Live data from Hacker News

Carbon Removal Technologies

carbon.ycombinator.com

281–290 of 682 posts

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#281
post #108
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Gustaf from YC. I wrote the first Carbon Removal RFS. Planting tree is actually a great carbon removal technology. Unfortunately most forest owners in the world don't know or don't have incentive to care the about the carbon impact the forest have on the climate. Biggest reason forests are taken down is to grow cattle for beef. If you are working on a startup to reverse this we'd like to fund it too

If you'd like to fund trees, one could start buying land and start protecting trees. Spending that money on intensive lobbying and forest advocacy in rapidly-deforesting countries could have an impact, too. The trick, of course, is that neither of these techniques compound for the individual nor a startup. They are pure charity for the planet.

Actually, my idea would be the following:

1. Automate tree/crop planting

2. Reform regulations stipulating that planting of trees/crops/plants should be required on any and all uninhabited lands, as a matter of "imminent domain" regardless of the land owner. Perhaps even as a tax incentive to land owners.

3. The development of a maintenance and management policy and system around all that is planted

4. In conjunction with the RFS for flooding deserts, develop a multi-stage water transfer to desert desalinization ponds, then to be used in irrigation of the tree planting efforts.

We already have autonomous farming combines with excellent ability to harvest crops and plant seed. They should be put to use at scale in panting trees.

Further, we could make an effort to employ the vast amounts of humans with little opportunity to be productive to build, plant and deploy a massive effort such as this.

We dont need to try to do everything with robots, when we have millions and millions of humans.

If we are so progressive and smart, maybe learning how to manage a labor force in the millions to accomplish a great work such as terraforming a desert is someting we should attempt again.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#282
The only viable carbon removal technology yet identified is leaving it in the ground.

This isn't a smart-arse answer given every additional gallon of oil dug or gas fracked makes the problem worse, the oil industry hasn't yet accepted defeat, and politics still promotes and subsidises fossil.

How then to take that problem out of the realm of political corruption (lobbying) even faster?

We know what to do. Slightly facetiously, simply copy Orkney, we know how, and the cost. Save a little oil for chemicals and plastics that cannot be replaced. Yet we don't. Lobbying and politics is the problem.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#283
post #72
post #2

We already have carbon removal technology. They’re called trees. [Edit] I’m not being facetious. 40% of emissions are as a result of poor land management. We’ll need all the technological help we can get, but if we can’t manage land as carbon stores - not sources, we’re not going to win this race.

This is Gustaf from YC. I wrote the first Carbon Removal RFS. Planting tree is actually a great carbon removal technology. Unfortunately most forest owners in the world don't know or don't have incentive to care the about the carbon impact the forest have on the climate. Biggest reason forests are taken down is to grow cattle for beef. If you are working on a startup to reverse this we'd like to fund it too

Grassland, if properly managed, can sequester more carbon than a forest. This is related to the (unintuitive) fact that grasses are more efficient producers of organic matter than trees.

Joel Salatin has done some great work related to this and collected decades worth of data.

So the irony is that we could grow more beef and pull carbon out of the air at the same time, only if we cared. But we don't, it's easier to slash and burn then to also take the environment into consideration...

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#284

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.

I think the IPCC does have some scenerio's where there is an overshoot but that can be 'recovered' using carbon removal tech. You can find some graphs on these projections here: https://chemconnections.org/Global%20Warming/After%20Paris-S... (second page)

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#285
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LEO to L1 is not that bad using solar sails or ionic propulsion. There are going to be real trade-offs to any orbit, but I think the minimum cost is going to be above X mass in L1 means X mass into LEO as you can't use less mass than that in any other orbit.

But then you have to put solar sails or ionic propulsion into the shade. BFR could deploy a completely passive sail directly into such a sun-synchronous elliptical orbit, return to land, and launch again after a few hours.

Anything that blocks that much light is going to be a huge solar sail and need a lot of station keeping.

The only reason ionic propulsion might be considered is the they are already going to be solar panels. If you make a large chunk of them from solar panels you then have crazy energy for space based industry and plenty of energy for ionic propulsion.

