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

561–570 of 682 posts

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#561

Post by chicob »

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…

Large-scale geoengineering has the potential for unexpected consequences that could seriously damage the environment. This applies to olivine mining and desert flooding.

Personally, I think a good compromise lies in resorting to algal blooms in a controlled setting.

Algal blooms have another advantage: there is already hypertrophication around farming regions where water bodies are polluted with fertilizers.

So the ideia is to build artificial reservoirs as buffers for algal blooms that not only pollute the water, jam irrigation systems and decrease biodiversity, but also as a means for carbon fixation. The algae would then have to be harvested, processed and buried. A fraction of it could be used to produce biofuels, thus reducing the need for fossil fuels, and for fertilization, which would reduce the usage of artificial, carbon-releasing fertilizers.

My only doubt is whether the scalability is interesting enough.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#562

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

m_mueller wrote: post #459
ciconia wrote: post #452

Whatever 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.

Redefine progress then.

Taking care of your environment is not being progress averse, especially if your survival depends on the health of your ecosystem.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#563

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

peacetreefrog wrote: post #257

Good. More and more, reducing GHG gas emissions politically or through any sort of international agreement looks like a pipe dream. I think Kyoto is a good example. Take (liberal and environmentally enlightened) Canada -- their Kyoto target was 6% reduction (compared to 1990 levels) in emissions by 2012. Did they come close to meeting it? No, instead they were on track to be 25% over their 1990 emissions and dropped…

Would you also suggest to give up all kinds of nuclear weapons non-proliferation agreements because the NPT isn't 100% successful?

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#564

Post by lifeisstillgood »

I do understand the direction of travel here (and notwithstanding the idea that most geo-engineering and other "solutions" seem to carry James Bond Villan levels of unintended consequences) what I feel is missing is tackling the elephant in the room.

The article says it clearly "It's a collective action problem the world has been unable to solve"

Well, can we place a call out for investment in innovative solutions to collective action.

Can we fix democracy - both where it lives but could do better and where it does not live at all?

I don't accept that "Social Media" already does this. We need more

In short - Let's have investment and innovation in the democracy and freedom space (as well as) in the carbon sequestration space.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#565

Post by hantusk »

Cheap energy is the enabler for several of the solutions proposed among the comments.

I really see nuclear energy as the solution. The nuclear reactions are emission free, and the emissions in the supply chain to drive the reactions have very low emissions compared to other sources of energy.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#566

Post by zeroname »

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

> 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.

Why? Because I want to keep my standard of living, just like almost everyone else. What a silly question to even ask. Any solution that asks people to practice austerity is obviously doomed to fail. Any solution that leverages a human's self-interested (even if it's just vanity) at least has a chance.

> Its like bribing your way out of jail after you have done the crime.

It's more like when faced between the choice of paying a fine or going to jail, you pay the fine. That money can be put to work and that time can be put to use, but if you just sit in jail nobody benefits, it just costs the public money to keep you there.

Except of course in reality there is no crime here that anybody could get prosecuted for, and the real victims haven't even been born yet.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#567

Post by deialtrous »

bloaf wrote: post #422
deialtrous wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that UN report is based on predictions we know with 100% certainty to be incorrect. That's politics, not science. Science says "learn to do math before telling everyone the world is ending".

All models are wrong. Some are useful. Basically every organization that has looked at the issue and built a serious model has reached the same conclusion. From early studies done by engineers at oil and gas companies, to research undertaken by skeptics, the message is the same: we're not in Kansas anymore, and we're running out of time to turn around. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of...

Which organizations are those? Ones that are funded based on how much hysteria they whip up to justify stealing from people? I don't care about organizations opinions or statements, I care about the math. When the math is clearly incorrect, and we keep being told the world is ending because the incorrect math says so, there's a problem. Climate hysterians hate Monckton, and rage about how evil and wrong he is because "his opinions do not match the scientific consensus", but none of them refute the simple, factual errors he brought up. Mathematical errors that have been confirmed by mathematicians: https://mythesmanciesetmathematiques.wordpress.com/2016/09/1...

All of the models you mention use the completely incorrect math for feedbacks that will worsen warming caused by CO2. They literally all use the 3K per doubling figure. Despite it being proven wrong mathematically, and proven wrong historically as these models have all been wrong for the last 20 years of observed data.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#568

Post by ed_balls »

PeterisP wrote: post #559
ed_balls wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pretty sure that are that 10 mln km^2 around the word that is not use (Canada, Alaska, Syberia and patches of land around the world)

As I said, I'm talking about "any land thats suitable to be a forest but is not already a forest". These large uninhabited areas in Canada, Alaska and Siberia don't have such land - if any spot there is suitable for trees, then trees already have filled that area for hundreds of years (I mean, these areas already have massive forests), and in the areas where trees aren't growing naturally, it's for a reason, planting…

I agree that my estimate could be too big, but I do think there is a potential to increase the forestation in the north. Because of the warmer climate, Iceland can grow aspen. The government is planning to grow tree in a large part of the island, but the have a problem with free roaming sheeps. The land the can only sustain shrubs and moss could grow trees now.

Some countries are increasing the forestation as well https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/01/northern-forest-...

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#569

Post by zeroname »

workycacc wrote: post #542
doon123 wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not both? Why not more? We don't know if the OP already has a fairly low carbon footprint, or has done all they can to reduce it. Cumulative effort and reducing carbon footprints on many fronts is what we need. Things like: - Walk / Cycle where you can. Use public transport where you cant. - Have your heating / AC lower. - Stop using single use plastics. - Eat less meat. -…

> Lots of tiny things can be done now, with relatively little effort.

Those little things of "low effort" have just as little impact. Those things that are significant (transportation, meat consumption, heating) would also represent significant changes to my level of comfort. I like meat. I like being warm. I like not walking everywhere. I dislike public transport. I like long hot showers. I like to keep my PC running.

On the other hand, I can budget some money for the "luxury" of being carbon neutral. I can also not do that and keep on living the way do. The money is on the table, those changes to my lifestyle aren't.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#570

Post by deialtrous »

igor47 wrote: post #396
deialtrous wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Look at the study, not just the summary. What does "preindustrial levels" mean? Preindustrial includes over 4 billion years, including years with no life on earth. It includes the absolute highest and absolute lowest levels of atmospheric CO2 ever in the history of the planet. They chose a very low level that would give them the biggest results, and compared it to a hypothetical future level which isn't actually possible to achieve because there's not enough carbon stored in all the fossil fuels on the planet to get close to it if we burned every drop. Yes, record low atmospheric CO2 means shellfish have slightly thicker shells. Does that have an actual benefit for shellfish, much less entire global ecology? Those low CO2 levels are unquestionably bad for other things, like plants, and humans. Shellfish survived previous high CO2 levels just fine, we have the fossils, they existed. They can go ahead and have slightly thinner shells, while we have more plants and more food.

Also, we're talking about coral bleaching and it being blamed on CO2 despite absolutely no evidence, and despite the fact that some coral reefs are seeing normal growth, while others which are in major pollution streams from Asian rivers are seeing bleaching events. But it has to be CO2 because Al Gore says so! Ignore the billions of tons of toxic waste being pumped into the Ocean by China and India and Africa! Europeans and North Americans are the problem with their evil CO2! They need to become poor like everyone else to save the planet!

Post reply on HN