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

641–650 of 682 posts

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#641

Post by thinkling »

joe_the_user wrote: post #144
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

Well, The other thing with trees is that they aren't permanent carbon sinks in the way that coal underground is. Wood will eventually rot or burn and release it's carbon. Human beings have taken carbon in the form of hydrocarbons underground and released is into the C02 - O2 cycle in the air. The main way to solve this would seem to be putting it back into the ground. So, reverse coal-mining? Turning wood into charco…

I think you're overstating the problem with carbon released from decaying wood.

Trees newly planted now will net-absorb carbon for the next 50-100 years, exactly the time period when we need to bring the carbon balance under control until we have our energy used cleaned up and other technologies developed. When the newly planted forest matures, trees fall and rot, but new growth takes their place. So it doesn't release a large amount of carbon, but enters a steady state roughly carbon-neutral.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#642

Post by ttul »

aurelwu wrote: post #557
ForHackernews wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the recent UN report was saying that we'd need more like a $5,000/ton tax at this late stage. Here's a right wing source: https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/commentary/un-clim... > To accomplish such a feat, the new IPCC report proposes an energy tax of epic proportions. It claims that, to keep warming in check, by 2030 we’ll need to impose a tax of between $135 and $5,500 on every ton of carbon emit…

Those numbers are definitely inflated, even at current stage Direct Air Capture Technology is already at well below 1000 Dollar per metric tonne with an outlook to end up below 100 Dollar per tonne in ~20 years. [0] Not saying that DAC is the ideal approach but I find those numbers you mentioned to be very inplausible. [0] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturi...

Carbon Engineering already captures CO2 for $100/tonne. They published a paper on it https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3

http://carbonengineering.com/

“Individual DAC plants can be placed in any country and in multiple climates, and can be built to capture one million tons of CO2 per year. At this large scale, our technology will be able to achieve costs of $100-150 USD per ton of CO₂ captured, purified, and compressed to 150 bar.”

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#643

Post by ttul »

aurelwu wrote: post #557
ForHackernews wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the recent UN report was saying that we'd need more like a $5,000/ton tax at this late stage. Here's a right wing source: https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/commentary/un-clim... > To accomplish such a feat, the new IPCC report proposes an energy tax of epic proportions. It claims that, to keep warming in check, by 2030 we’ll need to impose a tax of between $135 and $5,500 on every ton of carbon emit…

Those numbers are definitely inflated, even at current stage Direct Air Capture Technology is already at well below 1000 Dollar per metric tonne with an outlook to end up below 100 Dollar per tonne in ~20 years. [0] Not saying that DAC is the ideal approach but I find those numbers you mentioned to be very inplausible. [0] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturi...

I should add: BC’s carbon tax will reach $50/t by 2021, which is half way to viability for Carbon Engineering.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#644

Post by ttul »

ForHackernews wrote: post #606
aurelwu wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those numbers are definitely inflated, even at current stage Direct Air Capture Technology is already at well below 1000 Dollar per metric tonne with an outlook to end up below 100 Dollar per tonne in ~20 years. [0] Not saying that DAC is the ideal approach but I find those numbers you mentioned to be very inplausible. [0] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturi...

I think the idea is that the tax would dis-incentivize emissions, so the cost of capture is irrelevant.

Capture technology becomes automatically profitable if the cost to capture is less than the tax. If my business pays $100/t to emit carbon vs $90/t to capture it, I’ll emit and capture and make a $10/t profit.

At $100/t, capture technology would become widespread very very quickly as an arbitrage against the carbon tax. And yes, some emitters might find a more profitable way via reduction in emissions, but since capture is equivalent to reduction, the most profitable option will win out every time.

This is the magic of carbon taxes.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#645

Post by ttul »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #121
sandworm101 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, from this morning's news: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-carbon-tax-plan-trud... Some of the future is in the hand on "hands of pasty white men on Capitol Hill". Other parts of the future are in the hands of more enlightened leaders.

Eh, don't worry. This is partly in response to some of the pasty white men in provincial parliaments at present. (Looking at you, Ontario and Manitoba). Thank god the PM & Fed is trying to get on top of it.

