$100M xPrize for Carbon Removal(xprize.org)
xprize.org
$100M xPrize for Carbon Removal
https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk
468 comments
There's no reason not to plant trees in addition to everything else we'll need to do to fix this problem. The advantage of planting trees is that we know it works, it's cheap, and we can do it right now. So some people should be doing that, and others should be doing R&D on other means of carbon removal. No need to pit one against the other.
I totally agree and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that trees should not be part of a solution. Trees (and other nature based methods) should definitely not be neglected.
I merely wanted to try and raise some awareness to those who question the need for technological removal methods as there is a bit of a toxic "trees will save us" attitude when things like this get mentioned.
I merely wanted to try and raise some awareness to those who question the need for technological removal methods as there is a bit of a toxic "trees will save us" attitude when things like this get mentioned.
This kind of civil discourse is what makes HN such a gem on the internet.
Meta-warning;
I'm more into the juxtapositions of interactions between idiots vs experts, specialists vs generalists, startup-billionaire vs unemployed-drug-addict-hacker, and the level of insight that can be gained from these conversations.
I believe that the civility, and desire for unfettered conversation (avoiding ad-hominem, flame-wars. etc···) are more of an instrumental-goal of this process, than the true goal.
I don't really know why the comments on hn are the way they are, and I doubt anyone ever will. But that's what keeps me coming back here. It's the only place on the internet I can get this kind of thing, whatever it is.
I do have to say, there's something special and unique here. Like the userbases of wikipedia, stack overflow, 4chan, or twitter, there's something here that's impossible to recreate and worth preserving.
I'm more into the juxtapositions of interactions between idiots vs experts, specialists vs generalists, startup-billionaire vs unemployed-drug-addict-hacker, and the level of insight that can be gained from these conversations.
I believe that the civility, and desire for unfettered conversation (avoiding ad-hominem, flame-wars. etc···) are more of an instrumental-goal of this process, than the true goal.
I don't really know why the comments on hn are the way they are, and I doubt anyone ever will. But that's what keeps me coming back here. It's the only place on the internet I can get this kind of thing, whatever it is.
I do have to say, there's something special and unique here. Like the userbases of wikipedia, stack overflow, 4chan, or twitter, there's something here that's impossible to recreate and worth preserving.
You're sure it's not comments like these? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27826277
I thought it was funny to see similar sentiments back to back :)
I thought it was funny to see similar sentiments back to back :)
> discourse
Hardly a discourse. Both gents above might have a negligible disagreement but they are sticking firmly to radical green agenda shadow-officially endorsed and promoted by Yahoo Combinator. Also, good for karma income. Just the same for praising comments.
Hardly a discourse. Both gents above might have a negligible disagreement but they are sticking firmly to radical green agenda shadow-officially endorsed and promoted by Yahoo Combinator. Also, good for karma income. Just the same for praising comments.
> radical green agenda
What is this radical green agenda that you identify? I'm not disputing that exists, I'm certainly part of it, and I intend to continue leaning into it. I'm just curious how it looks from the outside.
What is this radical green agenda that you identify? I'm not disputing that exists, I'm certainly part of it, and I intend to continue leaning into it. I'm just curious how it looks from the outside.
Trees are nature's best solution after millions of years of evolution. The R&D cost is low as well as the complexity. The problem is that dead trees turn back into CO2 so there will need to be some kind of sequestration like burying lumber.
Trees did not evolve solely for the purposes of carbon sequestration. Similarly, it would be silly to say that mammals are nature's best solution at sequestering oxygen.
Even burying the lumber doesn't remove the coal from the cycle, just delays it by a few years. You'd need to get the carbon into a "not readily accessible to biological processes" form. Charcoal is probably an OK start, but something like calcium carbonate would be even more stable.
And you can (probably) do better than trees, in terms of carbon captured per time unit. But I guess you'd have to run comparative studies between birch and bamboo for biomass grown per time unit and area.
Hm, that means that a sensible unit for carbon capture would be "kg / (m * m * s)".
And you can (probably) do better than trees, in terms of carbon captured per time unit. But I guess you'd have to run comparative studies between birch and bamboo for biomass grown per time unit and area.
Hm, that means that a sensible unit for carbon capture would be "kg / (m * m * s)".
There's always some local maximum most efficient process. If you take into account process inputs trees would likely come out on top. A lot of carbon capture tech can capture lots of carbon but consumes a huge amount of power/energy intense resources. My unit would be kg / (W * m^2 * s)
IIRC, bamboo ends up as "less wasted" when you turn it into charcoal than most woods. And you'd need to do a lot more energy-intensive processing of the tree to get it into a for suitable for turning into coal. With bamboo, it's mostly "cut into suitable length". With wood, it's at least "cut into suitable length", but may also require splitting.
But, yes, my main reason for thinking bamboo is that it is pretty fast-growing under the right conditions.
And with a Watt actually being "kg * m^2 / s^3", your unit ends up being s^2 / m^4, which dimensionally looks less pleasant.
But, yes, my main reason for thinking bamboo is that it is pretty fast-growing under the right conditions.
And with a Watt actually being "kg * m^2 / s^3", your unit ends up being s^2 / m^4, which dimensionally looks less pleasant.
Intensive cropping of bamboo for carbon capture sounds like it would cause as many ecological problems as it solves.
Not necessarily. Well, not necessarily more than doing the same with trees instead of bamboo.
But, yes, it'd require some care.
But, yes, it'd require some care.
[deleted]
Yes, the "magic bullet" mentality typical of media, politicians, and dumb Americans just isn't going to cut it. BEVs + wind + solar + storage. Tree planting. Efficiency. Insulation. Nuclear power. Synthetic fuels. Carbon taxes. Sequestration. Olivine. Seeding the ocean. Vegetarianism/cultured meat/fake meat.
We don't need to wait 100 years for maturation of the wood in forests, the nice thing about wood is that you can use it for paper and construction, and that effectively sequesters the carbon.
We don't need to wait 100 years for maturation of the wood in forests, the nice thing about wood is that you can use it for paper and construction, and that effectively sequesters the carbon.
> The advantage of planting trees is that we know it works, it's cheap, and we can do it right now
Here in Sweden it is the law that if you cut down a forest you replant it. We have been doing it for a century. All forests here is basically in a constant plant-grow-cut cycle unless the land is claimed for new buildings (farm land has been steady declining every year).
It is debatable if the practice is carbon negative or carbon neutral. Most of wood product do get burned sooner or later, or turned into bio gas which then get burned. Almost nothing remain as stable carbon sink. A planted forest is an future investment to be cut, processed and burned. The only exception is forest reservations and those are much more expensive to make than planting trees.
The advocacy behind replanting might be better invested into a political action of bringing similar replanting laws to other countries. Sweden mostly did it because it looked ugly to have wast areas cut down without regrowth, and because it hurt biodiversity. It also make sense economically in the long run.
Here in Sweden it is the law that if you cut down a forest you replant it. We have been doing it for a century. All forests here is basically in a constant plant-grow-cut cycle unless the land is claimed for new buildings (farm land has been steady declining every year).
It is debatable if the practice is carbon negative or carbon neutral. Most of wood product do get burned sooner or later, or turned into bio gas which then get burned. Almost nothing remain as stable carbon sink. A planted forest is an future investment to be cut, processed and burned. The only exception is forest reservations and those are much more expensive to make than planting trees.
The advocacy behind replanting might be better invested into a political action of bringing similar replanting laws to other countries. Sweden mostly did it because it looked ugly to have wast areas cut down without regrowth, and because it hurt biodiversity. It also make sense economically in the long run.
[deleted]
>There's no reason not to plant trees in addition to everything else we'll need to do to fix this problem.
Yes, there is. Trees take a up valuable real estate. As long as people can do something even remotely profitable with land they own, this can not work.
Yes, there is. Trees take a up valuable real estate. As long as people can do something even remotely profitable with land they own, this can not work.
Trees are valuable too. The problem is we don't understand and/or appreciate that value.
For instance, trees essentially power the entire terrestrial water cycle. Without trees all the water rains out within a few hundred km of the coast. Trees (far moreso than simple evaporation) are responsible for pushing that water back into the air-stream. Isotopic analysis confirms that 80% of the rainfall on land is caused by transpiration, and most of that is trees. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11983
This explains why deforestation causes desertification. Cut down the trees and you get a continent-wide desert.
These dynamics aren't well-captured by the present economic system, which only sees "valuable real estate" being "taken up" by trees.
For instance, trees essentially power the entire terrestrial water cycle. Without trees all the water rains out within a few hundred km of the coast. Trees (far moreso than simple evaporation) are responsible for pushing that water back into the air-stream. Isotopic analysis confirms that 80% of the rainfall on land is caused by transpiration, and most of that is trees. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11983
This explains why deforestation causes desertification. Cut down the trees and you get a continent-wide desert.
These dynamics aren't well-captured by the present economic system, which only sees "valuable real estate" being "taken up" by trees.
>> Anyone still think it's a good idea to utilize all that "valuable real estate" being "taken up" by trees?
As long as plantation owners and/or illegal loggers do, then all your argumentation is moot.
As long as plantation owners and/or illegal loggers do, then all your argumentation is moot.
Correct, thanks. Incidentally before seeing your post I just edited that part for clarity. Since I already made the edit, I'll leave it as-is.
Just up the ante for illegal logging and equate it to terrorism. Life sentence for anyone involved. I am sure it will make anyone think twice before doing illegal logging with such punishment.
With carbon credits, planting trees can be a profitable land use.
Stop subsidizing industry by socializing the cost of carbon and planting trees will be profitable.
Yes, tree planting for carbon binding absolutely need to be profitable to get real traction!
The US government already pays many farmers to plant things other than commodity crops.
A few other problems - 1) trees take a lot of water to grow, and 2) all the carbon they sequester can go right back into the atmosphere in a forest fire. Some very scrupulous carbon-offset companies (like YC co terraformation!) are careful to plant diverse, native species in a way that rebuilds habitat and fits local water supplies. But there are a huge number of irresponsible tree-planting orgs that plant monoculture trees in places they don’t belong. For instance, eucalyptus trees in California - an invasive species that sucks water out of the ground, then burns up like an oil rag
Trees take a lot of water to grow but they also hold water and share it through the air and ground with other plants and with other creatures in the form of transpired water vapor.
Definitely true! I am a huge fan of trees. But the wrong tree in the wrong place is a bad thing. I try to advocate for responsible and thoughtful reforestation - which is, unfortunately, a lot more expensive than people want it to be.
Where can I learn more about the costs and challenges of thoughtful reforestation, and the key differences between the responsible and irresponsible sort? (Just popping in to ask because it seems like you might know). I'm interested in doing some work in this space but don't have any background.
Hmm… can’t point to one specific book, but there are lots of links. You can google “reforestation monoculture” and “reforestation native species.” This article is a great place to start: https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-green-pledges-will-not-cr...
It doesn’t get into the granularity of the costs, but highlights that the basic issue is countries are still hoping to make a profit off these “carbon sinks” by planting easily usable timber - aka monoculture - which greatly diminishes the benefits of forests and leaves them vulnerable to blights and other disasters.
Thank you very much!
Trees rarely burn to the ground in a wildfire. Their foliage burns quickly and the bark chars, but it takes years for even trees in the hottest spots to finally fall and then, many more years to decompose back into the soil.
This depends on the health of the tree. The bark beetle has decimated many pine trees in the sierra nevadas, leaving many trees standing but actually sick or dead, and unable to resist a forest fire.
Also, planting trees sequesters co2 into the biosphere. That is not good enough, we need to be sequestering co2 into the geosphere if we want to remove it from the equation
I'm sure it's been mentioned elsewhere here already by someone, but I've always thought that converting felled 'sequestration stock' to bio-char and making terra preta out of it would be win-win-win, as it could then be used to improve desertified land.
As much as CO2 emissions befear me, so too does increasingly poor topsoil, globally.
- ed
I'm not even sure we'd need to wait for trees to mature either - we just need work with whatever plant absorbs the most CO2. Perhaps algae, even?
As much as CO2 emissions befear me, so too does increasingly poor topsoil, globally.
- ed
I'm not even sure we'd need to wait for trees to mature either - we just need work with whatever plant absorbs the most CO2. Perhaps algae, even?
This is definitely a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_...
In theory it's energy positive: burning the crop can produce energy.
In theory it's energy positive: burning the crop can produce energy.
So I’m thinking the same. Soil + Terra preta(charcoal + food waste) is the best way. There needs to be some kind of inverse Bitcoin - something where we incentivize large number of people to claim areas of land and terra Preta it up. The reward is some kind of token that can be exchanged for value. We can maybe use satellite imagery to identify which land has been converted. Someone has to be forming a team on this for the prize.
Naturally (without human influence) a combination of biosphere (decades) and geosphere (millenia) would keep CO₂ levels in check.
We (humans) have accelerated emissions (by burning, thus reversing, geosphere capture via oil) and destroyed the biosphere through deforestation. This has also been accelerated as raising temperatures thaw permafrost & destroy ocean life (among others).
Anything we can do to reverse this is beneficial.
We (humans) have accelerated emissions (by burning, thus reversing, geosphere capture via oil) and destroyed the biosphere through deforestation. This has also been accelerated as raising temperatures thaw permafrost & destroy ocean life (among others).
Anything we can do to reverse this is beneficial.
Has anyone checked if earths total biomass has increased as co2 increases?
There is more greenery/forestation, and likely more biomass downstream, but I would expect other effects to cancel those effects beyond certain thresholds. For example, even though plankton and algae might benefit from additional carbon and heat, acidification of the ocean might lead to a net decrease in both.
I guess it would be impossible to actually measure.
Heat could also increase biomass since there would be a longer growing season and higher latitudes opening up.
But like you say, it’s a trade off so hard to predict.
Heat could also increase biomass since there would be a longer growing season and higher latitudes opening up.
But like you say, it’s a trade off so hard to predict.
We’ve pumped a lot of nitrogen into the biosphere. I wonder how much that’s increased the total biomass.
That assumes a lot about the world in 50-100 years when trees planned today are full grown!
We need technology, but more important is business and government. We have all the data on what is causing the problem, but we are not making value judgements, and taking action based on those judgements.
Until our technology catches up and provides net carbon-neutral energy, we have to pollute less. And that may be and doing less, and "consuming" less. And that will require force. Public pressure, social pressure, and regulation. No business will do it voluntarily, and no government will make itself unpopular voluntarily.
Long term we need green energy technology. Short term, we need technology is to help force change in our habits.
Do all the other stuff too, sure, but it seems like most of the pollution currently comes from Industry, Agriculture and transport. Things that enhance human quality of life. We need to decide which enhancements are most essential, and cut back.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Until our technology catches up and provides net carbon-neutral energy, we have to pollute less. And that may be and doing less, and "consuming" less. And that will require force. Public pressure, social pressure, and regulation. No business will do it voluntarily, and no government will make itself unpopular voluntarily.
Long term we need green energy technology. Short term, we need technology is to help force change in our habits.
Do all the other stuff too, sure, but it seems like most of the pollution currently comes from Industry, Agriculture and transport. Things that enhance human quality of life. We need to decide which enhancements are most essential, and cut back.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Depends on the tree.
Empress seems to be the ideal candidate.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-08-02/we-alread...
Empress seems to be the ideal candidate.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-08-02/we-alread...
Planting a monoculture would be a disaster, as we've seen when a billion poplars died in china's green wall.
It’s not just about carbon equations. Appropriately selected, well planted trees reduce local environment temperatures, regulate rainfall and soak up excess water in a positive feedback loop. The urban heat island effect will make lived experience even more challenging than it already does as the planet warms; turning cities into agro-forestry reserves would counteract this.
Planting more trees in cities makes a lot of sense, but it doesn't do much for CO2 levels in the air.
I've heard that planting trees in the Sahara would be worse because since they're darker they would absorb way more heat.
Actually yes, planting trees (especially the wrong trees) is not always a good thing. Darker leaves will attract more heat (imagine if it was possible to turn the polar regions into trees - this would have a very negative effect).
Also mono cultures and replacing natural vegetation with man-made forestation can actually be more limited to the amount of carbon they can capture long term.
Source: https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/bitstream/10044/1/80271/6...
Also mono cultures and replacing natural vegetation with man-made forestation can actually be more limited to the amount of carbon they can capture long term.
Source: https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/bitstream/10044/1/80271/6...
It does seem unlikely that we'd be able to control temperatures without resorting to sulfur dioxide.
It'll probably start a war, but once natural resources start getting scarce I fully expect the affected nation to deploy SO2.
It'll probably start a war, but once natural resources start getting scarce I fully expect the affected nation to deploy SO2.
I don’t think you should be downvoted. People really don’t like it because it is clearly not the optimal way to solve the problem, but we should take the possibility seriously instead of down voting anyone who brings it up as something that might happen.
We are letting anthropogenic global warming happen because it’s cheaper in the very near term. But climate change is a real thing and will have real, life-threatening effects especially for some geographic regions.
If we accept the reality that: 1) humans often just do what is cheapest and easiest even if the long-term consequences are bad AND 2) global warming will start killing massive numbers of people from things like heat stroke, putting enormous political pressure on governments to do something,
…then The logical conclusion (combined with how insanely cheap SO2 is to deploy, we’re talking maybe $50 billion a year, maybe less) is that there is an extremely high probability that some nation will just unilaterally do sulfur dioxide. Think of a Nation like India, with a large population that will be vulnerable to heat stroke and a big enough budget and military to just unilaterally do something like this to stop the political unrest of hundreds of thousands of heat stroke deaths per yearz
We are letting anthropogenic global warming happen because it’s cheaper in the very near term. But climate change is a real thing and will have real, life-threatening effects especially for some geographic regions.
If we accept the reality that: 1) humans often just do what is cheapest and easiest even if the long-term consequences are bad AND 2) global warming will start killing massive numbers of people from things like heat stroke, putting enormous political pressure on governments to do something,
…then The logical conclusion (combined with how insanely cheap SO2 is to deploy, we’re talking maybe $50 billion a year, maybe less) is that there is an extremely high probability that some nation will just unilaterally do sulfur dioxide. Think of a Nation like India, with a large population that will be vulnerable to heat stroke and a big enough budget and military to just unilaterally do something like this to stop the political unrest of hundreds of thousands of heat stroke deaths per yearz
And on top of that I don't think it'd even be possible to know who deployed the SO2.
