolbox is prevention. This is a multipart prize, with $5m going to fire detection, and $5m going to fire response. To me it feels like pushing for research into reducing fevers when the virus is the problem.

The low tech solutions are typically fuel load reduction, fire breaks, controlled burns, and community education. The first two are standard techniques used by the forestry industry, and they funnel a lot more than $11m into R&D.

That being said, new tech for monitoring and controlling controlled burns would be great.

Biden-Harris cut loose almost $200m for wildfire defense a month ago. California got more than half of it, WA got $25m, and OR got $24m. I'm very interested to see the results.

https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2023/03/20/biden-h...

Re: xPrize Wildfire – $11M Prize Competition

#36

Post by tomrod »

Fire is healthy for the ecosystem. What if instead of fighting the fires, we hardened our dwellings in some way so that they are mildly annoying instead of community ending?

Buried utilities, thick brick walls, bunker designs, breaker areas around infrastructure, drone tech to identify and, if possible, cull tumbleweeds, etc.

Re: xPrize Wildfire – $11M Prize Competition

#37

Post by westurner »

westurner wrote: post #17
westurner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wildfire suppression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire_suppression#Tactics History of wildfire suppression in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppressio... Controlled burn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn > A controlled or prescribed burn, also known as hazard reduction burning, [1] backfire, swailing, or a burn-off, [2] is a fire set intentionally for purposes…

> Hydrogel From https://twitter.com/westurner/status/1572664456210948104 : >> What about #CO² -based #hydrogels for fire fighting? >> /? Hydrogel firefighting (2022) https://www.google.com/search?q=hydrogel+firefighting […] >> IDEA: How to make #hydrogels (and #aerogels) from mostly just {air*, CO², algae, shade, and sunshine,} [on earth, and eventually in space,]?

> Aerogel

From https://twitter.com/westurner/status/1600820322567041024 :

> Problem: #airogel made of CO² is an excellent insulator that's useful for many applications; but it needs structure, so foam+airogel but that requires smelly foam

> Possible solution: Cause structure to form in the airogel.

Backpack shoulder straps on e.g. Jansport backpacks have a geometric rubber mesh that's visible through a plastic window.

## Possible methods of causing structure to form in aerogel

- EM Hz: literally play EM waves (and possibly deliberately inverse convolutions) at the {#airogel,} production process

- Titratation

- Centrifugation

- "Volt grid": apply volts/amps/Hz patterns with a probe array

- Thermal/photonic bath 3d printing

- Pour a lattice-like lens as large as the aerogel sections and allow solar to cause it to slowly congeal to a more structural form in advantageous shapes

- Die-casting, pressure-injection molding

Re: xPrize Wildfire – $11M Prize Competition

#38

Post by boplicity »

danielvf wrote: post #33
danielvf wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trees are roughly 50% carbon by weight. Each pound of carbon represents 3.67 pounds of cleaned carbon dioxide. Each pound of lumber represents 1.8 pounds of carbon dioxide our of the air. It looks like both logging trucks and flatbed timber trucks can carry around 24 tons of lumber, which would be 43 tones of carbon dioxide. Sawmills are efficient, and would make a negligible contribution to total carbon. Transportat…

Another way of thinking about this: if you burned 1,600 gallons of gasoline to sequester one 3,000 lb pine tree, you'd be net ahead. Unless I'm really off on my math.

You can't get ahead if you're pulling carbon out of the ground. That's the fundamental problem. Go ahead and burn all of the carbon you want, as long as it's not coming from long-term storage (e.g. fossil fuels), and is rather already part of the carbon cycle (e.g. trees).

Re: xPrize Wildfire – $11M Prize Competition

#39

Post by oatmeal1 »

exabrial wrote: post #10
soperj wrote: post #3

Best way to end destructive fires is to light destructive fires. The real purpose of fighting these fires seem to be protecting the logging industry.

The majority of the logging industry is a good thing for the planet. When you log sustainably, you take fixated carbon, turn it into a product that can be used, then allow the area to regrow, fixated more carbon as a building product. The vast majority of the time, it's a win-win. The negatives are supplying things like cheap paper to the post office for marketing departments to across to spam people using US Postal…

> The majority of the logging industry is a good thing for the planet.

Absolutely not. The amount of carbon sequestered is inconsequential relative to the habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, species going extinct, etc.

Post reply on HN