Also, with that much mass in orbit you are going to want some way do move dammaged segments.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that the biggest problem with the "seeding the ocean with iron" method of sequestration was not the "qualms of environmentalists" but that it turned out to sequester a lot less carbon than initially thought?

Its sequestration efficacy is not well-established yet. I think that more experiments should be run to better quantify the effects. Some environmentalists oppose even additional research-scale trials. Some proponents of iron fertilization have internalized "some environmentalists oppose this, and efficacy still has large error bars" as "it probably works great but technophobic environmentalists want us to suffer depr…

More than that, articles like https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizing-ocean... indicate that the sequestration efficacy varies widely based on a variety of parameters that we do not yet know enough to control. In particular the type of diatom that blooms matters. A lot. And it isn't obvious how to get the one that you want.

Furthermore there is a question of what happens when deep ocean currents turn over the ocean. Does that CO2 come back out? We don't know. And that is the difference between solving the problem versus kicking it down the road for a few centuries.

But still environmentalists have moved to get all research into the topic shut down. Which I think is shortsighted at best. We have a big enough problem and few enough plausible options that I don't believe we should shut this one down.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States fully intends to reverse course on that and fire up coal plants in order to something something jobs. The reason it was falling was because of strict emissions standards and a strong EPA, both of which are basically gone.

I was under the impression that we've "done well" because natural gas generation has come online like crazy and proves more economical than coal and INCIDENTALLY cleaner to burn. I'm not sure how long (absent intelligent policy) til we hit peak natural gas and the balance naturally shifts back towards dirty energy sources. I.e. policy helps, but economics had as much to do with it

Solar power and large scale battery storage are still dropping in price though - I would assume that by the time we hit peak natural gas, the more dirty energy sources will not be economically attractive as solar will be simply cheaper even without any incentives.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States fully intends to reverse course on that and fire up coal plants in order to something something jobs. The reason it was falling was because of strict emissions standards and a strong EPA, both of which are basically gone.

I was under the impression that we've "done well" because natural gas generation has come online like crazy and proves more economical than coal and INCIDENTALLY cleaner to burn. I'm not sure how long (absent intelligent policy) til we hit peak natural gas and the balance naturally shifts back towards dirty energy sources. I.e. policy helps, but economics had as much to do with it

Fracked gas is about as bad as or dirtier than coal.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#289
post #59

I would strongly suggest investigating the claims of http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli... that after mining, milling, and then being spread in the ocean, olivine rocks weather quickly and take out CO2. The estimated costs of large scale CO2 sequestration this way are surprisingly reasonable, and the technology is already available. Also the various ocean technologies are going to run into t…

I am working on a non-profit that is utilizing Schuiling's research and is actually getting this project done. We are scouting beaches right now for a "wiggle" tank, which is a sort of see-saw like device where we can gather data to affirm the real world dissolution rate. The chemistry, however, is sound that each 1 ton of olivine will sequester 1.25 tons of carbon. By the end of 2019 we hope to have our first olivin…

> Raw olivine is currently ~$20-$25/ton and the average us person puts out 15-20 tons of CO2/year.

Globe-scale carbon sequestration would increase demand for olivine massively. Would mining operations be able to scale appropriately without prices going through the roof?

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#290
post #72
post #2

We already have carbon removal technology. They’re called trees. [Edit] I’m not being facetious. 40% of emissions are as a result of poor land management. We’ll need all the technological help we can get, but if we can’t manage land as carbon stores - not sources, we’re not going to win this race.

This is Gustaf from YC. I wrote the first Carbon Removal RFS. Planting tree is actually a great carbon removal technology. Unfortunately most forest owners in the world don't know or don't have incentive to care the about the carbon impact the forest have on the climate. Biggest reason forests are taken down is to grow cattle for beef. If you are working on a startup to reverse this we'd like to fund it too

I'm working on a way to bring dollars to carbon removal, whether as simple as planting trees or investing in these more advanced upcoming technologies. It is an app with a personal pledge to balance the negative impact of your own driving and flying with a small payment. Cheap at just a couple dollars a week, with the potential to reach a significant scale through companies. In fact, I look forward to hearing back from YC later today!

If anyone is interested in keeping in the loop on progress: https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/pledge-balance

Post reply on HN