The stuff isn't uranium and not much is needed. Any nation with an airplane should be able to get away with it.
The stuff isn't uranium and not much is needed. Any nation with an airplane should be able to get away with it.
You need quite a bit, and it needs to be continually deployed. It wouldn’t be hard to tell who is launching like 25,000 tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere every year. It would leave effects clearly visible by satellite: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/esds/competitive-programs/measure...
But I said $50 billion per year. That’s what probably way too high. Other estimates mention $18 billion per year, I found one that mentioned $2 billion per year, and just doing the calculation by hand based on fuel and per hour operating costs, I get only like $100 million, although that depends on altitude (I think 20km is usually ideal, although most cargo jets can’t go much above 13km).
I even wonder what the effect would be of just using sulfur-rich jet fuel on regular commercial long-haul flights. The cost would be minimal or even negative (as sulfur-rich crude is cheaper). I guess in this way any nation could just decide to do sulfur-rich fuel in their long haul fleet and few would immediately notice.
It’s such a crappy solution to the problem, though, and will doubtless cause a bunch more problems. But it’d be insanely cheap to do.
But I said $50 billion per year. That’s what probably way too high. Other estimates mention $18 billion per year, I found one that mentioned $2 billion per year, and just doing the calculation by hand based on fuel and per hour operating costs, I get only like $100 million, although that depends on altitude (I think 20km is usually ideal, although most cargo jets can’t go much above 13km).
I even wonder what the effect would be of just using sulfur-rich jet fuel on regular commercial long-haul flights. The cost would be minimal or even negative (as sulfur-rich crude is cheaper). I guess in this way any nation could just decide to do sulfur-rich fuel in their long haul fleet and few would immediately notice.
It’s such a crappy solution to the problem, though, and will doubtless cause a bunch more problems. But it’d be insanely cheap to do.
Because I think you’d be the person to ask: what is the feasibility of putting up a space sunshade to block some incoming solar radiation, using starship/super heavy?
Let’s say you need to reflect 1% of the light reaching the earth’s disc. If you’re using solar sail like devices with an average areal density of 10 g/m² and you have launch cost of $10 per kilogram (using LEO figures because devices made really lightweight can actually move themselves around with pressure from sunlight)… about $150 billion in launch costs. Material/spacecraft costs are a big question mark and can vary by 5-6 orders of magnitude, so let’s say it’s $10/kg, for a total of $300 billion.
Still sub optimal compared to other solutions but it’s possible we may need to try something like that.
Still sub optimal compared to other solutions but it’s possible we may need to try something like that.
Thanks for the breakdown. I like the idea of something we can remove more easily down the line, even if it’s more expensive. I suppose we probably won’t have the luxury, though.
Calcium carbonate is a better fit - see Gates’s experiments. Likely to still be disastrous, but better than sulfur dioxide
Grammar tip, if someone name ends in s, you can just write Gates’ experiment.
Interesting thanks.
Why disasterous?
Why disasterous?
Particulate matter in the air causes precipitation. Spraying large amounts of particulate matter into the sky is likely to drastically change global rainfall patterns - so you might get a ton of rain in the Sahara, where it’s useless, and none at all in the American Midwest. The result could be drastic food shortages and famines. Major volcanic eruptions have been associated with droughts and famines. I think geoengineering on this scale may be necessary, but it is a terrible option and an absolute last resort
When you say rain in the Sahara would be useless, are you saying it's already a carbon sink or something? After all it seems that rain in the Sahara would eventually cause forests to grow, given a few years.
Top soil takes a long time to form. I imagine most of the water would go into the aquifer.
Isn't the upside of this kind of geoengineering the reversibility? If we inject SO2, and we don't like the effect, we stop. IIRC it doesn't hang around that long.
There's likely a decade+ tail after the end of active particulate injection. If there is too much to begin with, you piss off all the electorates with years of chaotic weather, threatening food production, financial markets, and ecologies all over the world. Get it just right, you wreak less havoc, piss off fewer electorates, and lower global average temperatures. Get too small an effect, you risk overcorrection or the project failing before it has a chance to really work.
There's also the fact that you're altering a chaotic system, with fundamentally unpredictable side effects, some of which could last longer than a human lifespan. Wanna make California get monthly hurricanes? How about weekly tornados in Colorado? Bury New York city in ice?
It's not that any of those things are probable just that they're possible, and chaotic systems can drastically, catastrophically, and exponentially change configuration, and no matter how good your supercomputer simulations are, you fundamentally cannot predict the consequences.
All of human civilization teeters on the current climate configuration - geoengineering has terrifying potential. Humans have a horrible track record in attempts to predictably alter chaotic systems and ecologies. We damn well better know what we're doing before we use globally acting tools.
There's also the fact that you're altering a chaotic system, with fundamentally unpredictable side effects, some of which could last longer than a human lifespan. Wanna make California get monthly hurricanes? How about weekly tornados in Colorado? Bury New York city in ice?
It's not that any of those things are probable just that they're possible, and chaotic systems can drastically, catastrophically, and exponentially change configuration, and no matter how good your supercomputer simulations are, you fundamentally cannot predict the consequences.
All of human civilization teeters on the current climate configuration - geoengineering has terrifying potential. Humans have a horrible track record in attempts to predictably alter chaotic systems and ecologies. We damn well better know what we're doing before we use globally acting tools.
What is country A likes it but B does not? Seems like a source of conflict.
Similar to the GERD but in the sky.
Similar to the GERD but in the sky.
Can somebody please explain the SO2 thing? Im googling to no avail...
>Our use of technology threw nature out of balance and we need to use technology to get the balance back again.
The notion being that nature or even the climate is balanced/stable ?
I think the focus should be on increasing resiliency not hoping everything is going to be alright "if we just undo this one thing".
Having said that I'm all for reverting CO2 emissions, just dislike this implicit notion that nature is harmonious by default and humans fucked it up - there's speculation about weather related disasters pre industrial era, so even very recently in human context. Or the disruptions we have with relatively minor volcanic activity. So many natural thing could screw us way worse than global warming and for the first time in history we're getting technologically advanced enough to protect against it.
The notion being that nature or even the climate is balanced/stable ?
I think the focus should be on increasing resiliency not hoping everything is going to be alright "if we just undo this one thing".
Having said that I'm all for reverting CO2 emissions, just dislike this implicit notion that nature is harmonious by default and humans fucked it up - there's speculation about weather related disasters pre industrial era, so even very recently in human context. Or the disruptions we have with relatively minor volcanic activity. So many natural thing could screw us way worse than global warming and for the first time in history we're getting technologically advanced enough to protect against it.
I'm working on agri-forestry and biochar reactors on a hobby farm.
Hybrid poplars mature within a decade, and a biochar reactor is a net-energy producing reaction that produces soil improving char as a byproduct.
It won't save the world on it's own, but trees can be leveraged in powerful ways.
Hybrid poplars mature within a decade, and a biochar reactor is a net-energy producing reaction that produces soil improving char as a byproduct.
It won't save the world on it's own, but trees can be leveraged in powerful ways.
Can you think of anyway we could measure individuals doing this? I’m thinking reverse Bitcoin - provide a kit for people to start generating terra preta and deploying it and then give them coins for the amount of carbon they store.
A decade sounds like a pretty good start. If we could combine that with transitioning away from lawns and towards gardens / orchards (like even on highway medians!), imagine the savings in terms of shipping food.
Highway medians are lawn for safety reasons. Planting an orchard between two lanes of traffic going 75 mph would result in a ton of fatalities
Seems like you'd intentionally plant many small/short trees that will act as nice crash barriers, not large strong trees that act like brick walls. Orchards tend to be short trees anyway.
Hitting the tree equivalent of those sand-filled barrels sounds a lot better than dissipating that same energy by either A) flipping, or B) colliding with oncoming traffic.
It would be interesting to see the videos of "crash testing" various types of orchards!
Hitting the tree equivalent of those sand-filled barrels sounds a lot better than dissipating that same energy by either A) flipping, or B) colliding with oncoming traffic.
It would be interesting to see the videos of "crash testing" various types of orchards!
Sure, but small trees contain little carbon.
Grass contains even less carbon, and it doesn't produce anything of economic value.
As I wrote elsewhere in the thread, it's all about maximizing the total carbon stored per hectare. That means more trees in the median, more trees in our suburbs, more trees in the city, and (most importantly) more trees in agriculture.
There's a small set of "farmer's trees" (eg black locust) that coexist with crops right up to the trunk, drop copious mulch, have deep tap roots that bring up minerals, and make nutritious pods that are good fodder for animals. Planting 15-20 of these trees per hectare will actually increase the crop yield beneath.
Tons more carbon stored, better crop yield, cuts down wind erosion, and free fodder too. The cost is that the farmer has to drive around the trees. It's a non-zero cost yes, but it's a much easier switch than transitioning to full-on agroforestry.
As I wrote elsewhere in the thread, it's all about maximizing the total carbon stored per hectare. That means more trees in the median, more trees in our suburbs, more trees in the city, and (most importantly) more trees in agriculture.
There's a small set of "farmer's trees" (eg black locust) that coexist with crops right up to the trunk, drop copious mulch, have deep tap roots that bring up minerals, and make nutritious pods that are good fodder for animals. Planting 15-20 of these trees per hectare will actually increase the crop yield beneath.
Tons more carbon stored, better crop yield, cuts down wind erosion, and free fodder too. The cost is that the farmer has to drive around the trees. It's a non-zero cost yes, but it's a much easier switch than transitioning to full-on agroforestry.
Not a solution, but still - check "Oxytree". It's a tree "farmed" in Europe, that was created in Spain. Within 6 years it grows to 16 meters. You can cut it almost completely, and it will regrow. You cut it then every 4 years. It will regrow multiple times.
The tree as far as I know cannot re-plant itself (so its not invasive), and it absorbs up to 10 times more CO2 than regular trees.
It's still young project, but more and more countries create plantations of it (also as a way of CO2 recapture).
Do trees actually help? AFAIK once a forest reaches equilibrium it puts out as much CO2 as it takes in through various decomposition processes.
Using more wood as construction material helps to tie the CO2 for longer period.
This. Early trees sequestered a whole bunch of carbon in their structure (and there wasn’t efficient methods of breaking down lignin at the time, so the carbon stayed in the ground instead of rotting and returning to the sky). If we build long-lived structures out of wood or other carbon bearing materials whose carbon source is the atmosphere, we’ll be doing the same thing as trees but with human civilization as the organism.
Sounds like the real question is, how does 1 hectare of stick frame buildings compare to 1 hectare of mature forest? What stores more carbon-per-hectare, and how many years does the building actually lock up that carbon?
While a hectare of forest may be "only" CO2-neutral, a hectare of buildings are typically net CO2 emitters.
While a hectare of forest may be "only" CO2-neutral, a hectare of buildings are typically net CO2 emitters.
Yep, but reaching equilibrium once we've removed enough from the atmosphere is fine.
Of course this strategy does have to go hand-in-hand with drastic emission reductions to prevent use getting back to the same point and having nowhere else to put trees.
Of course this strategy does have to go hand-in-hand with drastic emission reductions to prevent use getting back to the same point and having nowhere else to put trees.
Yes, but that takes 50 years at least.
In the 2070s things will be very different.
In the 2070s things will be very different.
We already have all the pieces needed, they just need to be connected in a better way.
Forests need to be managed to optimize for sequestration; log the right parts at the right time, replant. Also need to invest more in controlling forest fires (hell, use the military if that's the only way to get the budget).
At the other end we need to reduce burning wood for fuel through other renewables and put more lumber into building.
Forests need to be managed to optimize for sequestration; log the right parts at the right time, replant. Also need to invest more in controlling forest fires (hell, use the military if that's the only way to get the budget).
At the other end we need to reduce burning wood for fuel through other renewables and put more lumber into building.
> we can only undo a decades worth of emissions
Sounds like dramatic progress to me. It uses a technology we already have against a problem that is only getting worse by the second. The side effect of fostering sustainable natural resources would be an unquestionable good as well.
Sounds like dramatic progress to me. It uses a technology we already have against a problem that is only getting worse by the second. The side effect of fostering sustainable natural resources would be an unquestionable good as well.
A lot can happen in decades.
Trees do much more than remove carbon from the air. Carbon removal machine could potentially create c02 deficit regions, creating hostile environments for trees.
We can't possibly build a machine for every function a tree does.
We can't possibly build a machine for every function a tree does.
> Carbon removal machine could potentially create c02 deficit regions, creating hostile environments for trees.
If we could remove so much CO2 from the air that it prevented plants from growing (even if the effect were highly localized, which is pretty much a certainty), then we might actually have a shot at being able to remove CO2 in a reasonable amount of time. So this definitely sounds like a good problem to have. Personally I think that's pretty unlikely though.
If we could remove so much CO2 from the air that it prevented plants from growing (even if the effect were highly localized, which is pretty much a certainty), then we might actually have a shot at being able to remove CO2 in a reasonable amount of time. So this definitely sounds like a good problem to have. Personally I think that's pretty unlikely though.
CO2 is pretty well-mixed and it takes a lot of energy to pull CO2 out so it is unlikely to be the primary method of address Climate change. Also at this point we are substantially above the pre-industrial level of CO2 so there’s essentially no chance of having CO2 poor regions.
Are there any sources of this?
As I understand it the air carrying the CO₂ is constantly moving and will not create any deficit regions?
Besides, with the large over concentration of carbon dioxide we have at the moment I think increasing temperatures have a higher chance of creating hostile environments.
As I understand it the air carrying the CO₂ is constantly moving and will not create any deficit regions?
Besides, with the large over concentration of carbon dioxide we have at the moment I think increasing temperatures have a higher chance of creating hostile environments.
[deleted]
>For some context, if we planted trees wherever we could around the world we can only undo a decades worth of emissions[0].
Not even, say you could transform the Sahara to rain forest, awesome right? I mean it would be an incredible feat, but it would give you exactly 0 with reducing carbon. Contrary to popular belief the Amazon rain forest aren't the "lungs" of the planet, the Amazon rain forest is basically net 0. Why? Because the rain forest also has a tremendous amount of life/animals, those animals use the oxygen and produce carbon. The real "lungs" of the planet are in the ocean.
Not even, say you could transform the Sahara to rain forest, awesome right? I mean it would be an incredible feat, but it would give you exactly 0 with reducing carbon. Contrary to popular belief the Amazon rain forest aren't the "lungs" of the planet, the Amazon rain forest is basically net 0. Why? Because the rain forest also has a tremendous amount of life/animals, those animals use the oxygen and produce carbon. The real "lungs" of the planet are in the ocean.
The Amazon rain forest is not net zero because of animals. It's net zero (actually net negative last I heard) because humans are burning it to make way for agriculture.
Trees sequester carbon. They also return that carbon to the atmosphere eventually, but as long as they're replaced by new trees, that's fine. That's not what's happening in the Amazon.
From a carbon perspective forests for timber are even better because then we keep several generations of trees worth of carbon locked up in our structures. It's also an easier sell because that has real economic value.
From a biodiversity perspective it's not as good to have monoculture crops of any kind, including trees.
Trees sequester carbon. They also return that carbon to the atmosphere eventually, but as long as they're replaced by new trees, that's fine. That's not what's happening in the Amazon.
From a carbon perspective forests for timber are even better because then we keep several generations of trees worth of carbon locked up in our structures. It's also an easier sell because that has real economic value.
From a biodiversity perspective it's not as good to have monoculture crops of any kind, including trees.
> The Amazon rain forest is not net zero because of animals. It's net zero (actually net negative last I heard) because humans are burning it to make way for agriculture.
According to the documentary "One Strange Rock", which I admit I have not fact checked, your statement is absolutely false. The documentary claims 100% of the oxygen produced by the Amazon rain forest is used up by the animals that live in it.
EDIT:
Also this PBS article backups the claim. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-won...
"Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests – and indeed, all land plants – is very close to zero."
According to the documentary "One Strange Rock", which I admit I have not fact checked, your statement is absolutely false. The documentary claims 100% of the oxygen produced by the Amazon rain forest is used up by the animals that live in it.
EDIT:
Also this PBS article backups the claim. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-won...
"Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests – and indeed, all land plants – is very close to zero."
I find that believable, but we're talking about carbon, not oxygen.
Forests do sequester carbon for a period, although most of it is released again in fires and decomposition (chemically just a slow fire.)
But the point is that a forest locks up a lot of carbon compared to cleared grazing or cropland.
Forests do sequester carbon for a period, although most of it is released again in fires and decomposition (chemically just a slow fire.)
But the point is that a forest locks up a lot of carbon compared to cleared grazing or cropland.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that the animals in the Amazonian rain forest produce more CO2 than the plants within it consume? Do you have any data that shows this?
This is cited in the documentary "One Strange Rock". That is the only data I have. I am trusting that the documentary is accurate, I have not fact checked the documentary.
EDIT: You might find this PBS article interesting as well, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-won...
"Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests – and indeed, all land plants – is very close to zero."
EDIT: You might find this PBS article interesting as well, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/no-the-amazon-fires-won...
"Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests – and indeed, all land plants – is very close to zero."
Saying net production of oxygen is zero is not identical to saying net sequestration of carbon dioxide is zero.
Photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2
You can see here that there's glucose (a carbohydrate) being produced in addition to oxygen.
Photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2
You can see here that there's glucose (a carbohydrate) being produced in addition to oxygen.
When people talk about adding new forests, they're mostly talking about the carbon used to make up the trees and animals. That all comes out of the air.
Soil. It's soil.
Soil, in prodigious quantities. We need to be making it.
Using human waste - food and faecal from our cities; Using whatever plant fixes the most CO2 in a useful form that we can turn into charcoal (quick trees? bamboo grass? something genetically modified?), releasing heat energy, and then fixing carbon in a useful matrix, for soil regeneration a la Terra Preta.
I sort of made this post elsewhere here, I just wanted to repeat and focus on the soil angle.
We have huge swathes of the globe that due to poor historical environmental conditions have poor soil, so not much can grow. Some have become desertified, perhaps some of which is our fault (eg. Mediterranean deforestation). If we add soil to these places, at least hardier plants can grow and we can expand the reach of our efforts.
Strikes me that the most important thing is that plants can grow, and for that we need soil.
Soil.
Soil, in prodigious quantities. We need to be making it.
Using human waste - food and faecal from our cities; Using whatever plant fixes the most CO2 in a useful form that we can turn into charcoal (quick trees? bamboo grass? something genetically modified?), releasing heat energy, and then fixing carbon in a useful matrix, for soil regeneration a la Terra Preta.
