Carbon Removal Technologies • Hacker News Board

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#321

Post by PeterisP » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 9:49 PM UTC

samstave wrote: post #281

ISL wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you feel that #2 is a plausible goal that can be realistically achieved within a decade? I'm not really seeing any political will to do something like this, and without buy-in and cooperation from those who actually can make such regulations (and, effectively, authorize massive expenditures to make this happen) the other points don't really matter.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#322

Post by btilly » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC

mchannon wrote: post #277

philipkglass wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are reasons to think it may be effective. But I try to live by "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool." I want additional experiments to make findings robust. In particular, even if small fertilization inputs reliably lead to large biomass increases, we need to know how much of that added biomass sinks to the deep ocean before we know how effective it is…

Last I ran the numbers for that chapter, I determined that there simply isn’t enough ocean surface area to achieve the carbon absorption necessary, even if we used every underfertilized patch of seawater on the planet. It was close, but it still came up short.

Do note that "not enough by itself" doesn't preclude "important part of the puzzle for how to do it".

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#323

Post by bskinny129 » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 9:53 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #314

lowdest wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trees ultimately burn or rot, releasing a large portion of that carbon back into the atmosphere. Cutting them down and burying them to grow more would be ideal, but takes additional work. Someone want to engineer a tree with enormous, deep roots? Basically make the trees self-burying.

Not if they're treated with preservatives and built into houses. Every wood-frame house and piece of wooden furniture is carbon sequestration.

As long as those houses don't burn down...

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#324

Post by beat » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 9:53 PM UTC

mcculley wrote: post #242

beat wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just angsting about short term partisan politics. The trends remain positive for the longer term. Don't let whatever Trump says this week blind you to the long term.

Do you think the United States is capable of reliably thinking about the long term and electing a President that does the same? As long as the planet can be impacted in such a large way by myopic leaders, I don't see what can be done.

We don't need all of them to be sober, responsible thinkers. Just a majority of them.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#325

Post by strainer » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 9:54 PM UTC

matznerd wrote: post #230

btilly wrote: 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…

> data to affirm the real world dissolution rate

Aside from the traditional engineering and commercial constraints of the idea, observations should focus on gathering data and modelling the complex ecological effects of the releases. They are the greatest factor of the plans success or failure so they should be a priority for prospective eco-engineering projects to observe, even where regulations and incentives may currently be limited.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#326

Post by agumonkey » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 9:54 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.

Think about it, a generation ago the ozone layer was the most we did. The rest was impossibly deep in humanity subconscious. And to add the club of rome report came out before most of us were even born...

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#327

Post by beat » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 9:56 PM UTC

martythemaniak wrote: post #241

beat wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just angsting about short term partisan politics. The trends remain positive for the longer term. Don't let whatever Trump says this week blind you to the long term.

Trends are whatever people make them and many people don't appreciate both the fragility and reversibility of "progress". Things don't just work out, they get worked out. Telling people to stop worrying, relax and become lazy and complacent is extremely counterproductive.

I'm not saying to "relax and become lazy and complacent". I'm saying that attitude that nothing can be done, because we happen to have a crap president at the moment, is far more counterproductive.

Yes, the EPA is taking a beating. But within my lifetime, the EPA didn't even exist. We did something about it. The EPA can and will be rebuilt. The benefits of solar/wind power are real market benefits, and will triumph, despite the desperate resistance of the coal industry. Etc.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#328

Post by beat » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 9:57 PM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #235

astrodust wrote: post #188

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 afraid that the new administration would follow through on its promise to increase American coal use and extraction. Fortunately, it has not. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.php https://www.utilitydive.com/news/westmoreland-chapter-11-mar... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mission-coal-bankruptcy-marks-5...

Wait, are you saying Trump lied to them?

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#329

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 9:58 PM UTC

drankula3 wrote: post #289

matznerd wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

More importantly, how much carbon does olivine mining burn per ton? Is this scheme still carbon-negative if we account for that (and transportation)?

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#330

Post by aezell » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 9:58 PM UTC

This scientism approach to what is a problem of crumbling connections to our selves will get us nowhere. Instead of having the best minds of our generation flailing away at marginal gains within a flawed hypothesis, maybe we should embrace the Earth as the whole biological system that it is. These approaches are fixing the bruised elbow while the heart is laid bare and shooting spurts of blood onto the floor.