Personal CO2 Removal as a Service • Hacker News Board

Re: Personal CO2 Removal as a Service

#21

Post by hirsin » Tue, Mar 03, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #15

kohtatsu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAICT offsets are "We stopped one tonne from going in", removal is "We took one tonne out".

Unless I'm missing something, that sounds like the same net effect. Why is one better than the other apart from price?

It's insufficient - there's a cap on how much carbon we can stop emitting, and maxing that out will not be enough to halt climate change. Agreed though, in the sense that we should fully fund the cheap options while also funding research on going carbon negative.

Re: Personal CO2 Removal as a Service

#22

Post by quicklime » Tue, Mar 03, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

If I've calculated correctly, this service costs $1100 per ton. A flight from New York to London emits about 1 ton of co2.

The site talks about averages, but averages can be deceiving. Most people don't fly, and those that fly fly a lot. If you fly, you should probably try to overshot the average (by a lot) when you offset.

Re: Personal CO2 Removal as a Service

#23

Post by ehnto » Tue, Mar 03, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

philshem wrote: post #12

tdons wrote: post #4

Plant a tree.

Trees that grow and die and decompose release their carbon back into the atmosphere. The only way to make tree-growing carbon negative* is to sequester the grown trees underground. *edited from “neutral”, sorry, typo

We use trees though. We build all kinds of things with them. Granted I would rather see native revegitation, often not great for building with depending on where you live. But given the circumstances and timescales involved, planting trees may give us some buffer time in the form of an initial dip in carbon.

Re: Personal CO2 Removal as a Service

#24

Post by magic5227 » Tue, Mar 03, 2020, 5:24 PM UTC

It might be nice to show how many others have subscribed. This is one of those services where people may think,

"i'll do this but i don't want to be the only one." Seeing the scale can be motivating.

It would also be nice to know how this would work at scale. If 100k people sign up, can they support that?

Re: Personal CO2 Removal as a Service

#25

Post by pacoverdi » Tue, Mar 03, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

Maybe I didn't read the site thoroughly enough but... how do we know that they are doing their part of the bargain? How do we/they measure how much carbon is effectively removed from the atmosphere?

Re: Personal CO2 Removal as a Service

#26

Post by aresant » Tue, Mar 03, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

Does this system have the potential for substantial improvements in efficiency if we support it?

Are the efficiencies gained in manufacturing scale or can the actual process / hardware be substantially improved?

Re: Personal CO2 Removal as a Service

#27

Post by themagician » Tue, Mar 03, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

ur-whale wrote: post #10

tdons wrote: post #4

Plant a tree.

>Plant a tree. How does it compare to what they offer? (as in, metrics please).

About half the mass of a tree is carbon. Seeds cost a couple cents. Plant a big tree (oak, let’s say) in an area where it’s unlikely to burn down and it’s probably good for 1000kg of carbon storage.

Comes with a lot of other benefits too.

Re: Personal CO2 Removal as a Service

#28

Post by gambiting » Tue, Mar 03, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

quicklime wrote: post #22

If I've calculated correctly, this service costs $1100 per ton. A flight from New York to London emits about 1 ton of co2. The site talks about averages, but averages can be deceiving. Most people don't fly, and those that fly fly a lot. If you fly, you should probably try to overshot the average (by a lot) when you offset.

I flew from UK to Canada recently, and KLM was offering to "offset my CO2 emissions" for something stupid like $5. Surely....that's not actually a thing? What can they do for $5 that would offset so much CO2?

Re: Personal CO2 Removal as a Service

#29

Post by aresant » Tue, Mar 03, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

tdons wrote: post #4

Plant a tree.

They have a nice graph on this page describing the problematic nature of that comment:

https://climeworks.shop/how-it-works/

EG the land area + fresh water cost to support a similar revmoval of C02 through forestation is an untenable strategy

Re: Personal CO2 Removal as a Service

#30

Post by kempbellt » Tue, Mar 03, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #15

kohtatsu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAICT offsets are "We stopped one tonne from going in", removal is "We took one tonne out".

Unless I'm missing something, that sounds like the same net effect. Why is one better than the other apart from price?

+0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths.

Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction, but both are moves in the right direction.