I sort of made this post elsewhere here, I just wanted to repeat and focus on the soil angle.
We have huge swathes of the globe that due to poor historical environmental conditions have poor soil, so not much can grow. Some have become desertified, perhaps some of which is our fault (eg. Mediterranean deforestation). If we add soil to these places, at least hardier plants can grow and we can expand the reach of our efforts.
Strikes me that the most important thing is that plants can grow, and for that we need soil.
Soil.
I highly recommend checking out https://twitter.com/BuildSoil if you're interested in learning more about this approach.
Thank you for this. What's amusing to me here is that each year I collect a load of chestnuts and try and plant them about. I do it for a variety of inane personal reasons - I hadn't appreciated that there are a load of useful reasons to do so too! ( https://wiki.buildsoil.net/index.php/Why_Chestnuts%3F )
.
Just don't leave bags of chestnuts outside - apparently foxes love them and will utterly lay waste to them. Who knew?
- ed: Oh, actually, it turns out I don't - Horse-chestnuts aren't the same species as sweet or Spanish chestnuts.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesculus_hippocastanum
.
Just don't leave bags of chestnuts outside - apparently foxes love them and will utterly lay waste to them. Who knew?
- ed: Oh, actually, it turns out I don't - Horse-chestnuts aren't the same species as sweet or Spanish chestnuts.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesculus_hippocastanum
Great account, and if there were one takeaway, chestnut trees are more interesting than I imagined
Sounds great, anything I can do to help you get to work on soil? Consider checking out AirMiners, may have some resources to help you in your quests.
When I posted the above last night, I sat there wondering whether I could Just Transition and somehow get a job in this field (scuse the pun) and had an idle fantasisation about the possibilities, but sadly my skillsets are uselessly-irrelevant in this domain, and I'm a bit too old and poor to make the swing.
Reality's a bitch, sometimes. Often.
Reality's a bitch, sometimes. Often.
Always good to have awareness. To me there's likely a lot you could contribute anyway. Maybe even just emailing companies and telling them you like what they're doing. There are fewer than 2,000 people working on carbon removal worldwide. "Inspire" is still needed.
Since you're talking about planting chestnuts above, I thought this video of carbon removal entrepreneurs talking about biochar solutions might be of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu3g0z7dl38
Since you're talking about planting chestnuts above, I thought this video of carbon removal entrepreneurs talking about biochar solutions might be of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu3g0z7dl38
Have you done the math on that? It seems like it would take an awful lot of poop to counteract a coal fired power plant.
A city such as London (where I'm at) generates about 3600 tonnes of wet mass poop a day. Thanks for making me work that out... .
Given poop isn't even a main constituent ingredient in new soil, but rather forms the 'flavouring' for the development of the biological and mineral matter otherwise, I'd suggest a well-developed bio-recycling infrastructure could be quite productive.
This isn't even factoring in food or farm waste, etc.
Given poop isn't even a main constituent ingredient in new soil, but rather forms the 'flavouring' for the development of the biological and mineral matter otherwise, I'd suggest a well-developed bio-recycling infrastructure could be quite productive.
This isn't even factoring in food or farm waste, etc.
But how do you move the wet waste from London to Mediterranean and Sahara. Also soil is one part of equation. Water is another. Poor soil results in poor vegetation that leads to poor rainfall and water sources. So soil also needs to be coupled with water increase. I think preservation is probably more feasible than rejuvenation. India for example is losing top soil at unprecedented rates that can have devastating consequences.
Start making it in Egypt or Tripoli?
People in deserts shit too, I think.
People in deserts shit too, I think.
Well people have been shitting in the desert for centuries, but there’s no jungle yet, so something appears to be missing.
And people have spent millennia over-extracting plants, leading to erosion and desertification and subsequent changes of local weather patterns (precipitation, humidity, etc).
If they'd known to replenish and make broader use of their defecations and organic waste, they might well have kept their 'jungle'.
Certainly, it appears to have worked for ancient Amazonian tribes who are thought to be responsible for much of the quality land in the Amazon basin, much of which would otherwise be quite shallow and sandy with low nutrients.
If they'd known to replenish and make broader use of their defecations and organic waste, they might well have kept their 'jungle'.
Certainly, it appears to have worked for ancient Amazonian tribes who are thought to be responsible for much of the quality land in the Amazon basin, much of which would otherwise be quite shallow and sandy with low nutrients.
Soil could be something that is too easily overlooked.
If you had prodigious quantities of good soil, you could grow trees and food at sea, where we have lots of space to grow, especially at the equator.
The problem then becomes a floating platform, and controlling it all, but those seem less difficult.
If you had prodigious quantities of good soil, you could grow trees and food at sea, where we have lots of space to grow, especially at the equator.
The problem then becomes a floating platform, and controlling it all, but those seem less difficult.
This sounds cool from a tech-nerd perspective, but of course it all is pretty futile if we don't get emissions under control. The video says 10 gigatons/yr by 2050. Our 2019 emissions were ~36 gigatons. I.e. even if capture is successful, it needs to be accompanied by aggressive emissions reductions for us to even get to neutral, let alone reversing damage.
I'm guessing Musk had some thought process around the expected marginal impact of funding this vs more on energy storage vs energy production. And perhaps capture/sequestration is under-explored.
But I wonder what could be achieved with $100M of funds directed at research to intentionally changing and shifting culture towards consuming stuff with smaller footprints? Tesla made some people want an electric car really badly. For some, very small houses are becoming attractive. But so far this stuff mostly arises from ad-hoc marketing efforts around particular brands, products, influencers. What if we need systematic memetic engineering, to make lower energy consumption actually feel desirable?
I'm guessing Musk had some thought process around the expected marginal impact of funding this vs more on energy storage vs energy production. And perhaps capture/sequestration is under-explored.
But I wonder what could be achieved with $100M of funds directed at research to intentionally changing and shifting culture towards consuming stuff with smaller footprints? Tesla made some people want an electric car really badly. For some, very small houses are becoming attractive. But so far this stuff mostly arises from ad-hoc marketing efforts around particular brands, products, influencers. What if we need systematic memetic engineering, to make lower energy consumption actually feel desirable?
I think at this point emissions reductions is a matter of will, not technology. Rather than waiting for some technological magic bullet when it comes to emissions reductions, we need to take aggressive action.
But we're going to need CCS technologies to start pulling the carbon back out if we want to avoid really bad outcomes, and those technologies are much less developed.
But we're going to need CCS technologies to start pulling the carbon back out if we want to avoid really bad outcomes, and those technologies are much less developed.
I agree that reducing emissions is about will, but I'm frightened that we seem not especially willful. And that does seem like a matter of culture, which could be changed. We just don't have a robust framework for deliberately creating those changes. We gave a portfolio of expensive one-offs.
Ah, but we do. Tax carbon emissions (cf EU) at a proper level and you'll solve the core incentive issue.
Follow (policy) research on how to implement this and it should be fine. The biggest hurdle is will, especially to take the first step.
Follow (policy) research on how to implement this and it should be fine. The biggest hurdle is will, especially to take the first step.
I think we're talking about different things. Yes, I agree that a carbon tax is needed, and would change individual behavior. But as you say, the biggest hurdle is will, which we have been sorely lacking. I'm talking about, how can we change what people _want_, which would include as a consequence creating the political will which allows us to take such decisive action.
So far, lots of places have not chosen to implement any carbon tax because they value the environment less than their present access to goods and services to which they are accustomed. And even the carbon taxes which have been put in place don't actually address the real externalities of emissions, suggesting that even if the polity there values the environment _some_, it's still less valuable than buying cheap stuff.
EU carbon taxes vary wildly between countries, from €0.07 in Poland to €116 in Sweden. Sweden's tax is at the very low end of recommendations from a 2018 UN report, which gave the extremely broad range of $135 to $5,500 per ton. And only now is there a _proposal_ for an EU border tax to account for emissions in goods entering the EU. So even in Sweden, where perhaps cultural values made a comparatively high rate politically feasible, no one has yet paid a carbon tax which actually addresses the externalities of emissions, because of imports.
My original comment mentioned Tesla as an example of how to get people to actually want the greener goods more than their alternatives. People that really wanted a Tesla wanted it more than any ICE car. They still wanted it after Tesla hit the tax break cap in the US. They perceived a Tesla as smart, glamorous, futuristic, and conveying status. This is qualitatively different than someone who lives in a place with a carbon tax who can be convinced to take a train trip rather than a regional flight, or buys a home which is better sealed and will be cheaper to heat/cool.
I would claim that aside from typical corporate marketing activities which center around a given product or brand (which is what I was thinking of when I referred to a "portfolio of expensive one-offs"), the other primary precedents for getting people to want differently have been religious evangelism and state propaganda, neither of which ever yielded an engineering discipline of predictable, well-understood mechanisms.
So far, lots of places have not chosen to implement any carbon tax because they value the environment less than their present access to goods and services to which they are accustomed. And even the carbon taxes which have been put in place don't actually address the real externalities of emissions, suggesting that even if the polity there values the environment _some_, it's still less valuable than buying cheap stuff.
EU carbon taxes vary wildly between countries, from €0.07 in Poland to €116 in Sweden. Sweden's tax is at the very low end of recommendations from a 2018 UN report, which gave the extremely broad range of $135 to $5,500 per ton. And only now is there a _proposal_ for an EU border tax to account for emissions in goods entering the EU. So even in Sweden, where perhaps cultural values made a comparatively high rate politically feasible, no one has yet paid a carbon tax which actually addresses the externalities of emissions, because of imports.
My original comment mentioned Tesla as an example of how to get people to actually want the greener goods more than their alternatives. People that really wanted a Tesla wanted it more than any ICE car. They still wanted it after Tesla hit the tax break cap in the US. They perceived a Tesla as smart, glamorous, futuristic, and conveying status. This is qualitatively different than someone who lives in a place with a carbon tax who can be convinced to take a train trip rather than a regional flight, or buys a home which is better sealed and will be cheaper to heat/cool.
I would claim that aside from typical corporate marketing activities which center around a given product or brand (which is what I was thinking of when I referred to a "portfolio of expensive one-offs"), the other primary precedents for getting people to want differently have been religious evangelism and state propaganda, neither of which ever yielded an engineering discipline of predictable, well-understood mechanisms.
Underrated comment.
I think the general consensus is that where it's possible to eliminate emissions, that's much better than emitting and then capturing later, but there are huge disparities across emitters as to how easy that is to do, and there's a likely outcome where getting to net zero (or even net negative) emissions involves eliminating emissions in most industries and then using capture to deal with the laggards.
Getting less abstract: there are no real technological hurdles for eliminating emissions for personal vehicles, and probably-manageable ones for other surface transport (cargo shipping, etc.). Decarbonizing the electric grid has some technological challenges to solve (mostly around intermittency and storage if we go all renewables, or cost if we go mixed renewables and nuclear), but there are reasonably clear paths forward. On the other hand, we really don't know how to do zero-carbon long haul aviation, or concrete production and curing, or aluminum smelting, or trans-oceanic shipping -- maybe portable/modular nuclear could be used for the last two, but it's still pretty pie-in-the-sky. So, maybe in the future we have electric cars but carbon capture for long-haul jets, or something.
(Aside: the recent Bill Gates climate book has a pretty thorough rundown of all the major current emitters and the levels of technological readiness for decarbonizing each.)
Getting less abstract: there are no real technological hurdles for eliminating emissions for personal vehicles, and probably-manageable ones for other surface transport (cargo shipping, etc.). Decarbonizing the electric grid has some technological challenges to solve (mostly around intermittency and storage if we go all renewables, or cost if we go mixed renewables and nuclear), but there are reasonably clear paths forward. On the other hand, we really don't know how to do zero-carbon long haul aviation, or concrete production and curing, or aluminum smelting, or trans-oceanic shipping -- maybe portable/modular nuclear could be used for the last two, but it's still pretty pie-in-the-sky. So, maybe in the future we have electric cars but carbon capture for long-haul jets, or something.
(Aside: the recent Bill Gates climate book has a pretty thorough rundown of all the major current emitters and the levels of technological readiness for decarbonizing each.)
Carbon neutral jet fuel exists (synthetic fuels from electrolysis, and/or biofuels), and could be scaled up. The issue is not “can we do this”, it’s “can we justify doing this economically”.
For synthetic fuels: yes, absolutely... but it requires economical carbon capture, which GP was saying we maybe shouldn't invest in, in favor of emissions reductions (and if we want net zero, it'd have to be direct air capture, probably, rather than point source, because in this theoretical future, the coal power plants or whatever are all gone). Anyhow, whether you frame captured-carbon fuels as "you capture carbon and then burn it again so it's neutral" or "you burn it, and then deal with its emissions by capturing it again" is sort of arbitrary, and the latter is basically what I'm already arguing for.
Biofuels seem mostly like a crock, honestly -- the ones we can produce now compete with food for arable land and would do so more aggressively at scale, and the ones that wouldn't do that (algal fuels, maybe cellulosic fuels like switchgrass) still require fundamental R&D to make the economics work. And again: even if they did work, this is a solution where you're burning fuels and emitting carbon, and then remedying by capturing again, this time with plants. So again: it's carbon capture.
Biofuels seem mostly like a crock, honestly -- the ones we can produce now compete with food for arable land and would do so more aggressively at scale, and the ones that wouldn't do that (algal fuels, maybe cellulosic fuels like switchgrass) still require fundamental R&D to make the economics work. And again: even if they did work, this is a solution where you're burning fuels and emitting carbon, and then remedying by capturing again, this time with plants. So again: it's carbon capture.
Agreed. Removal and reductions are not mutually exclusive.
One huge positive I see from the creation of this prize is the publicity and interest in carbon removal. From my experience more people are learning about the requirement for carbon removal and realizing how expensive it is.
For those of us who want to leave a minimal footprint, becoming aware of how expensive it is to undo our footprint incentivizes us to reduce too.
(Credit where credit is due, Stripe, Shopify and Microsoft are also really helping this area grow too. )
One huge positive I see from the creation of this prize is the publicity and interest in carbon removal. From my experience more people are learning about the requirement for carbon removal and realizing how expensive it is.
For those of us who want to leave a minimal footprint, becoming aware of how expensive it is to undo our footprint incentivizes us to reduce too.
(Credit where credit is due, Stripe, Shopify and Microsoft are also really helping this area grow too. )
> Agreed. Removal and reductions are not mutually exclusive.
Making people believe that some magic techno fix will swoop in and somehow solve the climate change problem is undesirable. People need to accept that a large reduction in emissions is necessary and this will require many people to change at least some of their habits.
Making people believe that some magic techno fix will swoop in and somehow solve the climate change problem is undesirable. People need to accept that a large reduction in emissions is necessary and this will require many people to change at least some of their habits.
Those 36 gigatons aren't largely a result of consumer behaviors, but industry (which, admittedly, increases as a function of demand)
Reducing footprints through innovation will go a ways. Changing "culture" (i.e. coerced minimalism) is a thing, but it's a band-aid solution on a leaking hoover-dam; virtue signaling for the most part.
Carbon footprints scale up with population. Everyone eats, wants gadgets, wants a home, good infrastructure. If these demands can't be met without excess encroachment of land and destruction of the environment, then there's too many people. Innovation and increased efficiency can't outrun growth. Yes, it's poised to level off in the next 100 or so years after adding an extra few billion to the total, but the interventions needed are more urgent and by extension the reduced rate should be more urgent. Though changes to the energy sector alone can make a substantial dent in emissions in the near-term, given political will.
All of this would be a moot point if the global population were halved and remained stagnant.
The rampant op-ed push for minimalism on the part of the consumer, for housing especially, seems almost like a nefarious ploy to plant the idea that commoners should now be content with less, with environmentalism as the red herring. So being unable to afford a detached home is to be thought of as a happy virtuous accident.
Reducing footprints through innovation will go a ways. Changing "culture" (i.e. coerced minimalism) is a thing, but it's a band-aid solution on a leaking hoover-dam; virtue signaling for the most part.
Carbon footprints scale up with population. Everyone eats, wants gadgets, wants a home, good infrastructure. If these demands can't be met without excess encroachment of land and destruction of the environment, then there's too many people. Innovation and increased efficiency can't outrun growth. Yes, it's poised to level off in the next 100 or so years after adding an extra few billion to the total, but the interventions needed are more urgent and by extension the reduced rate should be more urgent. Though changes to the energy sector alone can make a substantial dent in emissions in the near-term, given political will.
All of this would be a moot point if the global population were halved and remained stagnant.
The rampant op-ed push for minimalism on the part of the consumer, for housing especially, seems almost like a nefarious ploy to plant the idea that commoners should now be content with less, with environmentalism as the red herring. So being unable to afford a detached home is to be thought of as a happy virtuous accident.
I actually think all people in the developed world - rich people of course most of all, but “commoners” too - do need to learn to be content with a lot less. Before the industrial era, the average person in England owned 36 objects. And that’s counting like 1) table 2) bowl 3) cup 4) knife. The way people in America and Europe have been taught to live in the last century - even the lower-middle and working class, let alone the rich - is inherently unsustainable, and can never be sustainable. “Buy less sh*t” should be the first and most powerful front in our fight against climate change, but it isn’t because we are selfish and gluttonous beasts.
> Before the industrial era, the average person in England owned 36 objects.
Life at the advent of the industrial revolution sucked. The Victorian age was also one of high inequality. I'm not sure what that's supposed to inspire.
> inherently unsustainable
What part? You're not addressing that. I did, however: increase in population increases demand for things.
Environmental destruction is scaling with population, not consumer voraciousness.
> “Buy less sh*t” should be the first and most powerful front in our fight against climate change, but it isn’t because we are selfish and gluttonous beasts.
Look at the stuff you have lying around in your domicile. That's somewhere near the average of what people in the West own.
Digital consumption has increased on average, people aren't tripping over things in their ever-shrinking domiciles with ever-shrinking purchasing power owing to stagnant wages.
Not only are you overestimating consumption of "shit", you're failing to make a meaningful connection between consumer habits and lack of sustainability. It's a question of scale.
Life at the advent of the industrial revolution sucked. The Victorian age was also one of high inequality. I'm not sure what that's supposed to inspire.
> inherently unsustainable
What part? You're not addressing that. I did, however: increase in population increases demand for things.
