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

Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

mining.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 187 posts

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#121

Post by joe_the_user »

cletus wrote: post #11

So let's do some math. Let's consider natural gas. According to the US government [1], natural gas produced 1.358x10^12 kWh of power and 5.6x10^8 metric tons of CO2 so 1 metric ton of CO2 equates to ~2400 kWh of produced power. This post suggests the energy cost is ~230kWh/ton. This is an important sanity check because it means that (capital costs aside) and if it scales you could technically remain carbon neutral fo…

Not to be a broken record on HN, but I've often said--and I'll repeat here--that I don't believe altruism will solve greenhouse gas emissions and global warming: it'll only be solved when it becomes economic to do so.

The term "economic" can mean a lot of things. Solar and Wind can be cost-effect replacements for many uses of fossil fuel. With some regulations and transformation of daily surplus energy to other forms, you could get an economy with energy costs similar to the present and low carbon usage. So if "economic" just means, idk, works in an economy, then it's essentially not an important barrier (except the state should finance it's efforts with a graduated income tax and not a visibly-punishing measures like carbon or at-the-pump taxes, instead just making some things eventually prohibited but cushioning the blow for those poor or industries want to preserve).

But if by "economic", you mean the economy has to just do what it "wants" with no intervention at all, well we'll not only suffer the disasters of global warming but also unbridled pollution.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#122

Post by joe_the_user »

mcdonje wrote: post #61
dr_dshiv wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'll repeat here--that I don't believe altruism will solve greenhouse gas emissions and global warming: it'll only be solved when it becomes economic to do so. Completely agree. We need governments to ensure externalities (both positive and negative) are reflected in market pricing so that economic forces can operate efficiently. Implication: there must be a debt to pay for past and present GHG output. It should not…

So, a robust carbon tax.

A carbon tax is essentially going to hit the average person hard. Moreover, the average person has a lot of driving they have to do, tax or not. And plenty of rich people could ignore the tax and keep driving.

And the political impact would be angry people ready to listen climate deniers.

What's needed is a plan to eventually give everyone an electric car or some choice, any choice, that lets them do their daily business with much lower carbon consumption. Maybe taxes can change the behavior of industrial users but for consumers, this is totally daft solution.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#123

Post by mechanical_bear »

malermeister wrote: post #115
throwawayboise wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "polluters" are you and I. We buy the cars, we buy the other things, we use electricity and gas and oil in our homes and cars. We, the consumers, will ultimately pay any carbon taxes. Which may be appropriate, but let's not be unrealistic about who will be paying.

> We buy the cars Speak for yourself. I haven't owned a car in my life and don't plan to change that.

Ok, but you certainly pollute in other ways.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#124

Post by anyfactor »

A tangential thought.

Since the last crash of oil prices there was a radical move toward rare earth material mining. Every minining and exploration company tried look into ways to mine and find better uses of rare earth minerals that would generate the same pre-crash oli and gas profits.

But reviewing half a decades stock research or DD of these newly pivoted mining companies I find nothing to be radical and it is often the same repackaged environmental well being rhetoric from the industry.

There is no pioneering business, leader or technology in rare earth mining. And I am often very skeptical of mining industry talking about positive environmental consequences of mining.

Even though we are divided on Musk's contribution in revolution in EV industry but he didn't push an environmental agenda IMO but he pushed for providing better consumer utility while minimzing negative environmental consequences. If rare earth industry as a whole quite non-inuitivetly provide or promise of enhanced utility (in the economic sense) without mentioning positive environmental consequences as a headline then I will believe.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#125

Post by mechanical_bear »

malermeister wrote: post #111
throwawayboise wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably this, yet. When the problem is real, people will find real solutions. Or not, but it's not happening now anyway. Are you driving less? Have you stopped eating beef?

When the problem is "real", it will be too late for solutions. We need to do something right now. Besides, I'd argue the problem is starting to be "real" right now. California, Australia, Siberia and Greece were on fire this year, Germany had historic floods and the East Coast keeps getting devastated by hurricanes. I also disagree with the tactic of shifting responsibility to the individual to avoid doing anything w…

We are on fire every year. Gross mismanagement has made it worse.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#126

Post by joe_the_user »

malermeister wrote: post #103
vixen99 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you and I kept up the demand on the fossil fuel industry without which it would not exist and all of us went along with it and now you want them to pay for your and my indulgence. How sweetly ironic! It's never our fault, is it?

This is a classic case of victim blaming. You and I didn't "keep up demand" because we wanted to, we "kept up demand" because it was the only option available to heat our homes. It's not our fault the industry didn't provide us with alternatives.

