I think discard/reduce most of the non life-essential technology is more important than inventing new technologies, than opening countless startups.
Carbon Removal Technologies
451–460 of 682 posts
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#452Whatever the solution is to global warming and the looming ecological crisis, I don't believe it lies in more technology.
The only viable solution in my opinion is for people to realise that our planet's resources are finite and that we need to accept this fact. AS others here have stated, moving from a growth-based economy to a sustainable one is the only way forward. Sustainability and technological startups are diametrically opposed.
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#453I'm glad someone mentioned it above, because my favorite solution is still "advanced weathering" of rocks: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli... Just US $250 billion per year to offset ALL of humanity's carbon emissions. Yes I said ALL. It would cost less than the ongoing 'war on terror.' If I was rich I would be building autonomous mining robots so I could do it myself because I'm not confi…
Don't you think that there's perhaps something wrong with a perfect solution presented with no drawbacks? Something like that screams, "incomplete knowledge of implementation or externalities"
I just think it's the best out of all the options. Since it's a natural process I think it has less chance of unintended consequences compared to something like putting aerosols in the sky to block sunlight. Just like Elon Musk's plan to put humans on Mars there's going to be tons of problems, but it makes sense to start working on it now so we can come up with solutions.
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#454I am a structural engineer of moderate capability. I have developed an engineering platform as a startup. If anyone is serous about doing one of these projects, I would love to speak with you about helping and about using my platform to design anything you need.
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#455An 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…
Perhaps using fees from all combustion products (gas, diesel, natural gas, heating oil, coal, etc), to directly fund prairie, forests, gardens, etc will immediately begin reducing CO2 and help increase biodiversity which we are also highly dependent on.
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#456Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 p…
Yes, it's harder to out-compete fossil projects that have already been built, already paid off their capital costs, and incur just operational costs going forward. Some of those fossil projects (like Saudi oil fields that cost only $10/barrel) are not going to be economically forced into early retirement by any foreseeable lower-emissions energy source. Note that there is also quite a bit of already-built fossil capa…
Since that intervention may arrive late-or-never in different nations, it's one of the reasons that I believe active carbon dioxide removal measures will be necessary in addition to emissions reduction efforts.
Both regulating carbon emissions and active carbon dioxide removal measures will, in the end, come down to some state or world body acting in a coordinated way to push money at this problem. It seems like people are imagining active removal would be easier in this fashion than basic regulation. Why?
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> I understand the qualms of environmentalists As one of those environmentalists, my qualm isn't so much that this may be dangerous but that carbon capture tech (and associated "carbon capture and storage") is often championed by people looking to delay implementation of technology and laws that limit carbon emissions. It is far more energy-efficient to curtail carbon emissions than try to capture it once emitted. T…
How about investing in lobbying? If $10B were sent to politicians, perhaps they’d implement a carbon tax? The future of the world is presently in the hands of pasty white men on Capitol Hill. Why not sequester their carbon (hot air) first?
Doesn't that further a bidding war where the chief winners are sell-out politicians?
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#458I 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…
That's awesome - I would be one of the people who would pay $400 to be carbon neutral each year. You should think big and do a Kickstarter with $25 gifts up to $5k gifts...
For $400 I want a t-shirt that says "I'm carbon neutral. Do you have the rocks to become carbon neutral too?" with a pic of olivine rocks and your website url.
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#459Whatever the solution is to global warming and the looming ecological crisis, I don't believe it lies in more technology. The only viable solution in my opinion is for people to realise that our planet's resources are finite and that we need to accept this fact. AS others here have stated, moving from a growth-based economy to a sustainable one is the only way forward. Sustainability and technological startups are di…
I think we cannot stop now. Current CO2 levels plus the momentum in world economy is such that we need to actively digg out in order to survive. Becoming progress averse now would be disastrous since even with the highest affordable tech we live far from sustainable.
Re: Carbon Removal Technologies
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read through the prospectus and seems like it's only for US based companies. I'm in Australia and the geology of the Tasmania/South Victoria region is the best in the world for carbon capture using trees. Specifically it's the native habitat of the Tasmanian blue gum, the worlds fastest growing tree, and here it grows between 20-100% faster than anywhere else. Is there any option for having non-US startups funde…
I'm in New Zealand and trees grow here like weeds. A hectare of pine trees reaches maturity in 25 years and holds 200 odd tons of carbon. Once mature, those trees can be harvested and the carbon locked away in furniture, buildings, etc. As far as I know, it doesn't matter where on the planet the carbon is being sequestered, so a global view will likely be more effective.
[deleted]