Environmental destruction is scaling with population, not consumer voraciousness.
> “Buy less sh*t” should be the first and most powerful front in our fight against climate change, but it isn’t because we are selfish and gluttonous beasts.
Look at the stuff you have lying around in your domicile. That's somewhere near the average of what people in the West own.
Digital consumption has increased on average, people aren't tripping over things in their ever-shrinking domiciles with ever-shrinking purchasing power owing to stagnant wages.
Not only are you overestimating consumption of "shit", you're failing to make a meaningful connection between consumer habits and lack of sustainability. It's a question of scale.
Of course rising population is at the heart of this. But unless you’re planning to Thanos our way out of the situation, the people in the Western world need to consume less. Less beef, which is hugely polluting. Less sugar, which is toxic and useless. Less paper products. Less air conditioning. And yes, fewer objects. The average American child owns between 70 and 100 toys. The average American woman owns 100+ items of clothing. The average American spends $16,000 on retail items per year. It is too much; it is more than we need. It all takes energy to manufacture, and to ship, and it all ends up in the trash.
> But unless you’re planning to Thanos our way out of the situation, the people in the Western world need to consume less.
There are more viable and compassionate solutions to accelerate stagnation of global growth. One is universal access to contraceptives, the other is eliminating global poverty and improving economic stability. This is no less politically viable than coercing Westerners to consume less, and far more effective.
Add to that, our governments *target a growth rate of 3-4% per year through immigration*. That is purely through policy, and the entire point to increase GDP through, you guessed it, consumption. As you well know, our minimum carbon footprints are higher in the West. The minimum. If decimating consumption is such a priority for green advocates, then it should follow that they staunchly oppose increases in immigration rates, and in fact favor reductions. That would actually be consistent with the argument. This is an obvious connection that people coyly dance around. And while it's a separate discussion, many economists agree today that GDP is not a reliable measure of a nation's prosperity and chasing perpetual growth is not required.
> Less beef, which is hugely polluting.
There have been some interesting strides in innovation that reduce methane emissions some 90+% using a fraction of kelp/seaweed in feed, and this may be rolled out as a matter of policy. That would eliminate issues related to methane emissions in a fell swoop, in a way that discouragement of consumption can't touch. It's a ways off, but it doesn't have to be, it's right there.
Land-use, contrary to popular belief, is actually decreasing in the U.S. for cattle in spite of the small uptick in demand growth. However, it has been growing in Brazil, presumably due to the growing Chinese market and they're supplying of soy to just about everyone.
> The average American child owns between 70 and 100 toys.
Citation?
> The average American woman owns 100+ items of clothing.
Citation?
> It is too much; it is more than we need.
There is no metric offered for what is enough / too much. It's entirely arbitrary. And yet, the difference between a perceived low consumption and average consumption, in aggregate, across the population, would not result in a significant change as the environment is concerned, since we all still use power, water, transportation, food, as the most basic form of living. The industry giants are responsible for most destruction. We can pat ourselves on the back for buying fewer material goods but it doesn't put a dent in the problem. Given the approx 36 gigatons of annual emissions, you won't even get down to 35 with a persuasive campaign. You won't even get down to 35.5.
Blaming the consumer is foolhardy. Most problems with regards to energy and waste can be resolved through policy. People want these problems fixed but feel dismayed when most of what they throw in the recycling bin, typically related to food stuffs, ends up at the dump.
Living well means more than mere survival. You don't "need" your little device you use to browse hackernews and your daily caffeinated drink and all the comforts you take for granted, and no one gets to decide for you that you don't need them, in a free country. This is important because blaming consumers will not save the environment, strong policy and innovation will.
There are more viable and compassionate solutions to accelerate stagnation of global growth. One is universal access to contraceptives, the other is eliminating global poverty and improving economic stability. This is no less politically viable than coercing Westerners to consume less, and far more effective.
Add to that, our governments *target a growth rate of 3-4% per year through immigration*. That is purely through policy, and the entire point to increase GDP through, you guessed it, consumption. As you well know, our minimum carbon footprints are higher in the West. The minimum. If decimating consumption is such a priority for green advocates, then it should follow that they staunchly oppose increases in immigration rates, and in fact favor reductions. That would actually be consistent with the argument. This is an obvious connection that people coyly dance around. And while it's a separate discussion, many economists agree today that GDP is not a reliable measure of a nation's prosperity and chasing perpetual growth is not required.
> Less beef, which is hugely polluting.
There have been some interesting strides in innovation that reduce methane emissions some 90+% using a fraction of kelp/seaweed in feed, and this may be rolled out as a matter of policy. That would eliminate issues related to methane emissions in a fell swoop, in a way that discouragement of consumption can't touch. It's a ways off, but it doesn't have to be, it's right there.
Land-use, contrary to popular belief, is actually decreasing in the U.S. for cattle in spite of the small uptick in demand growth. However, it has been growing in Brazil, presumably due to the growing Chinese market and they're supplying of soy to just about everyone.
> The average American child owns between 70 and 100 toys.
Citation?
> The average American woman owns 100+ items of clothing.
Citation?
> It is too much; it is more than we need.
There is no metric offered for what is enough / too much. It's entirely arbitrary. And yet, the difference between a perceived low consumption and average consumption, in aggregate, across the population, would not result in a significant change as the environment is concerned, since we all still use power, water, transportation, food, as the most basic form of living. The industry giants are responsible for most destruction. We can pat ourselves on the back for buying fewer material goods but it doesn't put a dent in the problem. Given the approx 36 gigatons of annual emissions, you won't even get down to 35 with a persuasive campaign. You won't even get down to 35.5.
Blaming the consumer is foolhardy. Most problems with regards to energy and waste can be resolved through policy. People want these problems fixed but feel dismayed when most of what they throw in the recycling bin, typically related to food stuffs, ends up at the dump.
Living well means more than mere survival. You don't "need" your little device you use to browse hackernews and your daily caffeinated drink and all the comforts you take for granted, and no one gets to decide for you that you don't need them, in a free country. This is important because blaming consumers will not save the environment, strong policy and innovation will.
You can google all the stats I provided, just like I can google all the no-citation stats you provided.
Yup! I’m a big fan of contraception and options for women. That will probably start to bring the global population down slowly within about a hundred years. But we have less than thirty years to fix the climate problem.
Per-person carbon emissions in the developing world are <1 ton per year. For Europe, China, India its 5-10 tons per year. Which is bad enough. For the United States, it’s TWENTY TONS PER PERSON PER YEAR.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...
That isn’t because we for some reason have worse power plants or worse ways of making steel. It’s because we eat too much; we drive too much, in cars that are too big; we use too much heat and air-conditioning, in houses that, in spite of what you keep saying, are the largest in the world, and getting bigger every decade (you can google this too). We fly too much, we buy too much, we use too much, we consume more than literally any other people on the planet, and if we don’t stop, we are going to kill everyone, ourselves included.
To put this another way, if every American started living, not even like people in Kenya, but like people in France, that would take 3 gigatons off of global annual emissions. Holy shit.
Yup! I’m a big fan of contraception and options for women. That will probably start to bring the global population down slowly within about a hundred years. But we have less than thirty years to fix the climate problem.
Per-person carbon emissions in the developing world are <1 ton per year. For Europe, China, India its 5-10 tons per year. Which is bad enough. For the United States, it’s TWENTY TONS PER PERSON PER YEAR.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...
That isn’t because we for some reason have worse power plants or worse ways of making steel. It’s because we eat too much; we drive too much, in cars that are too big; we use too much heat and air-conditioning, in houses that, in spite of what you keep saying, are the largest in the world, and getting bigger every decade (you can google this too). We fly too much, we buy too much, we use too much, we consume more than literally any other people on the planet, and if we don’t stop, we are going to kill everyone, ourselves included.
To put this another way, if every American started living, not even like people in Kenya, but like people in France, that would take 3 gigatons off of global annual emissions. Holy shit.
> You can google all the stats I provided
Did, and did not find what you suggested. I did find a 300 dollar figure which just reflects cost, not the number of toys.
> For the United States, it’s TWENTY TONS PER PERSON PER YEAR
As I said: everyone has a higher carbon footprint in the West, mainly owing to infrastructure and industry. The combined consumer spending choices are not what is leading to the extra tonnage.
Here's the breakdown straight from the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
Industry. Electricity. Transportation. Agriculture. Commercial and Residential COMBINED are just 13%.
Americans are not consuming so much more than Europeans as to generate 10 extra tons of carbon. The average spending reflects it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household... . Not to mention this doesn't take into account prices, and digital service & goods consumption.
I hope that clears any doubts.
> That isn’t because we for some reason have worse power plants or worse ways of making steel.
The suburban experiment is a North American one, and America is absolutely huge. Infrastructure is vastly more expensive to maintain in NA, and yes there are inefficiencies everywhere. Simply living, having access to water, electricity and food, creates more emissions in America based on location.
Suburbs are money-losers and subsidized by city-centers, despite the taxes on residents there. Sprawled cities are way more wasteful than dense cities, and America is a nation of sprawled cities.
Ultimately, you're dwelling on a red herring. I addressed the primary issue already. Sustainability matters because of scale. If the population were actually stagnant, a) consumption would not lead to increased emissions anywhere, b) we'd actually address the problem. Bullying consumers does not. It's just a race to the bottom.
Sustainability matters because of scaling.
Did, and did not find what you suggested. I did find a 300 dollar figure which just reflects cost, not the number of toys.
> For the United States, it’s TWENTY TONS PER PERSON PER YEAR
As I said: everyone has a higher carbon footprint in the West, mainly owing to infrastructure and industry. The combined consumer spending choices are not what is leading to the extra tonnage.
Here's the breakdown straight from the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
Industry. Electricity. Transportation. Agriculture. Commercial and Residential COMBINED are just 13%.
Americans are not consuming so much more than Europeans as to generate 10 extra tons of carbon. The average spending reflects it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household... . Not to mention this doesn't take into account prices, and digital service & goods consumption.
I hope that clears any doubts.
> That isn’t because we for some reason have worse power plants or worse ways of making steel.
The suburban experiment is a North American one, and America is absolutely huge. Infrastructure is vastly more expensive to maintain in NA, and yes there are inefficiencies everywhere. Simply living, having access to water, electricity and food, creates more emissions in America based on location.
Suburbs are money-losers and subsidized by city-centers, despite the taxes on residents there. Sprawled cities are way more wasteful than dense cities, and America is a nation of sprawled cities.
Ultimately, you're dwelling on a red herring. I addressed the primary issue already. Sustainability matters because of scale. If the population were actually stagnant, a) consumption would not lead to increased emissions anywhere, b) we'd actually address the problem. Bullying consumers does not. It's just a race to the bottom.
Sustainability matters because of scaling.
The co2 producer most lagging behind in terms of reduction is transportation. This is a field where endusers have giant impacts, and it will likely not be solved by making those giant SUVs electric.
This is also where the US is pretty bad, because of a culture that aspires to urban sprawl.
More dense cities, more mixed use planning, more active transportation, less detached housing, less parking etc. are ways in which developed countries could really reduce their transportation carbon footprints (and incidentally also footprints related to AC/heating).
This is also where the US is pretty bad, because of a culture that aspires to urban sprawl.
More dense cities, more mixed use planning, more active transportation, less detached housing, less parking etc. are ways in which developed countries could really reduce their transportation carbon footprints (and incidentally also footprints related to AC/heating).
> Tesla made some people want an electric car really badly
The emphasis here is on some people.
Observe the morons who think they are clever/funny "rolling coal".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK6Amk4Hf4Y
My personal belief is that all governments should implement carbon tax/trading schemes which are either revenue neutral or 100% of the revenue is invested into carbon capture schemes.
The emphasis here is on some people.
Observe the morons who think they are clever/funny "rolling coal".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK6Amk4Hf4Y
My personal belief is that all governments should implement carbon tax/trading schemes which are either revenue neutral or 100% of the revenue is invested into carbon capture schemes.
Indeed, getting emissions under control is key. And so are developing solutions to removing carbon from the ambient air, with fewer than 2,000 people working in the industry worldwide.
Regarding your point about carbon capture, XPRIZE recently closed a $20 million prize for making products out of carbon emissions captured at industrial sources: https://www.xprize.org/prizes/carbon/articles/xprize-announc...
Regarding your point about carbon capture, XPRIZE recently closed a $20 million prize for making products out of carbon emissions captured at industrial sources: https://www.xprize.org/prizes/carbon/articles/xprize-announc...
And it's futile if we don't start removing C02 from the atmosphere. I'd rather bet on C02 removal than anything else.
(Side note: it's CO2, carbon+(oxide×2), not C zero two)
It's not futile if we don't remove atmospheric CO2, but we would have to get to net zero warming without cheating and we would have to get there within our emission budget to stay below <insert your temperature target>.
It's not futile if we don't remove atmospheric CO2, but we would have to get to net zero warming without cheating and we would have to get there within our emission budget to stay below <insert your temperature target>.
> What if we need systematic memetic engineering, to make lower energy consumption actually feel desirable?
lol, there has been an unrelenting campaign to do so, going all the way back to the 70s - when global cooling and population control were the hot topics at Davos. Captain Planet, he's our hero, gonna take pollution down to zero...
I'm all for abandoning conspicuous consumption and the treatment of electronics as consumable goods (sent from 2011 vintage Thinkpad), but I'm not on board with weird its-for-your-own-good social engineering/propaganda campaigns. It is a moot point anyway, as you'd be impotently counter-messaging every advertising/branding strategy that has (or will) ever exist.
lol, there has been an unrelenting campaign to do so, going all the way back to the 70s - when global cooling and population control were the hot topics at Davos. Captain Planet, he's our hero, gonna take pollution down to zero...
I'm all for abandoning conspicuous consumption and the treatment of electronics as consumable goods (sent from 2011 vintage Thinkpad), but I'm not on board with weird its-for-your-own-good social engineering/propaganda campaigns. It is a moot point anyway, as you'd be impotently counter-messaging every advertising/branding strategy that has (or will) ever exist.
> Our 2019 emissions were ~36 gigatons
The plants absorb about 25% of that and the oceans another 25%. If we absorb 10 gigatons yearly by 2050, that might be good enough.
The plants absorb about 25% of that and the oceans another 25%. If we absorb 10 gigatons yearly by 2050, that might be good enough.
Surely dissolving CO2 in the ocean acts as a buffer, not a sink? We will have to stop emitting all of that CO2 as well (and future generations will have to sequester it).
The net absorption / emission from the biosphere involves a lot of emission following from our changes to the planet. We can significantly reduce our emissions (and slowly recover some of them) with better stewardship of the environment but there is a risk to the sequestered carbon: eg. where climate change causes forests to die and release most of their stored carbon.
Moreover, higher CO2 content in the oceans leads to acidification. This is bad for coral and organisms that build shells. I don't recall the exact reason but my understanding is that it tends to dissolve carbonates.
Wait, 36 originally × .75 from plants × .75 from oceans - 10 captured = 20¼ Gt. I think you're off by about 10 Gt?
And that's assuming the ocean and plants will infinitely capture more and more carbon, which I sincerely doubt as well, but I'll go ahead and assume you mean this as a bridging method to get us another decade or two to finalize real solutions.
And that's assuming the ocean and plants will infinitely capture more and more carbon, which I sincerely doubt as well, but I'll go ahead and assume you mean this as a bridging method to get us another decade or two to finalize real solutions.
it's actually 36 - (36x0.25) - (36x0.25) - 10 = 8.
But yeah, we would have to reduce our emissions by at least 8GT to get to zero. That is totally doable, advanced economies are already reducing CO2 at a faster rate than 25% over 30 years: the US has reduced it's emissions by 1GT in 10 years (16% reduction).
But yeah, we would have to reduce our emissions by at least 8GT to get to zero. That is totally doable, advanced economies are already reducing CO2 at a faster rate than 25% over 30 years: the US has reduced it's emissions by 1GT in 10 years (16% reduction).
If you absorb 25% (you wrote "plants absorb about 25%" and same for trees), then 75% remains, so apply ×0.75 twice instead of applying ×0.25 twice.
but that's not how it works...plants absorb a quarter of total emissions and the oceans about a quarter too. So half the emissions are absorbed, and half are not.
I think you're making a very common mistake, which is misunderstanding the carbon cycle.
We could, theoretically, grow enough plants to get down to pre-industrial levels. However, plants decompose when they die, re-releasing their carbon into the atmosphere, and lots of the plants alive to die are grown using petrochemical fertilizer, which was taken from under the ground, not the atmosphere.. So, we'd have to keep all of those new plants alive, forever, or maintain that extreme level of plant growth forever. This seems like an even harder problem.
We could, theoretically, grow enough plants to get down to pre-industrial levels. However, plants decompose when they die, re-releasing their carbon into the atmosphere, and lots of the plants alive to die are grown using petrochemical fertilizer, which was taken from under the ground, not the atmosphere.. So, we'd have to keep all of those new plants alive, forever, or maintain that extreme level of plant growth forever. This seems like an even harder problem.
You're oversimplifying it. First of all, the ocean is a sink for CO2, it absorbs it and mix it down in the depths, not release it back.
Plants don't sequester the carbon, like you said. But on the other hand, the extra CO2 is causing a bigger plant mass growth. So called greening of the deserts (but not just deserts). So basically the living biosphere is growing and absorbing CO2 as it does, because it can.
The plants evolved when there was more CO2 around, 200-300 is very close to starvation, they thrive in 1000+ environments.
Total Earth biomass is 550 gigatons, much larger than 36 which is what we emit every year. But obviously it cannot keep up...since the year 1750 we emitted 1700 gigatons, so more than 3 times the weight of the biosphere. That being said, I can see how the biosphere can grow by 2% with all the extra CO2 and go from 550 to 560, 570 and so on.
Plants don't sequester the carbon, like you said. But on the other hand, the extra CO2 is causing a bigger plant mass growth. So called greening of the deserts (but not just deserts). So basically the living biosphere is growing and absorbing CO2 as it does, because it can.
The plants evolved when there was more CO2 around, 200-300 is very close to starvation, they thrive in 1000+ environments.
Total Earth biomass is 550 gigatons, much larger than 36 which is what we emit every year. But obviously it cannot keep up...since the year 1750 we emitted 1700 gigatons, so more than 3 times the weight of the biosphere. That being said, I can see how the biosphere can grow by 2% with all the extra CO2 and go from 550 to 560, 570 and so on.
