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

The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#81

Post by s1artibartfast »

dottjt wrote: post #35
s1artibartfast wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's silly. That's like condemning logic or mathematics. If you want future viability, you can ask if there is a cheap way or an expensive way to get what you want. That's economics. It says nothing about what your goal is.

You're forgetting a key factor though: politics. What you're arguing is a rational idea of economics that doesn't exist. Instead, we have this bastard version influenced by politics, which in practice, cares nothing of the key objectives which concern future viability. Instead, we get this thing that demands infinite growth and consumption. That's modern economics and it's destroying us.

so you are just saying that you dont like a particular brand of politics.

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#82

Post by vkou »

ghiculescu wrote: post #25
vkou wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People on this technology forum are skeptical that an incredibly inefficient technology used to recover carbon from air is a better investment than using technology to emit less carbon in the first place.

Those seem like different goals. Don’t we need both?

When there's a giant hole in the bottom of your boat, you don't dispatch your limited resources to start bailing water out with a tablespoon.

You patch the hole. Once you deal with that, then you can start bailing.

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#83

Post by vkou »

icelancer wrote: post #44
ghiculescu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those seem like different goals. Don’t we need both?

Yes. Defense in depth is somehow only applied to computer security around these parts.

This isn't defense in depth, this is deciding what color you want the background of you 'about our security team' webpage, while your system is actively getting compromised.

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#84

Post by JakeAl »

bluejekyll wrote: post #66

I keep thinking about why we’re going through this effort rather that using trees, which can also be harvested for lumber and the sequester that carbon in construction. My super rough math, from quick Google searches, this unit 1,000 tons per year. A mature tree is estimated to capture 48 pounds per year. That would be about 42,000 trees. At roughly, 100-200 trees per acre. Let’s just say 150, so that’s 280 acres of…

Because someone is being paid, and someone is being given power/control that gets them paid.

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#85

Post by everybodyknows »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #79
exabrial wrote: post #72

This is infinitely dumb. We’re burning carbon to pull some out of the atmosphere… the energy used to power this plant would be better spent just powering the grid and would have an actual positive impact. People are literally celebrating a net positive carbon activity like they’ve accomplished something.

> People are literally celebrating a net positive carbon activity like they’ve accomplished something In the same way we celebrate EV and PV production, even though those may still be carbon-positive at the outset. Especially when they were still in prototyping.

Any good sources on the carbon footprint of producing a single unit of, say, the low-end Tesla?

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#86

Post by everybodyknows »

xingped wrote: post #69
carstenhag wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I read about this topic, it was way more efficient to just buy better ovens for Ruanda and Nigeria [1] instead of trying to capture carbon. Was there any recent technology advancement that changed this? 1: https://www.atmosfair.de/de/save80/ - just an example, there are many ways of reducing co2 emission.

I'd be hard pressed to find it again, but I remember watching a video years ago talking about the issue of buying new ovens for poor Africans in villages not actually working to reduce carbon as intended because what ended up happening is that they would just use now two stoves, the old one and new one, at the same time instead of tossing the old one and only using the new one. Great in theory and a seemingly easy lo…

Really? They're stove-limited rather than fuel-limited? Even if so, it's fixable by simply giving them as many of the new stoves as they want. It's merely a marginal inefficiency in the program.

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#87

Post by jappgar »

pengaru wrote: post #12

https://archive.is/bl4XZ It's too bad these DAC systems don't take it a step further kicking the o2 back into the atmosphere while turning the carbon into something physical and industrially valuable like say spools of carbon fiber fabric or graphene/carbon nanotubes.

Those are called "trees" and were actively killing them to create farm land to feed an ever growing population.

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#89

Post by HPMOR »

jappgar wrote: post #87
pengaru wrote: post #12

https://archive.is/bl4XZ It's too bad these DAC systems don't take it a step further kicking the o2 back into the atmosphere while turning the carbon into something physical and industrially valuable like say spools of carbon fiber fabric or graphene/carbon nanotubes.

Those are called "trees" and were actively killing them to create farm land to feed an ever growing population.

*we’re

Re: The first commercial carbon-sucking facility in the US opens in California

#90

Post by recuriosity »

jappgar wrote: post #87
pengaru wrote: post #12

https://archive.is/bl4XZ It's too bad these DAC systems don't take it a step further kicking the o2 back into the atmosphere while turning the carbon into something physical and industrially valuable like say spools of carbon fiber fabric or graphene/carbon nanotubes.

Those are called "trees" and were actively killing them to create farm land to feed an ever growing population.

Have you considered that taking out CO2 from the air will also kill trees and other plant life? CO2 is their air to breath.

But of course, let's trust corporations and government to carefully calculate exactly how much CO2 they should take out.

Can't wait for the revival of the ice age scare from the 80s...

Post reply on HN