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

391–400 of 682 posts

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#391

Post by wdewind »

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.

This is HN, the one place you don't need to apologize for pedantry. Right: I meant carbon dioxide. Made the edit :)

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#392

Post by biglenny »

kumarski wrote: post #381

Some of my notes on why carbon sequestration is a no-go for civilization to achieve lithospheric homeostasis.....: 5 Billion Cubic Meters of Oil are produced Annually by humanity. 30Bn Tons of CO2 generated. 60% is un-sequesterable because it is small and/or mobile. 40% is sequestrable and large scale/stationary. 12 Billion Cubic Meters of CO2 are thus sequestrable. You must liquefy CO2 before putting it into the gro…

I don't think anyone in their right minds believes that fighting CC is going to be a profitable venture at all. The point is it will take co-operation and investment by governments worldwide.

It's also important to note that the geological formations necessary for sequestering CO2 are a lot more common than those required to _potentially_ be stores of crude.

In addition to all this, countries around the world will have to be willing to take an economic hit, something I'm worried the biggest polluters won't do (China/India in particular). This makes me wonder if it is futile for developed nations to be stifling their own economies with carbon taxes because China, India, and Africa don't keep up. In any case, we probably will be far off the IPCC recommendations and will have to resort to geoengineering.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#393

Post by seizethecheese »

kumarski wrote: post #381

Some of my notes on why carbon sequestration is a no-go for civilization to achieve lithospheric homeostasis.....: 5 Billion Cubic Meters of Oil are produced Annually by humanity. 30Bn Tons of CO2 generated. 60% is un-sequesterable because it is small and/or mobile. 40% is sequestrable and large scale/stationary. 12 Billion Cubic Meters of CO2 are thus sequestrable. You must liquefy CO2 before putting it into the gro…

> The reality is that something like this will require spinning up an entire Trillion dollar market.

You’re right. This is unlikely, but if you think there’s even a remote chance, the scale will be so huge that betting on startups working on this tech could still pay off.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#394

Post by Retric »

ninkendo wrote: post #375
Retric wrote: 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.

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

You don't have a keel, but you can use the suns gravity with a similar goal. The sun's gravity is much stronger than a sail's thrust so you can't hover, but you do end up in a higher orbit by aiming it at the sun. However, this averages over an orbit so you don't gain energy over time.

But, aim the sail off-center say 45 degrees from the sun and you can pick if that's adding or subtracting angular momentum from your orbit over time. Reduce angular momentum and gravity pulls you into a lower orbit and thus more orbits/year. Reverse that and your gain angular momentum and get fewer orbits per year. L1 is a special case as it's balanced between the sun and earth so you have the same number of orbits per year.

Now, rather than just orbiting the sun your also orbiting the earth. But, similar manovers work just fine.

PS: It's even more complected as you end up in elliptical orbits if you don't keep things balanced etc, but that's the basic idea.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#395

Post by joe_the_user »

philipkglass wrote: post #367
Brakenshire wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the existence of these techniques will be used to justify inaction elsewhere. They also do nothing to tackle acidification. And it’s not as if the world has been standing still over the last decades, huge progress has been made and many technologies are at the borderline of being economical or cheaper than the alternatives, and are continually falling in price. Once we push the boulder over the crest o…

Some of the active countermeasures contemplated, like ocean fertilization and accelerated olivine weathering, also tackle acidification if they work at scale. Solar radiation management does nothing to fix acidification though it can possibly interrupt feedback loops that would make acidification even worse. I agree that many technologies for replacing fossil usage have now achieved or are close to economic superiori…

The problem is that while solar energy may have already achieved superiority over the net cost of finding, drilling-off and extracting hydrocarbons, solar energy is not going achieve superiority over hydrocarbons people already have. The cost of already found oil is just the cost of pumping it out of the ground and with easy fields, no energy source is going to beat that (the cheapest Saudi cost less $10/barrel to pump and that's light, easy to refine oil).

So, due to these different marginal costs, there's no way even completely practical, economical solar can stop fossil fuel usage quickly without active regulator intervention.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#396

Post by igor47 »

deialtrous wrote: post #333
btilly wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not doing anything has a certainty of turning the ocean to a mild acid, with disastrous effects that are already becoming visible in coral bleaching and shellfish die offs. And carbon that is already in the atmosphere and not yet dissolved is only going to make it worse. We are at the point of choosing between what disasters we will suffer, rather than figuring out how to not have a disaster.