The limiting factor for plant growth isn't carbon, it's nitrogen.
While that is true for a lot of circumstances, in others the addition of CO2 helps the plants survive droughts and other conditions easier.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
https://theconversation.com/yes-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-a...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
https://theconversation.com/yes-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-a...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950
Elon tweeted about making rocket fuel out of arrested carbon. This technology could, it seems, be used outside earth as well (other planets, not space).
There's a few "Plants and trees won't do" comments here, which really misses the entire point of regenerative methods. Earth is an entire complex living system. Thinking of it as a simple chemical matter of CO2 is a very reductionist take. The point is to sequester carbon but ALSO trigger other cooling dynamics and reducing certain industrial practices that themselves release CO2. Too many engineers need to study complex systems and holistic approaches. The amount of patronizing makes me think of the fatal engineering flaw of "It can't be this simple".
Nevertheless, plants and trees won't do it. They grow pretty much everywhere already where they can. Nature is better at reclaiming those areas than we are - there are an estimated three trillion trees in the world.
Then there's the problem that there's no significant process that turns trees into sequestered carbon for longer than the trees' lifespan.
The reason it's important to keep saying this is that lots of people participate in these tree planting drives. They feel all accomplished and that they did their part. But if that doesn't have any real impact on the problem, then we've done lots of work, used up people's goodwill, but not dented the problem.
Then there's the problem that there's no significant process that turns trees into sequestered carbon for longer than the trees' lifespan.
The reason it's important to keep saying this is that lots of people participate in these tree planting drives. They feel all accomplished and that they did their part. But if that doesn't have any real impact on the problem, then we've done lots of work, used up people's goodwill, but not dented the problem.
> there's no significant process that turns trees into sequestered carbon for longer than the trees' lifespan.
There is of course lumber, which can sequester CO2 for decades or hundreds of years. Lumber sequestration currently only amounts to ~1% of global annual carbon emissions, but regionally it can be big (9% in Sweden) [1]. Lumber might have a bigger impact if purposefully employed for sequestration and prioritized over other carbon positive building materials.
1 https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14526
There is of course lumber, which can sequester CO2 for decades or hundreds of years. Lumber sequestration currently only amounts to ~1% of global annual carbon emissions, but regionally it can be big (9% in Sweden) [1]. Lumber might have a bigger impact if purposefully employed for sequestration and prioritized over other carbon positive building materials.
1 https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14526
> They feel all accomplished and that they did their part. But if that doesn't have any real impact on the problem, then we've done lots of work, used up people's goodwill, but not dented the problem.
Does the evidence support that people's goodwill get "used up"?
It seems as plausible a theory to me that, when people get involved and take direct action, it ends up driving them to take further actions. Being personally invested in the result may drive more action rather than using up the goodwill.
(To be clear, I agree that we should always encourage action with the highest impact, and if tree planting actually does nothing to help solve the problem, then we should direct people to other activities. I'm not really jumping in to defend tree-planting initiatives, but more to question the assumption that people have a fixed amount of effort that they're willing to put into a given problem)
Does the evidence support that people's goodwill get "used up"?
It seems as plausible a theory to me that, when people get involved and take direct action, it ends up driving them to take further actions. Being personally invested in the result may drive more action rather than using up the goodwill.
(To be clear, I agree that we should always encourage action with the highest impact, and if tree planting actually does nothing to help solve the problem, then we should direct people to other activities. I'm not really jumping in to defend tree-planting initiatives, but more to question the assumption that people have a fixed amount of effort that they're willing to put into a given problem)
>Does the evidence support that people's goodwill get "used up"?
That's a good question. I assume it will be both for different groups of people. From my personal experience it seems to be that way, but I'm unaware of any studies on the subject.
That's a good question. I assume it will be both for different groups of people. From my personal experience it seems to be that way, but I'm unaware of any studies on the subject.
Yep, I have no idea which would have a more significant impact.
Both seem reasonably plausible to me. I'd definitely be interested in what the results turn out to be!
Both seem reasonably plausible to me. I'd definitely be interested in what the results turn out to be!
It's true that there are "other cooling dynamics".
But most of those don't involve trees. And "reducing certain industrial practices" has nothing to do with trees.
So I don't really understand your point. It's correct that we shouldn't be too reductionist, but even if we avoid reductionism it's still correct to say that plants and trees won't do the job, and is not "missing the entire point of regenerative methods".
But most of those don't involve trees. And "reducing certain industrial practices" has nothing to do with trees.
So I don't really understand your point. It's correct that we shouldn't be too reductionist, but even if we avoid reductionism it's still correct to say that plants and trees won't do the job, and is not "missing the entire point of regenerative methods".
Trees actually can provide tremendous cooling dynamics, beyond CO2 absorption. They provide shade at ground level. If every house in the US were surrounded by trees instead of useless lawns, energy use for both heating and cooling would be lower, so you’d get emissions reductions AND carbon absorption.
Also through evapotranspiration.
Tree effectively swampcoolers.
Tree effectively swampcoolers.
Thank you, you have put it well. By no means I'm nature-knows-best person. But in this case nature does a great job in 'removing' CO2 by expending the least energy, with the least negative impact (actually a net positive) to the environment. Of course it's more nuanced than what even I stated.
A wise engineer realizes the breadth of the issues and the 'true' engineering approach IMO will necessarily involve ( but not limited) a lot of trees/plants/algae etc.
Highly recommend Thinking in Systems or Limits to Growth, both by Donella Meadows.
Plant and trees are definitely a very good solution. The real engineering challenge is really : 1. how to measure precisely how much carbon is in that tree and this other one here. 2. how to plant them efficiently so you can remove 1000T of co2 per year.
Most types of carbon capture technology [1] being touted are credit cards for climate change:
You burn enough fuel to generate 4MJ worth of heat...
Your internal combustion engine generates 1MJ worth of mechanical effort from this...
You use this to propel a 2 ton vehicle...
Carrying 1 person...
To take part in the rat race or indulge in some consumerism. [2]
The carbon dioxide sits in the atmosphere for 50 years where it heats the planet, trashes the ecosystem and likely feeds at least as many positive feedbacks as negative - amplifying the climate change effects.
To capture this carbon you (your descendants) are going to have to: Put 4MJ of energy into the breaking the carbon-oxygen bonds... Which will take more than 4MJ of process energy and embodied energy in the capital plant... Once you have collected the diffuse CO2 from the atmosphere, which will not be free.
Our 'plan' for dealing with climate change is that we hand a burning planet to our descendants to deal with, if we can stagger to hand-off without crashing the system first. Future generations will have to be far more responsible than us, for centuries, and imagining what they will have to say makes me squirm.
[1] I am mildly optimistic about techniques that accelerate the weathering of (silicate?) rocks; and more trees will be nice. These technologies will be useful for the centuries of cleanup that will be needed, but cannot keep up with the huge rate of current emission.
[2] Yes, much of our current consumption delivers real benefits to people's lives; but much (most) of it doesn't. The point of my analogy is that the sheer wastefulness of the present excess will be paid for in the future at far greater cost and is being spent on such trivial or actively harmful goals.
The carbon dioxide sits in the atmosphere for 50 years where it heats the planet, trashes the ecosystem and likely feeds at least as many positive feedbacks as negative - amplifying the climate change effects.
To capture this carbon you (your descendants) are going to have to: Put 4MJ of energy into the breaking the carbon-oxygen bonds... Which will take more than 4MJ of process energy and embodied energy in the capital plant... Once you have collected the diffuse CO2 from the atmosphere, which will not be free.
Our 'plan' for dealing with climate change is that we hand a burning planet to our descendants to deal with, if we can stagger to hand-off without crashing the system first. Future generations will have to be far more responsible than us, for centuries, and imagining what they will have to say makes me squirm.
[1] I am mildly optimistic about techniques that accelerate the weathering of (silicate?) rocks; and more trees will be nice. These technologies will be useful for the centuries of cleanup that will be needed, but cannot keep up with the huge rate of current emission.
[2] Yes, much of our current consumption delivers real benefits to people's lives; but much (most) of it doesn't. The point of my analogy is that the sheer wastefulness of the present excess will be paid for in the future at far greater cost and is being spent on such trivial or actively harmful goals.
Genuine question - if CO2 half life in the atmosphere is less than 50 years, why are we so concerned about it? Wouldn’t the problem solve itself given that we are both reaching peak consumption of fossil fuels and that they are expected to deplete with the next century?
In other words, wouldn’t the co2 concentration go down naturally within the next 100 years even if we let thing run naturally?
In other words, wouldn’t the co2 concentration go down naturally within the next 100 years even if we let thing run naturally?
Because if it’s somewhat true to say that stopping CO2 emissions would rapidly pause climate change, there is no short term « reverse » (in hundreds of years) of the climate.
We are in such a situation that every +0.01°C increase in global warming is gained more or less indefinitely.
The only thing we can do is stopping net emissions and learn to live with the climate as it is when we achieve this.
We really don’t care a lot about concentrations going down in the next centuries because by the time it happens, the harm would be done already for multiple centuries.
We are really facing today, 50°C in summer and devastating events, for our generation and our kids. This precise battle is already lost but we must fight for it to not be even more dramatic.
We are in such a situation that every +0.01°C increase in global warming is gained more or less indefinitely.
The only thing we can do is stopping net emissions and learn to live with the climate as it is when we achieve this.
We really don’t care a lot about concentrations going down in the next centuries because by the time it happens, the harm would be done already for multiple centuries.
We are really facing today, 50°C in summer and devastating events, for our generation and our kids. This precise battle is already lost but we must fight for it to not be even more dramatic.
50 years was my (over optimistic) estimate of how long the CO2 would be left in the atmosphere before being sequestered by one of the carbon removal technologies being touted. In reality it's going to take centuries for our descendants to stabilise the climate - and I'm still being optimistic.
[deleted]
On short time scales, the oceans take up a lot of CO2 because there's an equilibrium with the atmosphere. However, increased acidification of the oceans is bad on its own, and this buffering hurts when you try to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere since then the oceans will turn into a net contributor.
It looks as though those numbers are mistaken.
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/02/26/ghg_lifetimes/
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/02/26/ghg_lifetimes/
This article seems to conflate "Time it takes for 50% of the CO2 increase to be removed from the atmosphere" with "time it takes a specific molecule that was released to the atmosphere to be removed".
The former is more relevant to the discussion, and is stated as ~30 years.
The former is more relevant to the discussion, and is stated as ~30 years.
CO2 half life is 5,000 years. Methane is 50 years.
Lot's of "just do this" comments in here. If its as easy as you think it is, then winning the grand prize should be pretty easy.
Do the math, grab an investor and go get $100M.
"Just plant trees." Okay do the math on how many trees you need. Figure out how your going to build a program to get that many trees planted. What incentives, partnership, funding do you need. How will it scale to the amount needed. What will the full lifecycle look like.
"Just improve soil." Okay do the math on that. What's the timeframe for return on investment. What do the logistics look like for producing soil in huge quantities and deploying it where needed. How do we then use that soil to grow plants that sequester carbon.
90% of the comments in here are just the "middle-brow dismissal" of climate change of all things. As if we can "just do X" to solve it and everyone else is an idiot.
It's a hard problem, especially because part of the problem is determining how to actually implement and incentivize the population to do it. You can't just ignore that part, or just throw up your hands "people are stupid so we're fucked." Solving the incentive problem is actually part of the problem. Any solution that ends with "people just need to learn to do/value X" is dead in the water. You can start with "people just need to learn to do/value X" but you need to end with a plan on how you will bring about that change in mentality/incentive.
Do the math, grab an investor and go get $100M.
"Just plant trees." Okay do the math on how many trees you need. Figure out how your going to build a program to get that many trees planted. What incentives, partnership, funding do you need. How will it scale to the amount needed. What will the full lifecycle look like.
"Just improve soil." Okay do the math on that. What's the timeframe for return on investment. What do the logistics look like for producing soil in huge quantities and deploying it where needed. How do we then use that soil to grow plants that sequester carbon.
90% of the comments in here are just the "middle-brow dismissal" of climate change of all things. As if we can "just do X" to solve it and everyone else is an idiot.
It's a hard problem, especially because part of the problem is determining how to actually implement and incentivize the population to do it. You can't just ignore that part, or just throw up your hands "people are stupid so we're fucked." Solving the incentive problem is actually part of the problem. Any solution that ends with "people just need to learn to do/value X" is dead in the water. You can start with "people just need to learn to do/value X" but you need to end with a plan on how you will bring about that change in mentality/incentive.
Agree with this. It's a hard problem. Have an idea for something better? Heck yeah, let's figure out how to get you working on it! If folks want help getting started, there's no place better than AirMiners: http://airminers.org
Let's get to work.
Let's get to work.
I don't mean to be a wet blanket (I imagine the prize will be a net good) but I want to talk into the void about something I've been befuddled by...
I feel like I see/hear a lot of uncritical faith in (techno|market|competition)-solutions, with little discussion of what Nth-order effects may travel with those approaches. Just some scattered thoughts:
- The best case for progress is probably technology that leads to profitable unsubsidized capture, but incremental technological progress may give the industry that springs up around it profit motives to overshoot.
- Profitable capture would, if fossil-fuel producers get in on the action themselves, shift their break-even points around somewhat.
- Even if this operates at a loss and depends on public funding, if the work is done by private industry and not the public sector, a few decades of capture may avert/blunt the crisis but leave us with yet another powerful lobby. It'll likely be flush with good-will and hard to regulate, let alone wind down once it has served its use.
- As @knodi123 puts it: "I can not-pump 100M of oil in my own back yard. And you wouldn't believe the rate I can not pump it at!" If all of the operators depend on subsidy, there will be a decent incentive towards graft/corruption/fraud. There'll have to be some amount of administrative overhead going to verifying what is captured, that it isn't double-counted, that it actually gets sequestered, and so on. A deepening crisis could mean more of this money sloshing around and less will to build the compliance mechanisms that ensure it accomplishes the goal. Rampant graft could be enough to sink the program.
I feel like I see/hear a lot of uncritical faith in (techno|market|competition)-solutions, with little discussion of what Nth-order effects may travel with those approaches. Just some scattered thoughts:
- The best case for progress is probably technology that leads to profitable unsubsidized capture, but incremental technological progress may give the industry that springs up around it profit motives to overshoot.
- Profitable capture would, if fossil-fuel producers get in on the action themselves, shift their break-even points around somewhat.
- Even if this operates at a loss and depends on public funding, if the work is done by private industry and not the public sector, a few decades of capture may avert/blunt the crisis but leave us with yet another powerful lobby. It'll likely be flush with good-will and hard to regulate, let alone wind down once it has served its use.
- As @knodi123 puts it: "I can not-pump 100M of oil in my own back yard. And you wouldn't believe the rate I can not pump it at!" If all of the operators depend on subsidy, there will be a decent incentive towards graft/corruption/fraud. There'll have to be some amount of administrative overhead going to verifying what is captured, that it isn't double-counted, that it actually gets sequestered, and so on. A deepening crisis could mean more of this money sloshing around and less will to build the compliance mechanisms that ensure it accomplishes the goal. Rampant graft could be enough to sink the program.
With the exception of the last item, these are all problems I would love to have considering our current situation. Graft and administrative burden is a real concern, though, although I don't think it should stop us from trying.
For sure. I don't see these as comprehensive, nor as reasons not to try (nor even think it'd be possible to stop others from trying them).
But I worry that this path is already the one we're disposed to fail/default into, and that a rose-tinted view of it will only make it easier for other opportunities slip through our fingers while gobs of smart people focus on the technological half of the moon-shot.
Put another way, the degree of optimism I hear on these approaches smells like the kind of hubris that causes people to lose races they think they've won.
But I worry that this path is already the one we're disposed to fail/default into, and that a rose-tinted view of it will only make it easier for other opportunities slip through our fingers while gobs of smart people focus on the technological half of the moon-shot.
Put another way, the degree of optimism I hear on these approaches smells like the kind of hubris that causes people to lose races they think they've won.
There shouldn't be subsidies anywhere near producers. The emissions end should be handled entirely via taxes.
This comment makes me think you may reading me differently than I intend, though I'm not sure which bit you're responding to. Perhaps my use of the word "operators"?
In any case, I do not intend to suggest any subsidy to fossil fuel producers, here. When I say operators, I mean the operators of capture operations. The only context in which I intentionally point to producers is around the possibility that they might also become capture operators if it was profitable.
In any case, I do not intend to suggest any subsidy to fossil fuel producers, here. When I say operators, I mean the operators of capture operations. The only context in which I intentionally point to producers is around the possibility that they might also become capture operators if it was profitable.
You quoted someone talking about not-pumping oil as part of your line about subsidies. That's on the production side.
Yes. @knodi123 is joking about fraud. I am talking about fraud.
And I'm saying that kind of fraud shouldn't be a worry, because there shouldn't be any money at all for reducing/preventing production.
It's easy to provide proof of capture. 2266 kilo one-cubic-meter cubes of carbon, by the billions. Preferably stacked into interesting and eye-pleasing shapes.
Casually building pyramids out of the ~57 cubic kilometers of carbon blocks would be pretty neat. three 4 kilometer tall square based pyramids would do it.
They would also be the largest structures ever built by humanity by an order of magnitude.
Casually building pyramids out of the ~57 cubic kilometers of carbon blocks would be pretty neat. three 4 kilometer tall square based pyramids would do it.
They would also be the largest structures ever built by humanity by an order of magnitude.
[deleted]
Interesting. The grand prize timeline is 4 years from now. That seems VERY fast. However, I like the aggressiveness- if this can produce viable demonstrations of the technology at anywhere near what the aformentioned Prometheus Fuels ($36/ton) claims, then that produces a huge line in the sand for policy makers on carbon pricing and mitigation.
$36/ton would raise the price of gasoline about 36 cents. The cost to capture ALL 6.5B tons of US emissions would be about $236B per year, or 1.1% of GDP. I think even getting it down to a $100/ton would change the discussion.
These are real, manageable numbers that should undermine opposition to mitigating climate change and get something resembling a carbon tax based on a feasible number. Policies like "A 39 cent/gallon tax on gasoline" is much more understandable and politically feasible then "you'll have to change everything you do." And then, once in place, we'll see the economic effects of taxing carbon accelerate movement away from carbon emitting solutions, which are already becoming non-competitive in many scenarios.
None of this means we shouldn't do things SOONER, espicially since DACC might never get that cheap, but I like the way this XPrize has the potential to change people's political calculus.
