Carbon Removal Technologies • Hacker News Board

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#651

Post by cjrd » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 12:52 AM UTC

strainer wrote: post #596

cjrd wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cows are ruminants, so their production of methane is a necessary component of the fermentation that takes place in their digestive track. Also, somewhat surprisingly, "free range grass fed diets" lead to more methane production then cows fed grain diets (factory farmed cows). See https://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fc...

Grassfed does not necessarily lead to more methane production, it depends on the mix of grass and secondary vegetation, on the grain mix being compared to, and on potential supplements. https://prairiesoilsandcrops.ca/articles/volume-1-3-print.pd...

Ah, you're right, it is a nuanced question. Perhaps more importantly: as mentioned in the (admittedly large) publication I cited, the rearing time for grassfed cattle is about 3x longer than factory farmed cattle, so the net methane output is considerably larger.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#652

Post by bloaf » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 1:05 AM UTC

deialtrous wrote: post #567

bloaf wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm sure you're aware that one of the "engineers from oil and gas companies" that I mentioned is Dr. Flannery, an author of the literal bible of computational numerical methods [1]. I'm sure you're aware that Monckton has no formal mathematical training and that his complaints against terrestrial climate models include the "fact" that they didn't predict warming on Pluto.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_Recipes

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#653

Post by strainer » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 2:04 AM UTC

matznerd wrote: post #635

strainer wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> data to affirm the real world dissolution rate Aside from the traditional engineering and commercial constraints of the idea, observations should focus on gathering data and modelling the complex ecological effects of the releases. They are the greatest factor of the plans success or failure so they should be a priority for prospective eco-engineering projects to observe, even where regulations and incentives may c…

Hi, yes 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…

Excellent and interesting reply, to my rather reflexive comment on your phrase in isolation.

I am heartened by the existence of this technology and news that it is proceeding, even with the lack of political help and funding at this stage of need.

A popular theme at this time is how people just have too much total impact - yet humanity as a whole might have enough comprehension and agency, to not only reduce and survive the worst outcomes, but achieve a positive and stabilizing impact on this diverse and precious world.

Thanks and Good winds !

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#654

Post by deialtrous » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

bloaf wrote: post #652

deialtrous wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm sure you're aware that one of the "engineers from oil and gas companies" that I mentioned is Dr. Flannery, an author of the literal bible of computational numerical methods [1]. I'm sure you're aware that Monckton has no formal mathematical training and that his complaints against terrestrial climate models include the "fact" that they didn't predict warming on Pluto. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_R…

>I'm sure you're aware that one of the "engineers from oil and gas companies" that I mentioned is Dr. Flannery, an author of the literal bible of computational numerical methods

As soon as you get him to address the error, let me know.

>I'm sure you're aware that Monckton has no formal mathematical training

Good thing it has been confirmed by mathematicians like I pointed out then huh?

>that his complaints against terrestrial climate models include the "fact" that they didn't predict warming on Pluto.

I am not interested in strawmen, I am interested in the simple, verifiable, objective claim being made. Every single climate model used to promote climate change hysteria uses the same feedback equation. They all make the same error, using the temperature difference rather than the temperature as they should. Using the correct data to calculate the feedback, those climate models produce only 2 degrees warming by 1200ppm CO2 rather than the 6 the IPCC is promoting. And they match with the last 20 years of data, while using the wrong figures as the IPCC promoted predictions do gave us hugely overestimated warming for the past 20 years. No amount of "I don't like things I pretend that guy said before" changes this. Math does not care about what anyone says or how anyone feels. The entire warming hysteria relies on the feedbacks, the IPCC and CIMP both agree that direct warming is only 1k, and claim feedbacks make it 3k. Without the incorrectly calculated feedback, there's simply no justifying the hysteria.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#655

Post by loeg » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 4:15 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #430

loeg wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, ignoring economic incentives, they could just bury it. (Due to similar incentives, Chevron and BP aren't leaving oil sequestered in the ground.) Shipping petroleum from Earth's surface to Mars is almost certainly prohibitively expensive.

You could get environmentalists or governments to pay you to bury it. Carbon offsets already exist anyway. You can't avoid public policy when it comes to solving climate change, but if you can bury reserves of atmospherically-extracted hydrocarbons in the ground, that's an easy budget line item and not a massive fight that requires coordination among literally every industrialized nation. I'm only being half-facetiou…

> You could get environmentalists or governments to pay you to bury it.