Whether you blame the fossil fuel industry or not, they don't have the cure to their destruction in their back pocket or something.

Even if you seized all the stocks and bonds of the fossil fuel industry, you wouldn't have the money required to solve this problem and you wouldn't have a plan to solve the problem.

It's not our fault the industry didn't provide us with alternatives.

It's not really the job of a given industry to provide alternatives. That job, in a modern democratic society, devolves to the state. The US state certainly failed there and was corrupted by private industry (auto and petroleum certainly). But the only way out is the state stepping up and moreover, the state stepping up with statist solutions - building things (public transit), requiring things (electric cars), prohibiting things (CO2 generating production processes) and requiring things (Non-CO2 generating things and possibly/eventually sequestering). Honestly, I'd see anyone thinking taxes or credits could be the solution as part of the problem.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#127

Post by lisper »

cletus wrote: post #11

So let's do some math. Let's consider natural gas. According to the US government [1], natural gas produced 1.358x10^12 kWh of power and 5.6x10^8 metric tons of CO2 so 1 metric ton of CO2 equates to ~2400 kWh of produced power. This post suggests the energy cost is ~230kWh/ton. This is an important sanity check because it means that (capital costs aside) and if it scales you could technically remain carbon neutral fo…

> it'll only be solved when it becomes economic to do so.

That's true, but the economics are being badly skewed by not properly accounting for the externalities of emissions. If this were done (e.g. a global carbon tax) the situation would change dramatically.

If you are a young person reading this I would seriously consider making this a litmus test for any politician you are considering voting for, and urging your peers to do the same. Otherwise your generation is in for a (literally!) a world of hurt.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#128

Post by bitwize »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #84
cletus wrote: post #11

So let's do some math. Let's consider natural gas. According to the US government [1], natural gas produced 1.358x10^12 kWh of power and 5.6x10^8 metric tons of CO2 so 1 metric ton of CO2 equates to ~2400 kWh of produced power. This post suggests the energy cost is ~230kWh/ton. This is an important sanity check because it means that (capital costs aside) and if it scales you could technically remain carbon neutral fo…

Gallium cannot be produced at scale because it does not form concentrated ores in nature. It cannot be usefully mined directly. The only reason it is relatively inexpensive is that there is limited demand for the minuscule quantities that are currently produced. Gallium is currently supplied by reprocessing the waste from other convenient metal ores to extract the traces of gallium. Even if we maximized gallium extra…

Yeah, basically there's only one solution to the CO2 problem that's also the solution with the least political will to push it through: deindustrialization.

Everything else relies on miracles and/or unobtainium.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#129

Post by Maarten88 »

joe_the_user wrote: post #122
mcdonje wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a robust carbon tax.

A carbon tax is essentially going to hit the average person hard. Moreover, the average person has a lot of driving they have to do, tax or not. And plenty of rich people could ignore the tax and keep driving. And the political impact would be angry people ready to listen climate deniers. What's needed is a plan to eventually give everyone an electric car or some choice, any choice, that lets them do their daily busi…

> A carbon tax is essentially going to hit the average person hard.

I think that is just an excuse to not make changes that are necessary. Saying that something will hit the poor/average person/working family is an argument about wealth/cost distribution, which is separate from the actual problem.

When we, as humanity, have the natural resources, the technology and the labor required to do something that is objectively necessary, the only thing that can stand in the way is cost/wealth distribution: who gets to pay the bill.

So when objectively necessary changes do not happen, the only possible reason for that is that maintaining wealth/power are more important than suffering the consequences of not implementing the change.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#130

Post by chipsa »

cletus wrote: post #25
andi999 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So reducing petrol demand (let's say by switching to electric cars) might reduce the economic incentives of carbon capture significantly, interesting thought.

Electrifying vehicles at a mass scale actually has a lot of problems, not the least of which is does the grid support the ability to transmit that much power. In many places it does not. That aside, electrifying vehicles doesn't necessarily reduce emissions significantly. It may simply shift the emissions from individual vehicles to the power plant that produces the power that charges the cars. Now this is nearly alw…

Average US driver goes 13.5kmi/year. This is about 36mi/ day. Most cars will get 2-4 mi/kWh, so this is about 12kWh/day. Average charging of like 8 hours gives about 1.5 kW over night. This isn't nothing, but it's a bunch less than people think about. I was regularly driving off of what a standard 120v socket would supply. (Not right now, because I can no longer charge overnight, due to a recall)

Also grid power can become more green if more green sources come online, but your gas powered car will always be gas powered.

Post reply on HN