Sources: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php#:...
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas....
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?location...
$36/ton would raise the price of gasoline about 36 cents. The cost to capture ALL 6.5B tons of US emissions would be about $236B per year, or 1.1% of GDP. I think even getting it down to a $100/ton would change the discussion.
These are real, manageable numbers that should undermine opposition to mitigating climate change and get something resembling a carbon tax based on a feasible number. Policies like "A 39 cent/gallon tax on gasoline" is much more understandable and politically feasible then "you'll have to change everything you do." And then, once in place, we'll see the economic effects of taxing carbon accelerate movement away from carbon emitting solutions, which are already becoming non-competitive in many scenarios.
None of this means we shouldn't do things SOONER, espicially since DACC might never get that cheap, but I like the way this XPrize has the potential to change people's political calculus.
Sources: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php#:...
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas....
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?location...
I am skeptical of the $36/ton claim.
The elephant in the room is that most of the proposed process chemistry does not have the necessary scale. If I need a billion tons of mined mineral per year to make a dent -- the reality for many of these proposals -- and current global production is a few thousand tons, you have a serious practicality problem. Not only would you need to develop those mines and the corresponding power generation facilities to manufacture the chemicals (which is energy intensive), we may not have the necessary mineral reserves. Addressing these all require massive amounts of capital investment that are not included in the cost per ton of the process at current scales. Buying a liter of water has completely different economics than buying a trillion liters of the same water, and the cost is always calculated as if it was the former case.
While recycling of reactant chemicals is always a part of these proposals, they are typically only ~90% efficient as designed (each marginal increase in recycling efficiency tends to be exponentially more expensive). At the scales involved, that requires billions of tons of reactants being produced that don't exist today. It would be the largest mining and chemical manufacturing endeavor ever undertaken on the planet, starting from zero.
The elephant in the room is that most of the proposed process chemistry does not have the necessary scale. If I need a billion tons of mined mineral per year to make a dent -- the reality for many of these proposals -- and current global production is a few thousand tons, you have a serious practicality problem. Not only would you need to develop those mines and the corresponding power generation facilities to manufacture the chemicals (which is energy intensive), we may not have the necessary mineral reserves. Addressing these all require massive amounts of capital investment that are not included in the cost per ton of the process at current scales. Buying a liter of water has completely different economics than buying a trillion liters of the same water, and the cost is always calculated as if it was the former case.
While recycling of reactant chemicals is always a part of these proposals, they are typically only ~90% efficient as designed (each marginal increase in recycling efficiency tends to be exponentially more expensive). At the scales involved, that requires billions of tons of reactants being produced that don't exist today. It would be the largest mining and chemical manufacturing endeavor ever undertaken on the planet, starting from zero.
Is that price net of the carbon put into the environment by he energy used by this tech?
What we need is a cryptocurrency that is somehow mined by pulling carbon out of the atmosphere.
Honestly, that's /precisely/ the type of thinking that we need more of.
There's a lot of great work on the "this is a huge problem, how do we fix it?" side of things; we need to keep encouraging more on the "there's an abundance of this stuff that people consider bad and worthless, how can I use it?" side of things.
There's a lot of great work on the "this is a huge problem, how do we fix it?" side of things; we need to keep encouraging more on the "there's an abundance of this stuff that people consider bad and worthless, how can I use it?" side of things.
Sadly I think this would cause a cobra effect and people would start creating carbon emissions to mine it more cost effectively
Imagine a world where people are creating 36000000000000 kilograms of snakes every year
What if say california's cap and trade carbon credits were distributed to all residents of california (as a crypto token?) as opposed to e.g. tesla? Then polluters have to buy them still, but from residents (instead of e.g. tesla)...
carbon coin concept explored by the amazing Kim Stanley Robinson: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50998056-the-ministry-fo...
how would you prevent people from creating carbon just to remove it?
Producers must somehow more than pay for sequesters to sequest. The technical details confound me right now.
Imagine if every CO2 molecule were somehow unique: carrying with it a physical hash that could cheaply identify the processes that produced it. In this scenario, such an economy would become feasible.
To reduce complexity and cost, it needn't be every molecule. Say just one in a quadrillion, at an exactly fixed rate.
Of course CO2 is actually generic, as far as I know. Yet with only one wave of the magic wand, an economic solution has appeared.
Assuming regulatory and societal support, which should be forthcoming in this current climate (pun intended).
Imagine if every CO2 molecule were somehow unique: carrying with it a physical hash that could cheaply identify the processes that produced it. In this scenario, such an economy would become feasible.
To reduce complexity and cost, it needn't be every molecule. Say just one in a quadrillion, at an exactly fixed rate.
Of course CO2 is actually generic, as far as I know. Yet with only one wave of the magic wand, an economic solution has appeared.
Assuming regulatory and societal support, which should be forthcoming in this current climate (pun intended).
Carbon tax + petrol cost > Carbon sequestration subsidy
I'm laughing but honest to god I think this could work...somehow.
Yes, this seems to have potential.
The beauty of proof of work is the hashing algo is both 1) very hard to solve and 2) very easy to verify by anyone anywhere.
Furthermore, 3) miners have a financial incentive to solve the algo and 4) They may do so in anyway they see fit.
At a minimum a crypto-like solution should have these four properties.
Now we already have a lot of unpaid CO2 miners (plants) doing it inefficiently, ad hoc and short-term. The first stage should be to allow these to opt in to get rewarded. Like you could mine bitcoin with spare CPU back in the day.
The beauty of proof of work is the hashing algo is both 1) very hard to solve and 2) very easy to verify by anyone anywhere.
Furthermore, 3) miners have a financial incentive to solve the algo and 4) They may do so in anyway they see fit.
At a minimum a crypto-like solution should have these four properties.
Now we already have a lot of unpaid CO2 miners (plants) doing it inefficiently, ad hoc and short-term. The first stage should be to allow these to opt in to get rewarded. Like you could mine bitcoin with spare CPU back in the day.
Why not just turn CO2 into a currency directly then? Your "proof of work" is the CO2 you sequestrated and can sell to someone else.
I think it's for the same reasons we tend to abstract currencies away from their underpinning scarce resources. Convenience, scale, efficiency.
Most mining devices don't actually ever successfully win a single bitcoin. But they get paid pro rata for their contribution to the combined hashing power, which did.
For miners in a pool hashing power is the saleable commodity. Perhaps this was the point you were making.
Even if it didn't fulfill its potential (yet), we must remember what made bitcoin so special: eliminating the double-spend and central authority problems. How do you intend to sell your sequestered CO2 and prove that it's still yours to sell?
This is all hypothetical anyway. To my knowledge there's no scheme that satisfies those criteria wrt proof of sequestration.
Most mining devices don't actually ever successfully win a single bitcoin. But they get paid pro rata for their contribution to the combined hashing power, which did.
For miners in a pool hashing power is the saleable commodity. Perhaps this was the point you were making.
Even if it didn't fulfill its potential (yet), we must remember what made bitcoin so special: eliminating the double-spend and central authority problems. How do you intend to sell your sequestered CO2 and prove that it's still yours to sell?
This is all hypothetical anyway. To my knowledge there's no scheme that satisfies those criteria wrt proof of sequestration.
There are all kinds of perverse incentives there. Oil is a great way to sequester CO2, but pumping it out of the ground doesn't help our problems. Yet it would still be valid currency.
You could ban oil as a store, but people will use it as a power source for net positive emissions processes to sequester CO2 in another form.
It also makes money laundering laughably easy (plant trees). Then again, maybe we care less if we can turn that money towards good.
And there are also the general issues with using a physical currency. It's hard to transact across distances. You could do a bank-like system, but at that point it starts to look like carbon credits and calls into question the necessity of a parallel currency.
You could ban oil as a store, but people will use it as a power source for net positive emissions processes to sequester CO2 in another form.
It also makes money laundering laughably easy (plant trees). Then again, maybe we care less if we can turn that money towards good.
And there are also the general issues with using a physical currency. It's hard to transact across distances. You could do a bank-like system, but at that point it starts to look like carbon credits and calls into question the necessity of a parallel currency.
DiamondCoin: The world's first cryptocurrency based on Proof of Carbon.
I'm curious to hear what people here think of Project Vesta? https://www.projectvesta.org/
(No affiliation, just intrigued by what they're promising)
(No affiliation, just intrigued by what they're promising)
We need 1000 shots on goal to get to gigaton scale carbon removal. Project Vesta builds on decades of academic research in olivine weathering that was itching for field trials and scale up. 999 more shots like this and we'll get there.
Olivine has great potential (although it takes a while - up to 1000 years - to reach maximum sequestration).
Project vesta tries to use the sea and waves to accelerate this process. It's a bit of an unproven experiment however it definitely has potential and needs supporting to prove the hypothesis and improve the method.
Project vesta tries to use the sea and waves to accelerate this process. It's a bit of an unproven experiment however it definitely has potential and needs supporting to prove the hypothesis and improve the method.
It's one of the best options we know that could work. Basically grind up readily available basalt with technology we already have at scale and dump it into the oceans and onto agricultural soils - which is quite beneficial for soil structure, too. But I'm afraid it's not going to be sexy enough for technocratic phantasies and it cannot be monetized through some kind of futuristic looking devices.
I’m very excited about them as a possibility (I think there’s another thread about them on HN?) but so much is unproven. We have no idea how much carbon the sand will absorb, or how fast, or how much it might mess with oceans along the way (it could be a positive because it would help fix ocean acidification, but it is a major mineral and ph modification to a complex system). No solution is as good as emissions reductions
I love this project. But I worry they are going to have trouble getting permission to scale this up. I read that the amount of kg of Carbon sequestered per kg of Olivine put down is roughly 1:1. Let's say the average American has an annual carbon footprint of 16 tonnes. Maybe we can aim to reduce that to 10 with lifestyle changes such as cutting out most meat and driving electric. That is still 10 tons of Olivine each American is effectively going to have to put on a beach somewhere per year to be carbon neutral. I'm personally totally OK with turning all our beaches green if they can show it doesn't damage ecosystems but I can guarantee you there will be a lot of NIMBYism pushing back against this.
Don't get me wrong it's possibly a great weapon against clime change and we are going to need every single one.
Don't get me wrong it's possibly a great weapon against clime change and we are going to need every single one.
most of the plans to sequester carbon in the ocean make me worry about how that would impact the broader ecosystem. As I understand it, it would change the chemistry of the ocean, which might trade one disaster for another. Not to mention ideally sequestration would last for millennia.
We’re already sequestering a quarter of the CO2 in the ocean; this will do so in a safer way that mimics the large scale natural process that’d happen over the next few millennia anyways.
well scaling a natural process will change the chemistry of the ocean. Since the ocean is such a huge component of our planetary system it would be foolish of us to approach it without monitoring and planning for the consequences of this scale of engineering.
i've found https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.energy... to be a pretty good overview.
i've found https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.energy... to be a pretty good overview.
I'm curious what people here think about their own role in a prize like this. Are you interested in joining a team? Starting a company? Working on gigaton scale carbon removal?
I've been working on carbon removal for the past few years, eager to help anyone who is considering actually making a leap into this industry for their own curiosity or even career.
That said there are plenty of other massive juicy challenges facing the climate. Whatever you choose, good luck!
I've been working on carbon removal for the past few years, eager to help anyone who is considering actually making a leap into this industry for their own curiosity or even career.
That said there are plenty of other massive juicy challenges facing the climate. Whatever you choose, good luck!
I choose to help people support a portfolio of carbon removal at https://carbonremoved.com
If you're working on carbon removal or want to support carbon removal please feel free to email me directly:
ewan (at) above website
If you're working on carbon removal or want to support carbon removal please feel free to email me directly:
ewan (at) above website
Great initiative!
I offset my emissions with Wren (https://wren.co – I am not affiliated) and wonder how it compares to Carbon Removed. My current plan there is ~$23 to offset 200% of my emissions for a total of 1.3 tons of CO2/month (if that seems low: I have no car, no commute, live in a 1-bedroom apartment and rarely eat meat).
The plans for Carbon Removed are at $15 for 100 kg, $42 for 300 kg, and $65 for 500 kg. Why such a difference? That's $0.13-0.15/kg for Carbon Removed and $0.018/kg at Wren.
Where is the difference coming from?
I offset my emissions with Wren (https://wren.co – I am not affiliated) and wonder how it compares to Carbon Removed. My current plan there is ~$23 to offset 200% of my emissions for a total of 1.3 tons of CO2/month (if that seems low: I have no car, no commute, live in a 1-bedroom apartment and rarely eat meat).
The plans for Carbon Removed are at $15 for 100 kg, $42 for 300 kg, and $65 for 500 kg. Why such a difference? That's $0.13-0.15/kg for Carbon Removed and $0.018/kg at Wren.
Where is the difference coming from?
Thanks for your feedback and great news that you are already taking responsibility for your footprint.
A key difference between us and Wren (and other offset based services) is that we focus on carbon removal - actively undoing a carbon footprint, rather than offsetting it. The way we see it this way: if we emit a ton of CO₂, we should remove a ton resulting in 0 emissions in the atmosphere. If we offset (by paying typically developing countries to change their behaviour), there is still a ton in the atmosphere.
As a result, sequestering carbon dioxide is much harder and expensive. For example, removing via Direct Air Capture is currently around $1000/ton. Via bio-oil is close to $700/ton. At the other end of the scale offsets are typically $32/ton.
I don't want to diminish the efforts of offsets - they have a place and help developing nations transition to more sustainable alternatives - but we want to focus on bringing carbon removal down the curve. To try and make this more affordable we also mix in calculated removals via forestation which is cheaper.
Does that make things a little clearer?
A key difference between us and Wren (and other offset based services) is that we focus on carbon removal - actively undoing a carbon footprint, rather than offsetting it. The way we see it this way: if we emit a ton of CO₂, we should remove a ton resulting in 0 emissions in the atmosphere. If we offset (by paying typically developing countries to change their behaviour), there is still a ton in the atmosphere.
As a result, sequestering carbon dioxide is much harder and expensive. For example, removing via Direct Air Capture is currently around $1000/ton. Via bio-oil is close to $700/ton. At the other end of the scale offsets are typically $32/ton.
I don't want to diminish the efforts of offsets - they have a place and help developing nations transition to more sustainable alternatives - but we want to focus on bringing carbon removal down the curve. To try and make this more affordable we also mix in calculated removals via forestation which is cheaper.
Does that make things a little clearer?
I get that carbon capture is very expensive and difficult, but surely planting trees does remove carbon from the atmosphere? That's where their biomass mostly comes from.
On my Wren profile, it says "Your annual carbon emissions are equivalent to..." with a few equivalent amounts like "18793 miles driven in a car" or "The amount of CO2 349 pine trees absorb in a year". So isn't planting 349 pine trees in a year offsetting my emissions, literally removing the CO2 my lifestyle produced? (maybe once they're grown).
If what you mean by offsets is more something like "pay to have N people switch to cleaner fuels instead of cooking with coal", then sure. But on Wren you can choose how to distribute the amount you pay; some can go to planting trees, some can go to cleaner fuels, or rainforest protection, etc.
I looked up other similar services yesterday and found Terrapass (https://www.terrapass.com/ – also not affiliated) and their plan for 13,000 lbs/year costs $4.86/month or $58.32/5,897kg or ≈ 1c/kg. That said, it wasn't exactly clear from a quick look whether it was lowering emissions by this amount of removing the same amount.
I do get your point though, and the distinction is definitely important. The name Carbon Removed certainly makes this goal clear. I wish other services clearly differentiated how much CO2 was actively removed per dollar spent.
In any case, best of luck! I'm glad to see more of these initiatives and wish you success.
On my Wren profile, it says "Your annual carbon emissions are equivalent to..." with a few equivalent amounts like "18793 miles driven in a car" or "The amount of CO2 349 pine trees absorb in a year". So isn't planting 349 pine trees in a year offsetting my emissions, literally removing the CO2 my lifestyle produced? (maybe once they're grown).
If what you mean by offsets is more something like "pay to have N people switch to cleaner fuels instead of cooking with coal", then sure. But on Wren you can choose how to distribute the amount you pay; some can go to planting trees, some can go to cleaner fuels, or rainforest protection, etc.
I looked up other similar services yesterday and found Terrapass (https://www.terrapass.com/ – also not affiliated) and their plan for 13,000 lbs/year costs $4.86/month or $58.32/5,897kg or ≈ 1c/kg. That said, it wasn't exactly clear from a quick look whether it was lowering emissions by this amount of removing the same amount.
I do get your point though, and the distinction is definitely important. The name Carbon Removed certainly makes this goal clear. I wish other services clearly differentiated how much CO2 was actively removed per dollar spent.
In any case, best of luck! I'm glad to see more of these initiatives and wish you success.
Trees definitely do capture CO₂ and sequester it away - that's why we also support them. However planting trees does not make up the majority of offsetting projects. Offsetting can and does include things like "not cutting down these trees", or "using drones to check trees are alive". Non-tree based offsets include things like "greener stoves" as you mentioned.
These all get certified that they do _something_ however the quantity of CO₂ mitigated is vague. Bloomberg actually did a short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20xMbGkEIQI) on how tree based offsets can be abused within the rules set out by the verification systems.
On top of this trees take time to reach maturity, die from disease & wildfires releasing their CO₂ and in some cases encourage farmers to deforest to replant for the offset credits.
This is all very negative but I am trying to provide the other side of the coin.
Trees are not enough to reverse the impact we, as a society, have had on the climate, but they are a very important part and should be supported. Our approach is to use forestation (we also double plant and calculate carbon sequestered over 10 years) in combination with much needed technological solutions to help develop them and bring them down the price curve.
Thank you so much for this discussion and your luck. Keep up the great work learning and doing good for the climate.
These all get certified that they do _something_ however the quantity of CO₂ mitigated is vague. Bloomberg actually did a short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20xMbGkEIQI) on how tree based offsets can be abused within the rules set out by the verification systems.
On top of this trees take time to reach maturity, die from disease & wildfires releasing their CO₂ and in some cases encourage farmers to deforest to replant for the offset credits.
This is all very negative but I am trying to provide the other side of the coin.
Trees are not enough to reverse the impact we, as a society, have had on the climate, but they are a very important part and should be supported. Our approach is to use forestation (we also double plant and calculate carbon sequestered over 10 years) in combination with much needed technological solutions to help develop them and bring them down the price curve.