In fact Trudeau will win re-election this way. The carbon tax will be combined with a massive taxpayer credit. People will experience a modest increase in gas prices, but receive a cheque from “Government of Canada” for hundreds of dollars at just the right time in the election cycle. It’s a shrewd, shrewd move.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#646

Post by matznerd »

sametmax wrote: post #520
6nf wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know much CO2 we release to mine and move 1 tonne of olivine?

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…

Hi, please check if my response to the parent (and other responses in the thread) answer your questions.

As for your individual carbon profile, there are many calculators out there that can help you decide how much to offset. I am sure we will work in this area to help you determine your level, but for an intense calculation that you'll need to pull out your electricity bills of check the Resurgence one: https://www.resurgence.org/resources/carbon-calculator.html This one is good as well https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx For your crypto: http://www.cleancoins.io

Once that is added up you would be able to purchase your CO2 equivlanet output in olivine with this fomrula (CO2 output in tons)/1.25 (quantity of carbon sequestered per ton of olivine)

Our plan is to fund the fixed costs of the beach and operations through larger scale donations and sponsorships so that 100% of your money goes directly to tons of olivine on the beach and not administrative BS.

Net carbon sequestration:

The CO2 expenditure of the whole operation, including mining, milling, and transport, has been calculated to be about 4% of the amount of CO2 that is captured by the olivine.

Environmental concerns:

"The ecological considerations should be made carefully. Let's look at some examples though, if we were to offset 100% of the next 100 years of anthropogenic CO2 emissions with olivine, it would only change the Mg-concentration of the ocean from something like 1296 to 1296.8 ppm and the bicarbonate content from 42 to 45 ppm. These changes are considered within the normal range of ocean water. Most of the ocean though is experiencing catastrophic increases in ph and need some sort of anti-acid, which is what is amazing about the reaction from olivine. It almost sounds too good to be true, but the resulting solution from the reaction is alkaline. Its addition to the water actually deacidifies the ocean in the local area.

Further, one of the breakdown products in the reaction is silicate, which is a limiting factor for diatoms. Diatoms are particularly hit hard by climate change and are important in the base of the food chain. Diatoms provide food for the entire ecosystem from fish and birds. Diatoms themselves may also actually be responsible for moving significant amounts of biomass to the deep ocean as they sink (further reducing CO2). They also compete with dinoflagellates, which are the cause of red tides and could be useful in stemming their increased occurrence by counterbalancing their rapidly increasing populations.

That said, you are right that the addition of olivine should be carefully considered, especially for specific areas. We know already to avoid areas that are adapted to acid conditions, such as peatlands, because increased alkalinity could accelerate the breakdown of peat and speedup methane release.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#648

Post by photojosh »

paulie999 wrote: post #598
nmeofthestate wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Errr, citation?

Not quite what you were after, but I saw this Twitter thread that claims (with evidence) that the greenhouse gas contributions of meat and agriculture are overstated: https://twitter.com/fleroy1974/status/1053398265817894914

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#649

Post by yazaddaruvala »

Xixi wrote: post #607
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not Gustaf, but I'll try to answer this. The return on investment for a lot of Carbon capture/sequestering is not lucrative (or at least the business models are not yet apparent). The long term VC angle for air to fuel seems straight forward. - Mars alone will be a huge market for such technology. Driving a lot of demand 100-200 years out (if not a big market in 20-40 years). - Shanghai, et-al, need air filters.…

I don't see how you could make a "sail" boat powered by reclaimed fuel from air, as there is no fuel in the air. You will need a source of energy to convert the CO2 to fuel. In nature the most common (to my knowledge) CO2 -> fuel process is called photosynthesis, and is powered by the sun. CO2 -> fuel consumes energy (that is stored in the fuel). Fuel -> CO2 releases it.

Sorry, in the case of "sail" boats, I worded it poorly before. Wind turbine-like "sails" could act as a propulsion source when the wind direction is correct, and generate energy and funnel the air into the CO2 -> fuel machine when the direction of wind is non-optimal for propulsion.

I agree in all of the cases I mentioned there would always need to be some energy source.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#650

Post by tgb »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #519
tgb wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume any serious paper production company replants the tree, so you start with a tree and end with a tree and landfilled paper.

Given strommen's statement about landfilled paper turning into methane, doesn't that mean paper manufacturing is basically a carbon dioxide->methane conversion operation?

Yes, the possibility I described was for if they did not biodegrade significantly. More reading makes it sound like they degrade in weeks, with a few exceptions.
Post reply on HN