It isn't sufficient to punt the cost onto a small group with shared political bent (environmentalists). There simply aren't enough of them to bear the costs, and it creates perverse incentives for carbon consumption for everyone else.

Yes, I think environmentalists have been trying to encourage governments to pay for carbon sequestration etc for quite some time. Mandated emissions reductions and increased fuel efficiency, carbon offset taxes, and funding carbon sequestration (burying) are all sides of the same coin.

> You can't avoid public policy when it comes to solving climate change, but if you can bury reserves of atmospherically-extracted hydrocarbons in the ground, that's an easy budget line item and not a massive fight that requires coordination among literally every industrialized nation.

Potato, potato. It's still additional funding, and good luck getting a conservative-majority senate to pass funding for anything other than the military and social security.

Yes, there is some use for carbon products, assuming people dispose of them by recycling or burying rather than burning. But I don't think it comes close to the volume needed to really restore pre-20th century atmospheric carbon levels.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#656

Post by dang » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 6:26 AM UTC

jf- wrote: post #405

theothermkn wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Exactly what prompted you to respond to the other poster like that? When did you stop beating your wife? More to the point, I think "condescending" might not be the word your after, and I replied because OP's was a low-effort comment based on a silly platitude. It was facile, and had no depth. Its "question" was rhetorical, or at least phrased rhetorically, in that the implied answer ("It can't cope; prices have to…

Oh I’m sorry, did that hit a nerve? I’d respond to your wall of text, but that would require reading it. Better luck next time.

Please don't be a jerk, even if someone else was. The guidelines ask you to flag egregious comments and move on.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#657

Post by aoner » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 7:22 AM UTC

thinkling wrote: post #637

aoner wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RE: 1. Automate tree/crop planting: https://www.biocarbonengineering.com/ These guys use drones to shoot tree seeds in the ground. Also regarding terraforming a dessert, I think one of the biggest problems with is the number of water needed in the area, but I do think that this will be a really interesting part of the solution. Maybe the increase of land prices due to the decrease of arable land might make such ventu…

Around here, tree farms replant by hiring people who plant hundreds to thousands trees per day per person and are paid for piece-work, a fraction of a dollar (~$0.20?) per treelet planted. Given that you need to do this once every 25-40 years (maturity cycle of the tree), is doing it with drones really that big a win?

I'm also not sure how much of a big win the drones are. Proper forest management is probably way more important. So protecting against illegal logging and making sure that whenever trees are almost dying to take them out so that they don't rot and replant a new one.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#658

Post by sametmax » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 7:40 AM UTC

matznerd wrote: post #647

sametmax wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This litterally answers none of my questions.

Good now via my response to your parent?

Thanks a lot for taking the time to give a detailed answer.

Kind I subscribe to some kind a newsletter about your project ?

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#659

Post by cbkeller » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 8:59 AM UTC

matznerd wrote: post #630

cbkeller wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geologist here. Can't speak to the economics, but there's no shortage of mineable olivine, mostly in areas where mantle lithosphere that was formerly below oceanic or island arc crust has been "obducted" on the continental crust and thrust up to the surface (the mantle is mostly olivine). These are called ophiolites, and they're not uncommon in places where you used to have a destructive plate boundary: https://en.wi…

Hi! You are correct in how common it is. We will be utilizing forsterite (MgSi4O2), the magnesium-rich form of olivine. We are looking to mine large dunite massifs as they are more than 90% olivine and close to the surface. And you are also correct in that these type of deposits are usually found at the base of the ophiolite sequences. :) If you are interested in getting involved, feel free to msg me!

Happy to help if my expertise becomes relevant

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#660

Post by questionasked » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 10:41 AM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #282

The only viable carbon removal technology yet identified is leaving it in the ground. This isn't a smart-arse answer given every additional gallon of oil dug or gas fracked makes the problem worse, the oil industry hasn't yet accepted defeat, and politics still promotes and subsidises fossil. How then to take that problem out of the realm of political corruption (lobbying) even faster? We know what to do. Slightly fa…

This. 100 companies are responsible for 70% of the worlds emissions. Yes, carbon capture tech is needed, but you're missing the point if you think its the _only_ thing thats needed.