Carbon Removal Technologies • Hacker News Board

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#171

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:07 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #90

At the rate we're setting up for a future where the entire ocean blooms, dies, and we're left with nothing. Already jellyfish are taking over. We're killing off so many life forms we're essentially going back in time to the precambrian era. Instead of looking for "quick fixes" like iron seeding, which has just as much a chance of going awry as Australia importing cane toads to deal with their crop insects, let's just…

> "quick fixes" like iron seeding, which has just as much a chance of going awry as Australia importing cane toads to deal with their crop insects

The iron particles aren't going to breed and make more iron particles.

> let's just curtail CO2 emissions

So we shouldn't aim for zero (or even less)? Because 'curtail' will never reach zero.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#172

Post by natalyarostova » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:07 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #90

At the rate we're setting up for a future where the entire ocean blooms, dies, and we're left with nothing. Already jellyfish are taking over. We're killing off so many life forms we're essentially going back in time to the precambrian era. Instead of looking for "quick fixes" like iron seeding, which has just as much a chance of going awry as Australia importing cane toads to deal with their crop insects, let's just…

Getting worldwide collaboration on c02 emission should be actively worked on, but we can't expect it to succeed. We need other technological strategies to augment diplomatic strategies.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#173

Post by aidenn0 » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:08 PM UTC

I'm worried that it's too late for carbon removal to prevent some of the worst effects (since no large scale carbon removal plan can be implemented overnight) and we need to look into more short-term ways of reducing warming such as albedo modification.

Or in the terms on this page, we need a Plan C.

[edit]

They actually do list this, I didn't notice at first since it's not a carbon removal technology.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#174

Post by ArtWomb » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:08 PM UTC

Artificial photosynthesis.

Basic idea is a nanoscale metal-organic "hack" of common bacteria systems to develop efficient pathways for the conversion of sunlight and CO2 into useful fuels. Massive search and simulation required to find ideal candidates. Which could then be incorporated directly into carbon emission sources such as factories and power plants.

One recent example is hybridizing M. thermoacetica with "magic" Au22 nanoclusters

https://chemistry.berkeley.edu/news/harvesting-solar-fuels-t...

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#175

Post by ISL » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #164

ISL wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington State is voting this week on a carbon tax. That future is now, should voters choose it.

How this is not on top of HN for the past month? It's not the first time I see a comment like "actually, a $critical-legislation is under vote this/next week somewhere". It feels that the important cases lack marketing.

Politics are generally decremented on the front page. It's not just N, but rather HN, after all.

It is news, though. It is the second time that a carbon tax has been on the Washington ballot. It may pass this time around.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#176

Post by steve19 » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

danielharan wrote: post #154

I'd like to propose a different scale removal, for anyone that may have the means to do it: home and office CO2 scrubbers. CO2 concentrations are higher indoors, and they're affecting our cognitive ability. Atmospheric concentrations are going to be high for human cognition, especially in dense urban areas. Better indoor ventilation will help, but if outdoor air already has higher than optimal CO2 concentrations, scr…

C02 in the atmosphere is going to need to increase by 2x-4x before cognition becomes a problem. Meanwhile indoors co2 jumps to these levels within hours of poor ventalation.

I minuter the co2 in my office and vent when required.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#177

Post by function_seven » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

tlb wrote: post #125

khrbrt wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy. Stop subsidizing fossil fuel exploration, extraction, and movement (ie. pipelines). Make carbon emissions expensive, and you'll see them go down. Levy a revenue neutral carbon tax which anually redistributes to consumers the "average" tax per person. Stop subsidizing suburban sprawl. Build more high density housing near mass transit. Walkable neighborhoods and such. These are all obvious things we should have s…

Transportation is only 14% [0] of greenhouse gas emission, and passenger cars are about half of that. While driving less can help, even reducing it to zero won't prevent serious climate change. So we need other solutions as well. [0] https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-clima...

14% is big enough to include in a reduction scheme, no? I don't understand wanting to exclude it.

First two points (subsidy removal and carbon tax) would apply to all uses of fossil fuels, not just transportation.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#178

Post by astrodust » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:10 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #171

astrodust wrote: post #90

At the rate we're setting up for a future where the entire ocean blooms, dies, and we're left with nothing. Already jellyfish are taking over. We're killing off so many life forms we're essentially going back in time to the precambrian era. Instead of looking for "quick fixes" like iron seeding, which has just as much a chance of going awry as Australia importing cane toads to deal with their crop insects, let's just…

> "quick fixes" like iron seeding, which has just as much a chance of going awry as Australia importing cane toads to deal with their crop insects The iron particles aren't going to breed and make more iron particles. > let's just curtail CO2 emissions So we shouldn't aim for zero (or even less)? Because 'curtail' will never reach zero.

Fucking around with the ocean on a scale that's going to move the needle on CO2 in the atmosphere has a very high probability of serious unintended consequences.

Iron particles won't replicate, but the chemistry of the ocean could change dramatically. We don't know what happens at scale, and we probably don't want to find out.

Find another solution.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#179

Post by joe_the_user » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:11 PM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #116

astrodust wrote: post #90

At the rate we're setting up for a future where the entire ocean blooms, dies, and we're left with nothing. Already jellyfish are taking over. We're killing off so many life forms we're essentially going back in time to the precambrian era. Instead of looking for "quick fixes" like iron seeding, which has just as much a chance of going awry as Australia importing cane toads to deal with their crop insects, let's just…

To stay below 2 degrees of warming via CO2 curtailment alone, serious curtailment would have had to start a generation ago. I wish that we had acted with urgency then, but we didn't. Now we need curtailment and active interventions.

Indeed,

The problem is that, given we're failing the straightforward task of curtailment even now, what are the chances that we can successfully achieve curtailment and sequestering in the required time-frame?

Curtailment is a large task but we know what to do. Sequestering would also be a large task but what to do is uncertain. Curtailment so far has been a corrupt circus with "pledges" and other indirect inducements ("carbon credits") being most of what was done. These indirect inducements primarily served as speculative vehicles and advertising gloss.

And here, I just google'd up what you'd expect: A bitcoin-based platform for trading carbon credit. Now you can use the certainty of damaging the environment to make a promise to repair it.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/ibm-and-veridium-transf...

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#180

Post by throwaway5752 » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:11 PM UTC

super-serial wrote: post #77

I'm glad someone mentioned it above, because my favorite solution is still "advanced weathering" of rocks: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli... Just US $250 billion per year to offset ALL of humanity's carbon emissions. Yes I said ALL. It would cost less than the ongoing 'war on terror.' If I was rich I would be building autonomous mining robots so I could do it myself because I'm not confi…

Don't you think that there's perhaps something wrong with a perfect solution presented with no drawbacks? Something like that screams, "incomplete knowledge of implementation or externalities"