Why are we so concerned about ocean acidification from CO2, when past CO2 levels were far higher than now and all of the shellfish species that currently exist lived back then too? Wouldn't it be a good idea to consider the massive quantities of known toxins we pump into the oceans rather than fixating on a red herring?

another [citation needed] for @deialtrous. existing research, such as here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951451/

says:

> Bivalves grown under near preindustrial CO2 levels displayed thicker, more robust shells than individuals grown at present CO2 concentrations, whereas bivalves exposed to CO2 levels expected later this century had shells that were malformed and eroded. These results suggest that the ocean acidification that has occurred during the past two centuries may be inhibiting the development and survival of larval shellfish and contributing to global declines of some bivalve populations.

i'm not sure where the claim "all of the shellfish species that currently exist lived back then too" is coming from, although it is correct that CO2 was higher in the past (https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm)

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#397

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi »

astrodust wrote: post #188
nostromo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> let's just curtail CO2 emissions We are though. Most people I talk to don't know that the US peaked CO2 emissions ten years ago and it's been falling every since - in per capita, per GDP, and absolute terms.

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.

Even with a lot of political will to increase coal, the economics won't permit it. Natural gas, and now renewables in many circumstances, are the clear economic winners.

And the reason it was falling is natural gas / hydraulic fracking, which emits far less carbon for the energy produced.

The EPA can lay claim to many environmental successes, but this isn't one of them.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#398

Post by bskinny129 »

adamsea wrote: post #341
bskinny129 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fr…

Is your app eventually meant to turn a profit, and if so how? Or, are you doing this on a nonprofit basis and planning to keep it as such?

I believe a business model helps align incentives and increases potential scale. Certainly things can evolve, but the plan is no cut from users and charge businesses a markup to balance employee commute and flights. Hopefully can make it in the businesses self-interest where they see a return on their small investment in terms of employee satisfaction and retention.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#399

Post by cbhl »

biglenny wrote: post #392
kumarski wrote: post #381

Some of my notes on why carbon sequestration is a no-go for civilization to achieve lithospheric homeostasis.....: 5 Billion Cubic Meters of Oil are produced Annually by humanity. 30Bn Tons of CO2 generated. 60% is un-sequesterable because it is small and/or mobile. 40% is sequestrable and large scale/stationary. 12 Billion Cubic Meters of CO2 are thus sequestrable. You must liquefy CO2 before putting it into the gro…

I don't think anyone in their right minds believes that fighting CC is going to be a profitable venture at all. The point is it will take co-operation and investment by governments worldwide. It's also important to note that the geological formations necessary for sequestering CO2 are a lot more common than those required to _potentially_ be stores of crude. In addition to all this, countries around the world will ha…

I recommend reading Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think, by the late Hans Rosling and his kids. In particular, Chapter Five, "The Size Instinct" can help you reframe the way you look at this fear. When looking at CO2 emissions for China and India, you have to look at their emissions on a per-capita basis.

People in cities in China routinely wear face masks because of the pollution there -- they're very acutely aware of the problem.

It would sadden me if "oh but China won't stop polluting" strawman arguments stop us from putting an effort into trying to find a solution.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#400

Post by dm3730 »

biglenny wrote: post #392
kumarski wrote: post #381

Some of my notes on why carbon sequestration is a no-go for civilization to achieve lithospheric homeostasis.....: 5 Billion Cubic Meters of Oil are produced Annually by humanity. 30Bn Tons of CO2 generated. 60% is un-sequesterable because it is small and/or mobile. 40% is sequestrable and large scale/stationary. 12 Billion Cubic Meters of CO2 are thus sequestrable. You must liquefy CO2 before putting it into the gro…

I don't think anyone in their right minds believes that fighting CC is going to be a profitable venture at all. The point is it will take co-operation and investment by governments worldwide. It's also important to note that the geological formations necessary for sequestering CO2 are a lot more common than those required to _potentially_ be stores of crude. In addition to all this, countries around the world will ha…

> China/India in particular

What data are you basing that on? We and our Arab client states are the biggest polluters by far, on a per capita basis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... CO2 emissions by country name (only fossil fuels and cement manufacture, metric tons per capita

China 7.6 India 1.6 United States 16.4 Qatar 40.5 Saudi Arabia 19.2

Post reply on HN