Thank you so much for this discussion and your luck. Keep up the great work learning and doing good for the climate.
Nice work! Are you already on AirMiners? If not, you would fit right in. You're on it with all the replies the thread today...I'm replying opportunistically while sitting by a pool :D
[deleted]
[deleted]
> I've been working on carbon removal for the past few years
Great, guess you should tell more about your experience.
Great, guess you should tell more about your experience.
I've got a talk up here about my experience: https://www.ted.com/talks/tito_jankowski_take_carbon_out_of_...
> I've been working on carbon removal for the past few years
How? And can I join?
How? And can I join?
There's a 101 Guide listed on AirMiners (http://airminers.org). You can also browse the startup index there to get inspired.
One you go through that, there's a 5 week group discussion on carbon removal basics, check out AirMiners Boot Up: https://bootup.airminers.org/
One you go through that, there's a 5 week group discussion on carbon removal basics, check out AirMiners Boot Up: https://bootup.airminers.org/
For startups going after Elon's prize, AirMiners partnered with XPRIZE and CDL to create the AirMiners Launchpad. Founders should check out https://launchpad.airminers.org/
Applications for Batch #2 close August 31st
Also check out AirMiners, the hub for everything carbon removal at https://airminers.org/
And those who are interested in a 5 week group discussion on carbon removal basics check out Boot Up: https://bootup.airminers.org/
Also check out AirMiners, the hub for everything carbon removal at https://airminers.org/
And those who are interested in a 5 week group discussion on carbon removal basics check out Boot Up: https://bootup.airminers.org/
Is there a job board on the AirMiners website or have you considered making one? My guess is there's a lot of people like myself who'd be very interested in helping out in this field, but have no tech idea of my own, and don't even know how or if my (software development) skills would even be useful. If you're able to attract entrepreneurs with ideas worth exploring, maybe also help them hold up their banners for others to flock to?
That's helpful perspective, thanks!
AirMiners has a #jobs channel on Slack that's one of the most popular. However because it's on Slack means it's limited to people who are part of the AirMiners community. Which would miss folks like you!
I appreciate your perspective that someone with your background might not join AirMiners itself, but may be an excellent candidate for a job at a carbon removal company.
AirMiners has a #jobs channel on Slack that's one of the most popular. However because it's on Slack means it's limited to people who are part of the AirMiners community. Which would miss folks like you!
I appreciate your perspective that someone with your background might not join AirMiners itself, but may be an excellent candidate for a job at a carbon removal company.
Elon is such an amazing force in the world. This prize is great, and overdue. Not surprised to see Elon involved.
Everything he does is in some way to make the post-scarcity far future of The Culture more attainable.
For all of his social flaws this thought alone gives him my deep respect. I don't think he is infallible but in my opinion a lot of attempts at character assassination don't truly understand the underlying purpose of why he does what he does. I still look at developments in his companies with a critical eye - for example neuralink is rather close to making me uncomfortable with how soon we may have commerically viable high-speed BMI. And then I remember all the medical good that can be done with it. I am wary of Starlink interfering with space observation and science, and yet I can think of all the good that can come from more minds having better access to humanity's greatest learning tool, the internet.
He's not perfect, and I most certainly cannot defend the work ethic required of those employed under him. But if I were to have a chance to do it for a year, I would know the reasons I was going through it for.
For all of his social flaws this thought alone gives him my deep respect. I don't think he is infallible but in my opinion a lot of attempts at character assassination don't truly understand the underlying purpose of why he does what he does. I still look at developments in his companies with a critical eye - for example neuralink is rather close to making me uncomfortable with how soon we may have commerically viable high-speed BMI. And then I remember all the medical good that can be done with it. I am wary of Starlink interfering with space observation and science, and yet I can think of all the good that can come from more minds having better access to humanity's greatest learning tool, the internet.
He's not perfect, and I most certainly cannot defend the work ethic required of those employed under him. But if I were to have a chance to do it for a year, I would know the reasons I was going through it for.
The biggest problem with Elon and it's not just him or his fault is that the biggest barrier is our political systems. $100M is like a small city's annual budget. In Ashland, OR the city budget is $140M/year with about 20,000 residents. This prize is not going to solve anything. Even if Elon spent all of his money on this prize, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to how many resources our political systems control. As much as these well intentioned billionaires try, they're never going solve anything important.
I would say the measured impact of something like an xPrize is not expressly in how much money is awarded even though it does directly fuel further R&D and other expenses of the leading teams. I think it is rather the time and effort that is directed toward achieving the goal and the public discourse that is generated from the process. It is also the fact that a portion of up-and-coming engineers and scientists still in their studies will see it as inspiration to dedicate themselves toward the relevant field(s).
The largest barrier to human progress is personal greed. It reduces the effectiveness of our governments. It directs our brightest minds toward harmful projects like making addicting apps. Personal greed deforms peoples' attitudes about work, leading them to marginalize those few people who are driven by other motivations.
I think we need to experiment with new political systems. One I am interested in is democracy + communism. I think it's time to start a new city where everyone earns the same salary. I have many ideas for how to start and build the city and make it a great place to live.
I think we need to experiment with new political systems. One I am interested in is democracy + communism. I think it's time to start a new city where everyone earns the same salary. I have many ideas for how to start and build the city and make it a great place to live.
"But he is manipulating the Crypto market"
Good. If you invested without thinking into crypto, 100% full responsibility is on you. Elon is just a litmus test how fragile crypto currencies are and how they can be manipulated. Fully functional adults need to be a bit more cautious with their funds. We're not talking about people with mental issues here.
Elon has got a shitty attitude regarding his popularity/celebrity status but the things he has done to improve the world dwarfs his misdeeds. For some reason public loves grocery-store aisle tabloids and Elon is no exception to this gossip. The tabloid now is in the form of Twitter.
Good. If you invested without thinking into crypto, 100% full responsibility is on you. Elon is just a litmus test how fragile crypto currencies are and how they can be manipulated. Fully functional adults need to be a bit more cautious with their funds. We're not talking about people with mental issues here.
Elon has got a shitty attitude regarding his popularity/celebrity status but the things he has done to improve the world dwarfs his misdeeds. For some reason public loves grocery-store aisle tabloids and Elon is no exception to this gossip. The tabloid now is in the form of Twitter.
I wonder how YC backed Prometheus Fuels will stack up. They claimed that they are able to sequester Co2 directly from the air for around 36 USD / ton [0]. If they truly can scale it at that price point, it seems very competitive.
[0]: https://www.prometheusfuels.com/on-the-road/happy-earth-day-...
[0]: https://www.prometheusfuels.com/on-the-road/happy-earth-day-...
There may be a pattern here of YC funding carbon removal techniques that perhaps cannot work at all. Here's another one: Remora https://www.remoracarbon.com/
As far as I know there is no research paper on the topic ... nothing to indicate it actually is a viable solution.
They also don't want to talk to anyone about hard questions. It's like the Theranos of carbon removal, using Silicon-valley style secrecy.
I can't help but feel that if we are to successfully save the climate, it won't be dependent on secrecy.
As far as I know there is no research paper on the topic ... nothing to indicate it actually is a viable solution.
They also don't want to talk to anyone about hard questions. It's like the Theranos of carbon removal, using Silicon-valley style secrecy.
I can't help but feel that if we are to successfully save the climate, it won't be dependent on secrecy.
> “ As far as I know there is no research paper on the topic ... nothing to indicate it actually is a viable solution.”
Come on.
Remora is literally founded from their CTO’s PhD thesis.
From their website: “ Christina pioneered Remora’s technology during her engineering PhD at the University of Michigan, becoming one of the world’s leading experts on mobile carbon capture. She went on to test a mobile carbon capture prototype in the EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab”
If you Google “Christina Reynolds Carbon Capture” you will get, as a first result, a link to her PhD thesis:
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/1515...
Come on.
Remora is literally founded from their CTO’s PhD thesis.
From their website: “ Christina pioneered Remora’s technology during her engineering PhD at the University of Michigan, becoming one of the world’s leading experts on mobile carbon capture. She went on to test a mobile carbon capture prototype in the EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab”
If you Google “Christina Reynolds Carbon Capture” you will get, as a first result, a link to her PhD thesis:
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/1515...
Are they really sequestering it? If I understand their tech correctly they are recycling it back into fuel which then gets burned and the CO2 goes back into the air? It’s a fascinating process but unlikely to undue our decades of harm.
They claim that their technology will "replace fossil fuels". If it actually hits a price point where that's possible than I'd expect it to not be a problem either way.
I guess in that future we're getting power mainly from renewables and using hydrocarbons as power storage? We'd probably be using those same hydrocarbons to make plastics and the like as well.
Still, halting new fossil fuel extraction would be an excellent first step, even though the energy costs don't make much sense to me.
I guess in that future we're getting power mainly from renewables and using hydrocarbons as power storage? We'd probably be using those same hydrocarbons to make plastics and the like as well.
Still, halting new fossil fuel extraction would be an excellent first step, even though the energy costs don't make much sense to me.
Yeah, that's how I understand it also. But they are talking about putting it in (plastic) goods "that store it forever". So I'm thinking that they could just solidify it somehow and bury it in the ground? Feels fairly cheap?
But I'm not clear on wether their price point includes the revenue they get from selling the carbon (in the form of fuels or plastic)?
I.e, does it cost them 36 USD, or 351 USD? [0]
[0]: 36 USD + (1 tonne of Co2 / 19 lbs of Co2 per gallon of fuel) * 3 USD / gallon of fuel ≈ 36 + 105*3 = 351 USD. Makes a huge difference...
But I'm not clear on wether their price point includes the revenue they get from selling the carbon (in the form of fuels or plastic)?
I.e, does it cost them 36 USD, or 351 USD? [0]
[0]: 36 USD + (1 tonne of Co2 / 19 lbs of Co2 per gallon of fuel) * 3 USD / gallon of fuel ≈ 36 + 105*3 = 351 USD. Makes a huge difference...
$36 is the cost of the capital equipment and energy needed to remove the CO2 from the air. Just an internal metric. Not tied to sale prices.
Thanks for you response (and looking forward to the announcement you mentioned in your other comment).
That's so much better than what I could have thought!
Even though my skeptical self almost falls in the "too god to be true" category I see you mention on Twitter, I'm very excited about following Prometheus' progress :-)
BTW: Make sure to let people know when/if human-drinkable ethanol "fuels" from Co2 are available for order! ;-)
That's so much better than what I could have thought!
Even though my skeptical self almost falls in the "too god to be true" category I see you mention on Twitter, I'm very excited about following Prometheus' progress :-)
BTW: Make sure to let people know when/if human-drinkable ethanol "fuels" from Co2 are available for order! ;-)
There are about 2.2 teratonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. There should be about 1.5 Tt. That's ~700 billion tonnes of CO2 to remove, or about $25tn at your quoted price. Not impossible, but certainly not cheap.
At that scale, the price per ton would probably drop by a factor of 5-10 or more, so it looks quite doable.
Founder of Prometheus here - stay tuned for a relevant announcement tomorrow!
Sounds interesting/almost too good to be true. Do they have a working system?
It seems like the only things that can
1. work at a planetary scale
2. mitigate our multi-year (and growing) emission problem
3. not on an energy flywheel (consume a significant amount of energy, mined resources or themselves emit significant waste heat)
have to rely directly on solar energy (not intermediated by PV cell). To this end azolla ferns [1] and olivine weathering seem to be the most promising.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
have to rely directly on solar energy (not intermediated by PV cell). To this end azolla ferns [1] and olivine weathering seem to be the most promising.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
I get the feeling there's a "snake eating its own tail" aspect here.
Assuming carbon sequestration can be done at scale, it will likely require energy, maybe even a lot of energy.
So where's this energy going to come from? Well... global energy demand is increasing as-is and the winners are: coal, oil and "natural" gas (which is a fossil fuel): https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-global-...
Even assuming the forecast 5x increase in "renewables*" (I can't find the double asterisk footnote) until 2050, it seems unreasonable that a ~250EJ "blue team" (hydro, nuclear, other renewables) could plug a ~500EJ hole created by the "red team" (coal, oil, fossil gas).
We need a magnitude more clean power and all the wind, solar and wishful thinking in the world aren't going to cut it.
Assuming carbon sequestration can be done at scale, it will likely require energy, maybe even a lot of energy.
So where's this energy going to come from? Well... global energy demand is increasing as-is and the winners are: coal, oil and "natural" gas (which is a fossil fuel): https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-global-...
Even assuming the forecast 5x increase in "renewables*" (I can't find the double asterisk footnote) until 2050, it seems unreasonable that a ~250EJ "blue team" (hydro, nuclear, other renewables) could plug a ~500EJ hole created by the "red team" (coal, oil, fossil gas).
We need a magnitude more clean power and all the wind, solar and wishful thinking in the world aren't going to cut it.
> Even assuming the forecast 5x increase in "renewables*"
I don't know where these figures come from, but the IEA underestimating the deployment of renewable energy, as well as cost reductions, has become a running joke among people who model energy or study the electric grid.
Renewable energy is a growing and profitable field, and if you're concerned about not having enough clean electricity to power carbon removal, there are many opportunities to work full time on expanding renewable energy.
I don't know where these figures come from, but the IEA underestimating the deployment of renewable energy, as well as cost reductions, has become a running joke among people who model energy or study the electric grid.
Renewable energy is a growing and profitable field, and if you're concerned about not having enough clean electricity to power carbon removal, there are many opportunities to work full time on expanding renewable energy.
>> Even assuming the forecast 5x increase in "renewables*"
> I don't know where these figures come from /../
There is a link to a well respected statistics site right above the line you are quoting, so if you don't know where the figures are coming from, that says a lot.
> I don't know where these figures come from /../
There is a link to a well respected statistics site right above the line you are quoting, so if you don't know where the figures are coming from, that says a lot.
The data don't come from "statista.com", that's just where the graph is hosted. Clicking on the "sources" link, to see where the data actually came from, brings up a paywall.
So, no, it is not clear where these data actually come from, it's not straightforward to find out without paying, and my point, about the IEA being very, very wrong in its projections about renewable energy for more than a decade, still stands.
So, no, it is not clear where these data actually come from, it's not straightforward to find out without paying, and my point, about the IEA being very, very wrong in its projections about renewable energy for more than a decade, still stands.
The source is available without paying, you could have had asked.
"I don't know where these figures come from" isn't a question, it's the start of a bad faith argument.
As for your claim about the IEA, you're welcome to post some source to back that claim, other readers may be interested.
As for your claim about the IEA, you're welcome to post some source to back that claim, other readers may be interested.
> carbon sequestration [will] likely require energy
Yes, but that doesn't mean we won't need it.
Take air planes. We can't just put batteries in there: too low energy density or something (I'm no physicist, but they won't fly very far is what I gather). But by capturing the CO2 (at exhaust, or atmospherically) that they put out, we can have both airplanes and a stable climate -- assuming it's all done right.
Who wants to have a wind turbine in their back yard? A nuclear power plant? Who lives near that hydro plant in the middle of nowhere? We could instead capture CO2 away from people if power is cheap, before sending the rest down a slightly lossy transmission path.
Driving regular passenger vehicles electrically is definitely less energy intensive than capturing the GHGs that a combustion engine produces, so it would obviously be counter-productive to use capture technology for those sorts of things. But we can use it for other things like chemical processes that produce a GHG as a byproduct where it's hard to capture (new buildings using concrete, for example) or when we don't have the technology to get rid of the emissions.
Right now, the quickest wins are from emission reduction. This capture technology is something we need to have ready for the next phase of keeping our natural habitat stable.
Yes, but that doesn't mean we won't need it.
Take air planes. We can't just put batteries in there: too low energy density or something (I'm no physicist, but they won't fly very far is what I gather). But by capturing the CO2 (at exhaust, or atmospherically) that they put out, we can have both airplanes and a stable climate -- assuming it's all done right.
Who wants to have a wind turbine in their back yard? A nuclear power plant? Who lives near that hydro plant in the middle of nowhere? We could instead capture CO2 away from people if power is cheap, before sending the rest down a slightly lossy transmission path.
Driving regular passenger vehicles electrically is definitely less energy intensive than capturing the GHGs that a combustion engine produces, so it would obviously be counter-productive to use capture technology for those sorts of things. But we can use it for other things like chemical processes that produce a GHG as a byproduct where it's hard to capture (new buildings using concrete, for example) or when we don't have the technology to get rid of the emissions.
Right now, the quickest wins are from emission reduction. This capture technology is something we need to have ready for the next phase of keeping our natural habitat stable.
> Who wants to have a wind turbine in their back yard?
Here in Los Angeles we have honest-to-god oil derricks in our neighborhoods and the NIMBYs don't even notice. Apartments OTOH...
Here in Los Angeles we have honest-to-god oil derricks in our neighborhoods and the NIMBYs don't even notice. Apartments OTOH...
I went to a wind turbine some time because I was curious how loud it would be. It doesn't seem that loud actually. Maybe it's more the looks? (Personally, it's not that terrible and, well, we don't have a choice so define some nature reserves and for the rest go ahead.) Either way, I meant it more in the proverbial NIMBY sense rather than that literally everyone feels the same way about them.
> Take air planes. We can't just put batteries in there: too low energy density or something
Actually for completion it is a feasible proposal [0] (Obviously not for jet propulsion though).
[0] https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-fli...
Actually for completion it is a feasible proposal [0] (Obviously not for jet propulsion though).
[0] https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-fli...
One of the more exciting things in green aviation is "air to fuels". There are companies working on converting atmospheric carbon into hydrocarbons for storage (using renewable energy). Those hydrocarbons can then be used as jet fuel, so it's isn't carbon-negative, but at least it's carbon-neutral. Any hydrocarbons left over that are stored are carbon-negative.
Ack, I know of those. Isn't that the same thing as carbon capture? It also uses more energy to capture the carbon than the fuel will produce after burning. Just that the output is usable fuel (yay put it back in the atmosphere ^^' but better burning circular than burning fossil fuels) rather than rocks like Climeworks and Olivine output.
I never actually saw anyone compare the options. Anyone know if it's cheaper (or less energy-intensive) per ton of CO2 to turn atmospheric CO2 into rock and continue using fossil fuels for another century until oil really starts playing hard to get, or if it's cheaper (or less energy-intensive) to use this air-to-fuel technology?
