Increase taxes for car owners globally, done.
$100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
201–210 of 469 posts
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#202I'm curious to hear what people here think of Project Vesta? https://www.projectvesta.org/ (No affiliation, just intrigued by what they're promising)
most of the plans to sequester carbon in the ocean make me worry about how that would impact the broader ecosystem. As I understand it, it would change the chemistry of the ocean, which might trade one disaster for another. Not to mention ideally sequestration would last for millennia.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#203What we need is a cryptocurrency that is somehow mined by pulling carbon out of the atmosphere.
I'm laughing but honest to god I think this could work...somehow.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the time coal deposits formed the bacteria that broke down lingin and cellulose hadn't yet evolved, so just burying trees wouldn't work today as they would decay. You could probably burn the wood to produce charcoal (burning it in a low oxygen environment), and the bury that, but just cutting down a forest and burying it won't work.
In a low oxygen, low water environment it would work fine. For example an old coal mine and then seal it. Old coal mines are too dangerous for humans to enter so you need some kind of robotics to load them up with trees and other biomatter to bury.
This would never scale.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#205I get the feeling there's a "snake eating its own tail" aspect here. Assuming carbon sequestration can be done at scale, it will likely require energy, maybe even a lot of energy. So where's this energy going to come from? Well... global energy demand is increasing as-is and the winners are: coal, oil and "natural" gas (which is a fossil fuel): https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-global-... Even assu…
> carbon sequestration [will] likely require energy Yes, but that doesn't mean we won't need it. Take air planes. We can't just put batteries in there: too low energy density or something (I'm no physicist, but they won't fly very far is what I gather). But by capturing the CO2 (at exhaust, or atmospherically) that they put out, we can have both airplanes and a stable climate -- assuming it's all done right. Who want…
> Who wants to have a wind turbine in their back yard?
Here in Los Angeles we have honest-to-god oil derricks in our neighborhoods and the NIMBYs don't even notice. Apartments OTOH...
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but the way we build buildings, there's no way that's actually the case. Transport alone to the sawmill, then the lumber yard, then the job site might actually release more carbon than the tree is storing. A 25 year old maple will sequester 400 pounds of co2 in it's lifetime. An average commuter car will emit that in 2 weeks. Hauling all that carbon out of the forest will likely emit far more than that.
> Transport alone to the sawmill, then the lumber yard, then the job site might actually release more carbon than the tree is storing. If we're building the buildings anyway, we have to compare with alternative building materials. That is, how much more would transporting that lumber emit, compared to transporting for instance brick?
It's not going to be "anyway". Once you add incentive for wood you will also create incentive for building. Complex systems 101.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#207This sounds cool from a tech-nerd perspective, but of course it all is pretty futile if we don't get emissions under control. The video says 10 gigatons/yr by 2050. Our 2019 emissions were ~36 gigatons. I.e. even if capture is successful, it needs to be accompanied by aggressive emissions reductions for us to even get to neutral, let alone reversing damage. I'm guessing Musk had some thought process around the expect…
Those 36 gigatons aren't largely a result of consumer behaviors, but industry (which, admittedly, increases as a function of demand)
Reducing footprints through innovation will go a ways. Changing "culture" (i.e. coerced minimalism) is a thing, but it's a band-aid solution on a leaking hoover-dam; virtue signaling for the most part.
Carbon footprints scale up with population. Everyone eats, wants gadgets, wants a home, good infrastructure. If these demands can't be met without excess encroachment of land and destruction of the environment, then there's too many people. Innovation and increased efficiency can't outrun growth. Yes, it's poised to level off in the next 100 or so years after adding an extra few billion to the total, but the interventions needed are more urgent and by extension the reduced rate should be more urgent. Though changes to the energy sector alone can make a substantial dent in emissions in the near-term, given political will.
All of this would be a moot point if the global population were halved and remained stagnant.
The rampant op-ed push for minimalism on the part of the consumer, for housing especially, seems almost like a nefarious ploy to plant the idea that commoners should now be content with less, with environmentalism as the red herring. So being unable to afford a detached home is to be thought of as a happy virtuous accident.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the same thing as a child. Recently I realized that programming and making apps is like being an inventor. When I make applications for other people to use, is that not akin to making some kind of new machine or tool?
Yeah, it's akin to it. In the won't help you get laid way.
You're an idiot.
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#209with this money you can terraform Sahara desert by planting a billion trees
What is this species of tree that can grow without water or nutrients?
Re: $100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything he does is in some way to make the post-scarcity far future of The Culture more attainable. For all of his social flaws this thought alone gives him my deep respect. I don't think he is infallible but in my opinion a lot of attempts at character assassination don't truly understand the underlying purpose of why he does what he does. I still look at developments in his companies with a critical eye - for ex…
The biggest problem with Elon and it's not just him or his fault is that the biggest barrier is our political systems. $100M is like a small city's annual budget. In Ashland, OR the city budget is $140M/year with about 20,000 residents. This prize is not going to solve anything. Even if Elon spent all of his money on this prize, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to how many resources our political syste…
I would say the measured impact of something like an xPrize is not expressly in how much money is awarded even though it does directly fuel further R&D and other expenses of the leading teams. I think it is rather the time and effort that is directed toward achieving the goal and the public discourse that is generated from the process. It is also the fact that a portion of up-and-coming engineers and scientists still in their studies will see it as inspiration to dedicate themselves toward the relevant field(s).