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

151–160 of 187 posts

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#151

Post by jeffybefffy519 »

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…

Preprint of the paper is available in other parts of this post, but it does say this:

> The solid co-contributor of silver-gallium rods ensures a cyclic sustainable process

Unsure if this means the gallium is consumed or not during the process.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#152

Post by punnerud »

HPsquared wrote: post #45
londons_explore wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Norway is now building pipes to pump CO2 down to the old oil wells. You should know that injecting old oil wells with CO2 helps them produce more oil. The CO2 becomes carbonic acid under pressure, which then dissolves pores in the rock wider, allowing more oil and gas to escape. Also, it looks pretty doubtful that CO2 will stay in gas wells for a long time. Eventually it'll find some fissure and due to the acidity…

That's interesting, I'd always thought it was more the CO2 acting as a solvent to flush out the oil. Is there any reading material on this?

https://www.equinor.com/en/magazine/carbon-capture-and-stora...

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#153

Post by eecc »

mechanical_bear wrote: post #123
malermeister wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sure, just not that way anyway.

Try again.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#154

Post by IncRnd »

ryukafalz wrote: post #92
IncRnd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is economic today for people who rent out the credits that arise by purchasing land then not harvesting the trees. That is economic today for people who claim carbon credits for purchasing new equipment, where the old was at EOL anyway. And so on. The existence of brokers for carbon credit sales should tell you something. For real economic viability that isn't scam-based, something based in reality is needed.

You're talking about carbon credits, not a carbon tax.

I read that wrong. Thanks!

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#155

Post by IncRnd »

anonporridge wrote: post #136
ryukafalz wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about carbon credits, not a carbon tax.

I've noticed a trend of people trying to suggest we already have a carbon tax via carbon credits. I'm not sure if they're just confused, or trying to sow misinformation.

You're inventing things out of whole cloth. I simply misread.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#156

Post by andy_ppp »

exporectomy wrote: post #138
bitwize wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The implication of that is that we should accept climate change, is that what you're saying? Deindustrialization would probably be worse than climate change so it's likely not an option. In case you want deindustrialization, can you estimate it consequences in terms of deaths caused or some other important metric so we can compare it to climate change?

I think we could do the following; local seasonal food farmed as naturally as possible. It’s likely to still use some carbon, but doing this would massively reduce what’s used today.

Tax meat production heavily.

Tax air travel heavily and these taxes should increase exponentially per journey per person.

Stop shipping goods half way around the world… make the things you need locally.

Improve the grid and invest in plans for heating using electricity.

Build hundreds of small nuclear plants.

I think that’s net zero roughly but it’s not possible politically even though it’s a feasible solution to the problem.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#157

Post by [deleted] »

throwawayboise wrote: post #109
throwaway894345 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s remarkable how effectively the fossil fuel industry has gotten progressive environmentalists to believe that we can solve this problem without carbon tax. The moment you mention how a carbon tax works (that it’s a market mechanism) progressives recoil. When evangelizing to progressives, I try to focus on “making polluters pay for the damage they are doing” (as opposed to making taxpayers bail us out) since they…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#158

Post by megablast »

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…

> Moreover, the average person has a lot of driving they have to do

Bullshit. Consider that the average person doesn’t own a car.

Even in developed countries people drive more than they have to.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#159

Post by throwaway894345 »

throwawayboise wrote: post #109
throwaway894345 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s remarkable how effectively the fossil fuel industry has gotten progressive environmentalists to believe that we can solve this problem without carbon tax. The moment you mention how a carbon tax works (that it’s a market mechanism) progressives recoil. When evangelizing to progressives, I try to focus on “making polluters pay for the damage they are doing” (as opposed to making taxpayers bail us out) since they…

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.

That’s precisely the point. When the cost of pollution is reflected in the price you and I pay, then cleaner options become economically viable and we the consumers pick them. Over time the market does it’s thing and optimizes for cost (becomes more efficient) and cleaner options become cheaper i.e., the carbon tax you and I pay is significantly diminished. Moreover, we can distribute the carbon tax revenue to the lower and middle class folks.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#160

Post by thatcat »

joe_the_user wrote: post #141
Maarten88 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 objective…

I think that is just an excuse to not make changes that are necessary. It's not excuse, it's a reason. It's not even the poor that will push back here on gas taxes but the somewhat well-off but not wealthy. These are the kind of people I don't have cultural sympathy with but if you just say tell them "oh, you're going to be paying a whole bunch for that pickup", you may find you don't get to say that after next elect…

so you're saying it will incentivize better choices like not choosing a pickup as a daily driver
Post reply on HN