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

521–530 of 682 posts

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#521

Post by leni536 »

doon123 wrote: post #503
super-serial wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You'll pay $400 to be carbon neutral!? Why don't you just stop eating meat, stop driving, stop whatever else that you do and have a smaller carbon footprint naturally, instead of living a carbon lavish life and paying some money to be called carbon neutral. Its like bribing your way out of jail after you have done the crime. [EDIT]: removed expletives

While I don't agree with the tone, $400 implies the average CO2 emission in the US (16 tons/capita/year) which is fairly high. I wonder how much an individual can lower their own contribution.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#522

Post by sametmax »

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…

I wish their website had a form so I can give my email to get an update on their mission.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#523

Post by Tempest1981 »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #417
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.

https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_green_why_we_should_build_... This video makes me pretty proud to have graduated from UBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHtdnY_gnmE An extra reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DPp2NcnTb0

Wood buildings using Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT), which doesn’t significantly burn. Cool!

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#524

Post by TeMPOraL »

schiffern wrote: post #504
spyckie2 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My core argument is that using technology to help curb CO2 emissions is a way to solve the problem that is something we can do, and that ideological solutions - let's rework our society or kill half the population - aren't as easy. To say that we should turn from a growth-based economy to a sustainable economy is much more difficult to create a plan of action for than to create a technological solution. Ideological s…

...assuming there is a technological solution. My core argument is that "endless growth = good" is an ideological problem, and it requires an ideological solution. Without changing the goal of the system, any tech solution will inevitable be used simply to enable more growth (see: Jevon's Paradox). Here's part of a talk by seminal systems theorist Donella Meadows, who explains it better than I: https://www.youtube.co…

So in the end, we need both.

We need technological solutions to undo the damage we've done to the climate. Trees won't sequeseter CO₂ fast enough by themselves. We need ideological solutions, so that people don't cancel the gains of technological solutions with increased growth and waste. And then we need political/economic solutions like carbon tax to redirect money towards technological solutions, and minds towards ideological and lifestyle ones.

Really, we shouldn't be fighting over which kind of solution we need, because neither is sufficient in isolation. We need them all. Let's focus instead on fighting opposition to any and all effective solutions for saving people.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#525

Post by londons_explore »

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…

Surely there is already a lot of Olivine on the ocean floor?

How does adding it to the ocean differ from the stuff on the ocean floor?

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#526

Post by singularity2001 »

Iron fertilization!

1 kg of iron can fix 83000 kg of carbon dioxide and turn it into biomass.

The idea is that you give algae the one ingredient to growth which is very sparse in the oceans yet over-abundant on land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

"Give me a half a tanker of iron and I will give you another ice age"

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#527

Post by super-serial »

doon123 wrote: post #503
super-serial wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You'll pay $400 to be carbon neutral!? Why don't you just stop eating meat, stop driving, stop whatever else that you do and have a smaller carbon footprint naturally, instead of living a carbon lavish life and paying some money to be called carbon neutral. Its like bribing your way out of jail after you have done the crime. [EDIT]: removed expletives

I actually live in a city a few blocks from work, don't own a car, and only eat poultry/eggs which have a lower carbon footprint than red meat. On the other hand I do order a lot of crap from Amazon.

It's not so much about offsetting my personal carbon emissions - it's more about supporting projects that could potentially slow down runaway global warming. There are a lot of feedback loops in the pipeline in the next 20 years that will accelerate climate change (arctic ice melts, more heat gets absorbed etc). Those feedback loops are going to kick in even if we stopped all human emissions today. So when that happens and drastic environmental changes start occurring, I'm hoping we'll have some demonstrated solutions like advanced weathering we could scale up.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#528

Post by [deleted] »

super-serial wrote: post #458
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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#529

Post by spookthesunset »

eanzenberg wrote: post #408
intended wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, the ones that exist today should be evolved for today’s environment. Higher acid levels should mean most of the average stock will die, and the mutants which survive will eventually adapt. Think of the George Carlin skit - the planet will be fine, just we humans and everything we know will be gone.

How is this not fear-mongering? Most people will be fine with a 5deg C global increase.

Maybe people, yes, in the short term. But everything that people depend on.... not so much. I mean, yeah we'd live but you an kiss coral reefs goodbye, glaciers, etc... It would be a rather shitty place to live.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#530

Post by schiffern »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #524
schiffern wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...assuming there is a technological solution. My core argument is that "endless growth = good" is an ideological problem, and it requires an ideological solution. Without changing the goal of the system, any tech solution will inevitable be used simply to enable more growth (see: Jevon's Paradox). Here's part of a talk by seminal systems theorist Donella Meadows, who explains it better than I: https://www.youtube.co…

So in the end, we need both. We need technological solutions to undo the damage we've done to the climate. Trees won't sequeseter CO₂ fast enough by themselves. We need ideological solutions, so that people don't cancel the gains of technological solutions with increased growth and waste. And then we need political/economic solutions like carbon tax to redirect money towards technological solutions, and minds towards…

Thank you, well said.
Post reply on HN