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

581–590 of 682 posts

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#581

Post by Gravityloss »

markvdb wrote: post #537
leni536 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It takes a lot of mental bandwidth to think about lowering your own CO² emission. Still useful in terms of awareness though! Less driving and flying, less meat, low cost/high reward home energy efficiency improvements, ... are quite obvious ways. It's important though not to overlook the effect of investing in other people's carbon efficiency instead. A piece of anecdotal evidence. I willingly spent ~25000€ extra on…

Price signals are one way to do this. This will hit people unequally though, so probably needs some other things at the same time.

Ie if energy price is raised a lot, it will make poor people's lives a lot harder suddenly.

But currently the price of things is very much disconnected from the climate impacts

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#582

Post by DoctorOetker »

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…

it's hard for me to stay stoic in explaining what I see in this proposal, I wish so hard this were a real solution, but I fail to see more than A) a white wash, B) lip service to environmentalists or C) a way to circumvent current or future carbon emission taxes (unclear to me if dumping emissions as carbonates in the ocean is currently considered emissions or not according to carbon credit legalese)

First a thought experiment: consider 2 identical hermetically sealed containers (representing gravitationally sealed atmosphere), each containing an open bottle of water (representing oceans).

In container 1 we introduce CO2 in the container, some of which will be absorbed by the water both in dissolved gaseous form and in carbonate form.

In container 2 we introduce the same amount of CO2 by adding carbonate into the closed bottle and then open the bottle.

After letting both containers seperately settle, they will both have the same equilibrium end state, where the same fraction of CO2 is in the container's air, as dissolved gas in the bottle's water and also in the form of carbonate in the bottle's water.

H2O (liquid) + CO2 (gas) H2CO3(solution)

I don't contest the chemical facts that these rocks can form carbonates by reacting with CO2.

I contest the idea that a new sink is identified. The sink is the same sink that has been known for a long time: the oceans, which are currently absorbing a large part of the emissions.

So how is this any different? It's just emissions foisted off as capture?!?

Do the investors know this? Who are the investors? I assume some of the investors are perfectly aware and simply big CO2 emitters trying to externalize any taxation back on the public by reclaiming money, and the other investors genuinely intend well but were simply tricked into supporting this scheme...

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#583

Post by nmeofthestate »

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

I saw a recent study that said everyone going veggie in the developed world would only have a couple of percentage points effects on emissions. Surprisingly ineffective.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#584

Post by dmm »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #582
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…

it's hard for me to stay stoic in explaining what I see in this proposal, I wish so hard this were a real solution, but I fail to see more than A) a white wash, B) lip service to environmentalists or C) a way to circumvent current or future carbon emission taxes (unclear to me if dumping emissions as carbonates in the ocean is currently considered emissions or not according to carbon credit legalese) First a thought…

What they are discussing is simply an acceleration of a natural process: the carbonate-silicate cycle[1]. Silicate rocks are transformed into carbonate rocks through weathering. This captures CO2 from the atmosphere.

When carbonate rocks are transformed back into silicates through metamorphosis or magmatism the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere.

This definitely has the potentially for the long-term capture of CO2. For example in about 600 million years increased solar output will disrupt the carbonate-silicate cycle, resulting in the increased weathering of rocks and the capture of enough CO2 that C3 plants, which make up 99% of existing plant species, will no longer be able to live on earth. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate%E2%80%93silicate_cyc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#585

Post by tvanantwerp »

bwreilly wrote: post #338
gustaf wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Gustaf from YC. I wrote the first Carbon Removal RFS. Planting tree is actually a great carbon removal technology. Unfortunately most forest owners in the world don't know or don't have incentive to care the about the carbon impact the forest have on the climate. Biggest reason forests are taken down is to grow cattle for beef. If you are working on a startup to reverse this we'd like to fund it too

We at DroneSeed are using swarms of unmanned aircraft for mass forest/rangeland restoration projects - monitoring, planting, invasive species mitigation, etc. The mission of the company is to help combat climate change by substantially reducing the cost of afforestation/reforestation. Happy to talk about it any time: ben at droneseed.com

I pictured DJI drones dropping seed bombs, but taking a look it seems a lot more impressive than that. Very cool--hope this takes off!

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#586

Post by workycacc »

zeroname wrote: post #569
workycacc wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 runnin…

From that I'd bet you also not be willing to spend money on being carbon neutral. Because you can be more comfortable with an extra few hundred dollars in your pocket every year. So then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution and someone who consumes with no regard for the impact is has on the planet.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#587

Post by tvanantwerp »

gingerbread-man wrote: post #24

An 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…

Raising gas taxes are a good idea for other reasons too, primarily being the funding of infrastructure maintenance. Gas taxes are an almost perfect tax, where the more you're using the underlying public good (the road) the more you'll pay to support it.

However, if EVs become the norm, that relationship breaks down and it becomes trickier to fund roads with taxes that link very directly to usage--assuming you believe privacy is a good thing and worth protecting.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#588

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

rexpop wrote: post #535
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way we're going to turn this ship around is by telling people that there's money to be made somewhere else. If you ask a world full of the rich and those who want to be that they have to turn away from money you're not going to have an audience. Telling us to read 5+ books to appropriately educate ourselves on why the system is doomed and how to fix it isn't going to reach the masses, and certainly not those…

I didn't realize you were a masses. If you don't have time to read two books, how did you get a job in the technology industry? I'm sick of you lazy techies. Grow up and read a damn book.

Telling people to read books to understand your argument is a form of gate-keeping that isn't going to convince anyone of your argument. If you can't express it yourself after having read 5+ books, why would I want to go through the same exercise?

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#589

Post by sametmax »

ianai wrote: post #552
sametmax wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the question I was wondering. Paying a few hundred dollars to be carbon neutral seems good (at least if it's not just to a way to allow guilt-free consumption) but but: - we need to be sure we are paying for the carbon we trap minus the one we released - we need to be sure releasing that much olivine in the complex and living system that is the ocean is not going to have a terrible impact on it - we need to be…

See the post from cbkeller above. He/she said the mantle is mostly olivine and outcroppings at the surface exist.

This litterally answers none of my questions.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#590

Post by DoctorOetker »

dmm wrote: post #584
DoctorOetker wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's hard for me to stay stoic in explaining what I see in this proposal, I wish so hard this were a real solution, but I fail to see more than A) a white wash, B) lip service to environmentalists or C) a way to circumvent current or future carbon emission taxes (unclear to me if dumping emissions as carbonates in the ocean is currently considered emissions or not according to carbon credit legalese) First a thought…

What they are discussing is simply an acceleration of a natural process: the carbonate-silicate cycle[1]. Silicate rocks are transformed into carbonate rocks through weathering. This captures CO2 from the atmosphere. When carbonate rocks are transformed back into silicates through metamorphosis or magmatism the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. This definitely has the potentially for the long-term capture of…

The Carbonate Silicate cycle you linked also states:

>These dissolved minerals are eventually carried by water to the ocean, where they are used by living organisms such as foraminifera, radiolarians, coccolithopores, and diatoms to create shells of CaCO3 (calcite) or SiO2 (opal) through the reactions Ca2+ (aq) + 2HCO3− (aq) → CaCO3(s) + CO2(g) + H2O(l) (for calcite precipitation) and SiO2(aq) → SiO2(s) (for opal precipitation).

Observe how half of the carbon is transformed back into CO2, and of the remaining half most will simply return carbonate after death and it's just a small portion of the latter half that falls to the sea floor to end up buried...

Post reply on HN