41–50 of 66 posts
They are talking about one gigantic nuclear explosion (81 Gt). Why couldn't multiple smaller explosions achieve the same outcome?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem will fix itself when we lose food security. The only other way is to curb the carbon emission by stopping the burning of hydrocarbons. It’s always been the solution, and will always be
> The problem will fix itself when we lose food security. But then you’re still relying on the world at large connecting the cause and effect correctly.
For the sake of the calculation: $10^10 for 10^12 tons is an implied cost of one cent per ton. So three orders of magnitude cheaperish than current approaches around $100 per ton.
The long term value of this paper may twofold - 1. to spark other ideas. This illustrates that carbon removal might be able to be done for orders of magnitude cheaper, even if just on the back of a napkin (most napkins today point to $100/ton). 2. to demonstrate the scale and seriousness of the carbon removal issue. yes, we need to do this, and yes, maybe there are better/safer ways.
For folks pointing out "we need to decarbonize": yes, we do. However, carbon removal is also needed at this point alongside decarbonization. We have to reduce emissions and clean out what's already in the air. Without decarbonization and carbon removal together, there's no pathway to stay below 2˚C of warming. (and given that both decarbonization and removal aren't growing quickly enough, we also need to cool the planet too, which is another whole topic)
also: http://airminers.com/connect - we have a Slack channel of 3,000 people focused about removal solutions. come join!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because the US doesn’t recycle/upcycle doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t…
However, there's 2 huge problems with that. First, stopping CO2 additions at this point will just cause a marginal delay in the progress of global warming. Second adding CO2 will stop. Fossil fuels are finite and will stop this century. All regulation can hope to do is stop it a bit faster. A few decades at best. Which just doesn't matter. Plus oil producing countries, the only ones that have any hope of doing this w…
The lengths people go to not to make walkable cities (and insulated buildings, fast trains.. you know, all the stuff that actually exists and works)
assuming this is serious... There is no silver bullet - you can't just build a 10bn$ nuclear bomb programm and call it a day. All the other means are still needed to transition away from fossil fuel. The earlier we start the better.
Very much this! This is about removing (if it at wall will do that) without fixing the root cause. How deep can you put your head in the ground? It reminds of the Matrix where they scorched the skies to remove solar power capabilities as a way to block the enemy.
I find it interesting ever more risky way to sequester carbon are invented. Instead of making adding biochar to farm land an agricultural subsidy. A simple, extremely low risk policy, that is a local subsidy and does create international trade conflicts like other subsidies can. And it does not affect any wilderness. And in hot humid climates is proven to increase fertility. Or a bit risky we could fertilize the open…
Iron fertilization, shading the sun, and more nukey-stuff, all worth exploring at this point.
I find it interesting ever more risky way to sequester carbon are invented. Instead of making adding biochar to farm land an agricultural subsidy. A simple, extremely low risk policy, that is a local subsidy and does create international trade conflicts like other subsidies can. And it does not affect any wilderness. And in hot humid climates is proven to increase fertility. Or a bit risky we could fertilize the open…
Does biochar remain in ground for long? How quickly does it decompose and rot?
Puro methodology: https://biochar.groups.io/g/main/attachment/32853/2/Puro.ear...
The nice thing is biochar is relatively inert. It just sits there in soil, holding onto water, making space for organisms to grow, but isn't "food", so it doesn't get eaten up and turned back into carbon dioxide. So it's a win for farmers and carbon removal.