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

Carbon Removal Technologies

carbon.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 682 posts

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#101

Post by jaggederest »

ttul wrote: post #84
sandworm101 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I understand the qualms of environmentalists As one of those environmentalists, my qualm isn't so much that this may be dangerous but that carbon capture tech (and associated "carbon capture and storage") is often championed by people looking to delay implementation of technology and laws that limit carbon emissions. It is far more energy-efficient to curtail carbon emissions than try to capture it once emitted. T…

How about investing in lobbying? If $10B were sent to politicians, perhaps they’d implement a carbon tax? The future of the world is presently in the hands of pasty white men on Capitol Hill. Why not sequester their carbon (hot air) first?

Agreed. I think the highest leverage at this point is actually in political realms, when it comes to climate change.

It's just infuriating that a $100/ton tax could fix the problem in a perfectly reasonable manner and government has their head in the sand.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#102

Post by bsmith »

sandworm101 wrote: post #74
btilly wrote: post #59

I would strongly suggest investigating the claims of http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli... that after mining, milling, and then being spread in the ocean, olivine rocks weather quickly and take out CO2. The estimated costs of large scale CO2 sequestration this way are surprisingly reasonable, and the technology is already available. Also the various ocean technologies are going to run into t…

>> I understand the qualms of environmentalists As one of those environmentalists, my qualm isn't so much that this may be dangerous but that carbon capture tech (and associated "carbon capture and storage") is often championed by people looking to delay implementation of technology and laws that limit carbon emissions. It is far more energy-efficient to curtail carbon emissions than try to capture it once emitted. T…

I don't see any reason not to focus on reduction AND capture now – in fact, I think it would be irresponsible not to. The atmosphere is a reservoir that's already holding way too much carbon; let's reduce what we're putting in AND increase what we're taking out – NOW, at the same time.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#103

Post by sandworm101 »

ttul wrote: post #84
sandworm101 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I understand the qualms of environmentalists As one of those environmentalists, my qualm isn't so much that this may be dangerous but that carbon capture tech (and associated "carbon capture and storage") is often championed by people looking to delay implementation of technology and laws that limit carbon emissions. It is far more energy-efficient to curtail carbon emissions than try to capture it once emitted. T…

How about investing in lobbying? If $10B were sent to politicians, perhaps they’d implement a carbon tax? The future of the world is presently in the hands of pasty white men on Capitol Hill. Why not sequester their carbon (hot air) first?

Lol, from this morning's news:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-carbon-tax-plan-trud...

Some of the future is in the hand on "hands of pasty white men on Capitol Hill". Other parts of the future are in the hands of more enlightened leaders.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#104

Post by rpowers »

idoh wrote: post #66
jf- wrote: post #63

Here’s my crazy idea: nuclear powered high pressure differential centrifugation. Under centrifugal force fluids separate into bands based on mass. The same principle as oil and water separating under gravity. Use giant centrifuges to spin compressed air until it separates into bands, then extract the bands corresponding to greenhouse gasses. I don’t know the energy requirements for this or if there is a better way of…

What do you do with the CO2 once you've isolated it?

Feed it into a massive underground greenhouse?

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#105

Post by philipkglass »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #51
ergothus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical - You've shown a proposal, not a reality. (and the proposal didn't even mention a "shield" that I saw, but I may have skimmed past it). I didn't see a price tag, nor a timeline. Money can boost research speed, but not remove the need entirely. Second, If the cross section of the earth is 1.2x10^14 m^2, one of these would...well, we don't know, because the link mentioned volumes and length (the 10k km is…

> Third, and most importantly, you've just decreased the amount of energy coming to earth. You've not solved the problem, you've changed it. Probably the most important advantage sunshades have over other kinds of geoengineering megaprojects is that they can be trivially (compared to their construction costs, that is...) turned off. If they turn out to be very harmful in some previously unforeseen way, we can choose…

As others have noted, solar radiation management doesn't do anything to counteract ocean acidification. I still think that SRM of some sort may be necessary to stop runaway feedback loops like loss of soil carbon from thawing permafrost.

The sunshade approach to SRM looks like it may have been devised like other big speculative space projects: "start by assuming that big projects in space are the solution, then find a problem to motivate that solution." (See also: mining helium 3 from the Moon.)

Solar radiation management with reflective aerosols instead of space sunshades looks simpler and easier to me. Most importantly, SRM based on aerosols is incrementally scalable from small low initial investment/scope. The sunshade approach, like many envisioned large space projects, appears to require large "lumpy" investments before delivering any detectable benefit.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#106

Post by greglindahl »

btilly wrote: post #59

I would strongly suggest investigating the claims of http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli... that after mining, milling, and then being spread in the ocean, olivine rocks weather quickly and take out CO2. The estimated costs of large scale CO2 sequestration this way are surprisingly reasonable, and the technology is already available. Also the various ocean technologies are going to run into t…

I thought that the biggest problem with the "seeding the ocean with iron" method of sequestration was not the "qualms of environmentalists" but that it turned out to sequester a lot less carbon than initially thought?

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#107

Post by chasely »

marmadukester39 wrote: post #93
btilly wrote: post #59

I would strongly suggest investigating the claims of http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli... that after mining, milling, and then being spread in the ocean, olivine rocks weather quickly and take out CO2. The estimated costs of large scale CO2 sequestration this way are surprisingly reasonable, and the technology is already available. Also the various ocean technologies are going to run into t…

What about doing it in landlocked major bodies of water? I'd sacrifice the Great Lakes for the climate.

You would sacrifice the largest source of freshwater on earth for the climate?

EDIT: The Great Lakes are not land-locked either. They flow out to the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence River.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#108

Post by ISL »

gustaf wrote: post #72
GreeniFi wrote: post #2

We already have carbon removal technology. They’re called trees. [Edit] I’m not being facetious. 40% of emissions are as a result of poor land management. We’ll need all the technological help we can get, but if we can’t manage land as carbon stores - not sources, we’re not going to win this race.

This is Gustaf from YC. I wrote the first Carbon Removal RFS. Planting tree is actually a great carbon removal technology. Unfortunately most forest owners in the world don't know or don't have incentive to care the about the carbon impact the forest have on the climate. Biggest reason forests are taken down is to grow cattle for beef. If you are working on a startup to reverse this we'd like to fund it too

If you'd like to fund trees, one could start buying land and start protecting trees.

Spending that money on intensive lobbying and forest advocacy in rapidly-deforesting countries could have an impact, too.

The trick, of course, is that neither of these techniques compound for the individual nor a startup. They are pure charity for the planet.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#110

Post by carapace »

all_usernames wrote: post #71

I recently heard about Carbon Engineering, a B.C. Canada based firm that is extracting carbon from the atmosphere and making liquid fuel -- they call it "recycled fuel." Apparently it can be used in existing combustion engines. And it is already up and running. Something on the order of 10,000 of these industrial plants could get us carbon neutral rather quickly. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-co…

But doesn't the carbon just go back into the atmosphere when the fuel is used?
Post reply on HN