Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Carbon Removal Technologies

carbon.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 682 posts

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#371

Post by jf- »

theothermkn wrote: post #350
drankula3 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Globe-scale carbon sequestration would increase demand for olivine massively. I ask too much, I know, but first-semester freshman macroeconomic comments drive me nuts. As demand increases, and as production rises to meet it, the entire economics of the production chain changes. Purchases amortize more quickly. Processes improve. Infrastructure gets more fully utilized. The effects of mass production are felt all th…

Your post is utterly and needlessly condescending. Exactly what prompted you to respond to the other poster like that?

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#372

Post by aidenn0 »

gingerbread-man wrote: post #24

An obvious step towards reducing CO2 emissions in the US would be raising taxes on gasoline. Americans are driving ever larger and less fuel-efficient cars in part because gas prices have remained steady or fallen in real terms since the 70s. In fact, Ford announced a few months ago that they will stop selling passenger cars in the US (except the Mustang), to focus on more popular trucks and SUVs. But this is just ab…

All carbon taxes can be made non-regressive by giving each citizen (or resident, or taxpayer or whatever) a credit.

A form of cap-and-trade in which the carbon credits are auctioned off to emitters (and retail fuel sellers) and the profits are distributed equally to all residents would likely be progressive, since wealthy people are likely to have a higher carbon footprint.

[edit]

The biggest problem with any sort of carbon tax is that at some point it incentivizes evasion more than conservation. e.g. importing finished goods and electricity rather than raw materials and fuel just moves the emissions to another country.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#373

Post by memmcgee »

csense wrote: post #320

The ocean phytoplankton technology sounds like it has the potential to screw the planet up worse than the climate change issues it's trying to solve. Massive, self-replicating system of genetically engineered bacteria? I'm certainly no marine biologist, but I'm pretty sure phytoplankton are a super important part of the world's ecosystem. Suddenly massively increasing the number of them that exist in the open ocean s…

You're correct in that assumption. Plankton blooms are already damaging the climate in many ways.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#374

Post by NeedMoreTea »

biglenny wrote: post #359
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah - no. Coal CO2 emissions are almost double natgas' [1]. While it is true that natgas is mainly CH4, a highly potent GG, its atmospheric lifetime is about 8 yrs. Further, the only way the methane would be getting into the air is via leaks in upstream/midstream processes. Today, hardly any of this leaks (EPA estimates leak rate of 1.4%). Now addressing fracking, the drilling and fracturing process are the cause of…

Baseless? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13053040

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#375

Post by ninkendo »

Retric wrote: post #97
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earth-Sol L1 is probably a bad place for a solar shade. That's where a solar shade of any given size is the most efficient, but the cost of getting it there is much more than the cost of having more, less efficient ones. A better choice is something akin to a semi-sun-synchronous Molniya-style-orbit. That is, orbit that is somewhat highly elliptical (so a satellite on it spends most of it's time near apogee, and zips…

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.

How are you going to use a solar sail to go towards L1 from LEO?

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#376

Post by [deleted] »

zinclozenge wrote: post #351
wdewind wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I want this desperately to be true as someone who loves meat but everything I've read tells me it's not. There is definitely a nice symbiotic relationship that exists between cows grazing and grasslands but it is significantly more expensive to raise animals this way, and you can raise significantly fewer…

I might be pedantic, but methane is a carbon atom and 4 hydrogen atoms. I assume you meant carbon dioxide.

[deleted]

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#377

Post by biglenny »

all_usernames wrote: post #71

I recently heard about Carbon Engineering, a B.C. Canada based firm that is extracting carbon from the atmosphere and making liquid fuel -- they call it "recycled fuel." Apparently it can be used in existing combustion engines. And it is already up and running. Something on the order of 10,000 of these industrial plants could get us carbon neutral rather quickly. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-co…

Carbon Engineering should be focusing on capture and sequestration, not this synthesized fuel BS.

Air-To-fuel is not and will never be their moneymaker. The synthesized fuel is not in demand and probably was thought of by a board member who heard of the word "value add" for the first time.

The ONLY in-demand product of CCapture is the CO2 itself - whether it's the gov. who pays for it to be sequestered or an O&G company who pays for it to be used in enhanced recovery. Even the O&G demand is insignificant compared to the amount of money they'll get in sequestration contracts from the government, or by proxy, the FF producers who'll be required to implement them on site.

It's important to note CCS is required to meet emissions targets - so I hope CE doesn't get distracted with less important/profitable goals.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#380

Post by memmcgee »

guelo wrote: post #58

An elephant in the room not being discussed here are the propaganda networks that are persuading voters and preventing any kind of government action on climate. Disrupting these propaganda businesses is another necessary angle of attack for preventing climate change catastrophe.

The public believes in and supports climate change prevention. The problem is not so much that propaganda convinces public opinion that the people in power do not have an incentive to make any changes.
Post reply on HN