I never actually saw anyone compare the options. Anyone know if it's cheaper (or less energy-intensive) per ton of CO2 to turn atmospheric CO2 into rock and continue using fossil fuels for another century until oil really starts playing hard to get, or if it's cheaper (or less energy-intensive) to use this air-to-fuel technology?
Honestly, if carbon capture is effective for the power requirements that it has...build a nuclear facility dedicated to the carbon capture tech.
Solar can be used to a certain extent.
And geo-thermal - that is currently being used in Iceland by Carbfix + Climeworks.
Also worth noting that a lot of these technologies do thorough lifecycle analysis to make sure that despite the energy usage required they are still carbon negative.
And geo-thermal - that is currently being used in Iceland by Carbfix + Climeworks.
Also worth noting that a lot of these technologies do thorough lifecycle analysis to make sure that despite the energy usage required they are still carbon negative.
Nuclear.
If you know ahead of time that you need a massive amount of power, and you have no location constraints, then first you'd buy up all the 'free' power from hydro stations that don't have enough transmission capacity.
Next you'd probably build geothermal power stations at a huge scale in iceland or a similarly volcanic places. That power is still cheaper than solar or natural gas by a decent margin.
Nuclear is a contender only if you can find a place willing to let you skip all the red tape and build rather unsafe 1970's designs...
Next you'd probably build geothermal power stations at a huge scale in iceland or a similarly volcanic places. That power is still cheaper than solar or natural gas by a decent margin.
Nuclear is a contender only if you can find a place willing to let you skip all the red tape and build rather unsafe 1970's designs...
All of these systems are going to require radical construction of hundreds and hundreds of nuclear reactors.
This has economics of scale benefits, and I expect reactors such as the ones discussed in this video: https://youtu.be/7gtog_gOaGQ to be produced on a factory line extremely quickly.
This has economics of scale benefits, and I expect reactors such as the ones discussed in this video: https://youtu.be/7gtog_gOaGQ to be produced on a factory line extremely quickly.
Why cant we just plant more trees? Or let the trees we have grow bigger, to soak up all that extra carbon?
That’s covered under ‘natural’ solutions, also eligible for the prize. All you need to do is develop a plan to scale that economically to gigaton/year capacity and claim your prize! Should be easy, right? So just do it!
Nuclear power plants for desalination plants and the build out water pipelines and rail into the Sahara desert from the ocean.
Use irrigation canals covered in solar power panels for pumps etc.
Plant vegetation and build up forests slowly. Slowly expand across the desert and connect both ends the block off grids and repeat irrigation and planting until the desert is gone.
Use irrigation canals covered in solar power panels for pumps etc.
Plant vegetation and build up forests slowly. Slowly expand across the desert and connect both ends the block off grids and repeat irrigation and planting until the desert is gone.
>"Why cant we just plant more trees?"
We can, and we certainly should, but that does not solve the problem because those trees will eventually die and that carbon will cycle back through the biosphere. Mankind extracted a ton of carbon from the ground, where it was locked away, and we put it back into the air. People are trying to find ways of putting all that extra carbon back somewhere where it won't affect the cycles in nature. Trees just temporarily lock up carbon.
We can, and we certainly should, but that does not solve the problem because those trees will eventually die and that carbon will cycle back through the biosphere. Mankind extracted a ton of carbon from the ground, where it was locked away, and we put it back into the air. People are trying to find ways of putting all that extra carbon back somewhere where it won't affect the cycles in nature. Trees just temporarily lock up carbon.
If you cut down trees (sustainable forestry with selective, not clear cutting) and use the logs in durable housing construction, furniture making etc you are taking that carbon out of the loop for a hundred+ years if the housing/furniture is well looked after. Most housing could be built with timber. It might be temporary but buys us time, and trees are amazing CO2 capture machines that are cheap to scale up - they run for free on solar energy and look after themselves.
Stopping deforestation and massively boosting reforestation is one of the most effective things we can already do at scale. At this point we also need active carbon capture and significant reduction in emissions too, though - a multi-pronged approach.
Stopping deforestation and massively boosting reforestation is one of the most effective things we can already do at scale. At this point we also need active carbon capture and significant reduction in emissions too, though - a multi-pronged approach.
> those trees will eventually die and that carbon will cycle back through the biosphere.
Trees in forests are self-replicating. When one dies another grows in its place.
Yes, this isn't the only solution, but it's certainly part of the solution.
Trees in forests are self-replicating. When one dies another grows in its place.
Yes, this isn't the only solution, but it's certainly part of the solution.
Yes, but the point is that there is an upper limit to the contribution, and even reforesting unrealistically vast tracts of land does not make up for carbon extracted from deeper in the crust. Growing, cutting, and burying fast growing trees deep in the Earth, then replanting them, would not have that limit (although there would be other problems keeping the land fertile).
If you wanted to keep sequestering after the forest matures, just bulldoze the forest ever few years and put the logs in a cave.
You've accomplished everything other sequestration technology promises, but you've done so in a way that is environmentally friendly.
You've accomplished everything other sequestration technology promises, but you've done so in a way that is environmentally friendly.
Better than that! Trees reproduce at a ratio much higher than 1:1.
Well, most of the carbon in the ground that we're burning are long-buried trees, right? I wonder what it would take to just bury a lot of trees and let them regrow naturally.
This paper has some interesting ideas: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0...
My approach would be to find the best CO2/$ types of trees, buy them straight from the lumber industry, and sequester them in no-longer-used quarries. Just need to figure out a scalable way to ensure anaerobic conditions to help prevent CO2 release on breakdown.
This paper has some interesting ideas: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0...
My approach would be to find the best CO2/$ types of trees, buy them straight from the lumber industry, and sequester them in no-longer-used quarries. Just need to figure out a scalable way to ensure anaerobic conditions to help prevent CO2 release on breakdown.
At the time coal deposits formed the bacteria that broke down lingin and cellulose hadn't yet evolved, so just burying trees wouldn't work today as they would decay. You could probably burn the wood to produce charcoal (burning it in a low oxygen environment), and the bury that, but just cutting down a forest and burying it won't work.
I'm no chemist, but, wild guess, you might actually make things worse by favoring decomposition into methane instead of CO2.
I would think that a proper solution would require figuring out how to get all that carbon into a chemical form that is chemically stable and won't biodegrade. The ideal looks a whole lot like coal, I'd guess?
I would think that a proper solution would require figuring out how to get all that carbon into a chemical form that is chemically stable and won't biodegrade. The ideal looks a whole lot like coal, I'd guess?
Yep methane is multiple times more potent as a greenhouse gas.
You also need to find a way to speed up tree growth rate by 10x or 100x for this solution to be effective before most of the damage is done.
My understanding is that when wood first appeared on Earth nothing was able to decompose all of that cellulose for millions of years until microbes evolved a way to break the molecules apart and feed on them. I don't know if simply burying the trees is enough to sequester it away now that wood decomposes so readily.
Trees, unless you clearcut them (or they die off due to climate change) permanently lock up carbon. Yes, some die and decompose, but new ones grow up to take their place. It's just the total amount of biomass created that matters.
Long term the dead trees might release the carbon again to the atmosphere, but we are currently facing problems over the next decades. Even if trees would only move some amount of carbon "into the future", they could buy us precious time while we deploy other solutions for the problem. And of course, one can try to permanentely capture the carbon bound by trees by not letting them burn/rot after their life.
Dead trees lie on the ground, with all their sequestered carbon sitting there. It's not like the carbon is going back into the atmosphere, at least not without some process like combustion. Coal is basically dead trees. Before we started extracting coal and burning it, it was harmless to the atmosphere.
Doesn't rotting, or being eaten by microbes or termites that eventually get eaten or die and rot eventually lead to the release of the stored carbon?
AFAIK coal is composed mostly of trees that fell back before microbes evolved that could eat through their cellulose walls, and have had millennia of underground compression to further increase their stability - basically that process isn't available naturally to trees that fall today.
AFAIK coal is composed mostly of trees that fell back before microbes evolved that could eat through their cellulose walls, and have had millennia of underground compression to further increase their stability - basically that process isn't available naturally to trees that fall today.
It takes roughly twice as long for a tree to decompose as it does to grow; and trees live a lot longer than that! So over time, the net sequestration should be positive.
They release the carbon as the decompose or burn. Sahara sounds like a very likely place for wildfires
> It's not like the carbon is going back into the atmosphere, at least not without some process like combustion.
Western USA has had a "fire season" for every year for the last like 4 years. Last year, other places like Brazil and Africa join in on the fun.
So planting trees without a robust animal/insect ecosystem to decompose them before they combust is an incomplete solution.
Western USA has had a "fire season" for every year for the last like 4 years. Last year, other places like Brazil and Africa join in on the fun.
So planting trees without a robust animal/insect ecosystem to decompose them before they combust is an incomplete solution.
no. Unless the tree vaporizes or burns, none of it gets back into the air. It is for all intents and purposes a permanent lock up. Mankind is the gatekeeper of whether to unlock this carbon prison in our choice to burn oil or wood.
Trees aren't the complete solution and the reason why has nothing to do with the tree dying and releasing the carbon.
What's going on here is that plants are converting CO2 into mass. A tree that isn't growing isn't creating new mass and therefore isn't lowering carbon in the atmosphere.
Trees aren't the complete solution and the reason why has nothing to do with the tree dying and releasing the carbon.
What's going on here is that plants are converting CO2 into mass. A tree that isn't growing isn't creating new mass and therefore isn't lowering carbon in the atmosphere.
rupert1234(1)
It's difficult to get enough total quantity, and it's also not rapid enough as it takes decades after planting (which would also take a lot of time) to soak up that extra carbon.
One aspect is that the required land area - https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-o... mentions 900 million hectares (2.2 billion acres), which would roughly cover the 10Gt/year asked by the x-prize - is enormous, and it's not an accident or negligence that this land isn't forested now, it's generally because we turned it into farmland or pastures.
Are we willing to take away 900 million hectares of land that produces food for the world and money for the locals away from that productive use and turn all of it into unproductive forest that won't get used for logging? Perhaps we are, but if there are other options for carbon removal that don't require as much land resources, that would be preferable.
One aspect is that the required land area - https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-o... mentions 900 million hectares (2.2 billion acres), which would roughly cover the 10Gt/year asked by the x-prize - is enormous, and it's not an accident or negligence that this land isn't forested now, it's generally because we turned it into farmland or pastures.
Are we willing to take away 900 million hectares of land that produces food for the world and money for the locals away from that productive use and turn all of it into unproductive forest that won't get used for logging? Perhaps we are, but if there are other options for carbon removal that don't require as much land resources, that would be preferable.
Trees definitely need to be part of the solution but unfortunately global potential only revereses a decade of emissions.
I wrote a short piece about it (with sources)[0]
[0] https://carbonremoved.com/blog/trees-are-not-the-answer-to-c...
I wrote a short piece about it (with sources)[0]
[0] https://carbonremoved.com/blog/trees-are-not-the-answer-to-c...
Forests are basically carbon neutral once they're mature, peat bogs would probably be much more effective as carbon is continually sequestered underwater.
We can, how many have you planted?
The problem is the space issue and that it takes a decade or two for there to be meaningful carbon uptake.
Most land is private so you can't go around planting willy nilly. What's worse is that you are technically not allowed to plant on most public land either, although for small amounts of native species, you can sneak by.
The problem is the space issue and that it takes a decade or two for there to be meaningful carbon uptake.
Most land is private so you can't go around planting willy nilly. What's worse is that you are technically not allowed to plant on most public land either, although for small amounts of native species, you can sneak by.
Ahem.. Not OP, but Canadian ex-treeplanter here, and I've planted 1.2M trees. I have many friends who've planted more, a couple probably up into the 10M+ range.
It seems insane that we aren't looking at trees more seriously. Here we have a self-reproducing, exponential, solar powered, organic, low-tech, carbon capture system. We don't even have to plant them, we can simply allocate land and let them do their thing on their own if we're patient for natural succession. Or we can accelerate the process by planting select species, thinning etc.
We should also be setting aside more of the remaining old-growth forests to protect them from being logged, as these forests represent a standing carbon sink (aside all of the other ecological benefits of protecting old-growth forest).
I know it's not the complete solution and that we need all the cards on the table, but I fear that in our appetite for high tech fixes, we're overlooking this simple biological solution.
It seems insane that we aren't looking at trees more seriously. Here we have a self-reproducing, exponential, solar powered, organic, low-tech, carbon capture system. We don't even have to plant them, we can simply allocate land and let them do their thing on their own if we're patient for natural succession. Or we can accelerate the process by planting select species, thinning etc.
We should also be setting aside more of the remaining old-growth forests to protect them from being logged, as these forests represent a standing carbon sink (aside all of the other ecological benefits of protecting old-growth forest).
I know it's not the complete solution and that we need all the cards on the table, but I fear that in our appetite for high tech fixes, we're overlooking this simple biological solution.
Trees follow a slow-fast-slow pattern for capturing carbon.
Small new trees don't capture much.
Middle-aged trees capture a lot as they grow.
Old-growth trees don't capture as much as they reach the end of their life-cycle.
As others have said, trees are only temporary as they eventually die and need to be replanted. They're also slow to start, and need to be maintained (which costs carbon as well).
As others have said, trees are only temporary as they eventually die and need to be replanted. They're also slow to start, and need to be maintained (which costs carbon as well).
> Most land is private so you can't go around planting willy nilly.
That’s pretty much how we got here, except instead of planting we mined, cut and burnt.
The pathway back is rather harder.
That’s pretty much how we got here, except instead of planting we mined, cut and burnt.
The pathway back is rather harder.
Yeah this seems like the obvious thing.
If everyone stopped mowing their lawns for 20 years and let trees run wild instead, would that make a dent?
What about that plus turn half of our roads into parks?
Anyone got a link to a good open source interactive simulator?
If everyone stopped mowing their lawns for 20 years and let trees run wild instead, would that make a dent?
What about that plus turn half of our roads into parks?
Anyone got a link to a good open source interactive simulator?
In 2016, the US burned 728 million tons of coal: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-coal-works
That's one country, for one year. The world has been burning coal for more than a century. To get back to preindustrial CO2 levels, all that coal needs to be unburned and buried again. That's the scale of the problem.
That's one country, for one year. The world has been burning coal for more than a century. To get back to preindustrial CO2 levels, all that coal needs to be unburned and buried again. That's the scale of the problem.
Where? And what makes you think this isn't already happening?
I mean, in Canada when they raze a patch of forest they already immediately replant it.
The areas that aren't forested are so because they're being used for agriculture.
I mean, in Canada when they raze a patch of forest they already immediately replant it.
The areas that aren't forested are so because they're being used for agriculture.
We release carbons from dead trees accumulated over millions of years on Earth though.
What about covering oceans in plankton?
One solution that I feel is regularly overlooked in these discussions is the establishment of kelp forests. Kelp grows at a far quicker rate than trees, requires no fresh water or land and has the added benefits of restoring marine ecosystems.
Kelp forests are also being worked on and are really interesting. As with all of these methods we have to make sure that creating an extraordinary amount of kelp and sinking it to the bottom of the ocean doesn't have any adverse side effects.
This is funny. There is one group of people pumping carbon out of the ground and burning it. Then there is another group of people capturing the carbon and putting it back into the ground.
I'm picturing a power plant burning coal, then a windmill farm next to it powering a carbon removal process. I guess the potential power generation offset must be accounted for, even if in the solution it's coming from renewable resources.
The solution really seems to be to burn less of it in the first place.
I'm picturing a power plant burning coal, then a windmill farm next to it powering a carbon removal process. I guess the potential power generation offset must be accounted for, even if in the solution it's coming from renewable resources.
The solution really seems to be to burn less of it in the first place.
This seems easy to say, but how can small groups of people make actionable change on burning less fossil fuel? Will you protest outside coal plants? Cement plants? Steel plants? Stop flying in airplanes? Do you still use a car that burns gasoline? Will oil companies do the right thing and simply choose to make less money?
I agree that not using fossil fuels is the most efficient method, but it's also not easy to take action on. We need to pursue every viable avenue in parallel, and carbon removal solutions are, if not particularly efficient yet, at least very actionable. And with R&D, perhaps they will become more efficient.
I agree that not using fossil fuels is the most efficient method, but it's also not easy to take action on. We need to pursue every viable avenue in parallel, and carbon removal solutions are, if not particularly efficient yet, at least very actionable. And with R&D, perhaps they will become more efficient.
Despite plenty of wasteful use of carbon, energy use largely correlates with reduction in extreme poverty, hunger, etc. Energy use is a requirement for most societies and for people to alleviate basic human needs.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to be maximally efficient and renewable in our energy usage, but often times a reduction in energy usage requires a loss of functions that improve people's lives.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to be maximally efficient and renewable in our energy usage, but often times a reduction in energy usage requires a loss of functions that improve people's lives.
Yeah, this is the carbon equivalent of trying to get abs by working out more without adjusting your diet.
I wonder if there's any possibilities in engineering a quick-growing trash tree that would have a higher percentage of mineralization, or properties that facilitate quick pseudo-petrification, so that it can be embedded in concrete without worrying about rot. They would serve the same purpose as rebar, but with greater volume meaning less concrete needed. And it would be a near-permanent carbon sink.
Yes, it's called bamboo and it sequesters 3x the carbon and grows to maturity 10x faster than a normal forest (3 years vs 30 years). And bamboo has some of the qualities of rebar, so should mix nicely with concrete. Of course it is best grown in tropical regions, hence why most of the talk here is about trees.
Bamboo is also incredibly invasive which is great for self propitiating the carbon solution, but terrible if we ruin all of our eco systems for
Some of the 10,000 species have this property, but by no means is it the defining characteristic.
The massive scale of growing bamboo plants that would be needed would best take place in large empty deserts. Finding the right species and water supply should be the main challenge with this concept.
The massive scale of growing bamboo plants that would be needed would best take place in large empty deserts. Finding the right species and water supply should be the main challenge with this concept.
Living Carbon is doing something similar, working on quick-growing trees that take up enough metals from the soil to slow decomposition.
That seems much more complicated than just planting some fast growing plant (eg. bamboo), converting it to charcoal, and burying it somewhere. That achieves the same carbon sequestration effect, without having to worry about petrification.
It certainly is more complicated. The difference is that
1.) it attacks three different problem sources - the carbon already in the air, and the carbon generated by concrete production, and the carbon from steel production. Cement is responsible for about 8% of global CO2 emissions [1], and steel another 8% [2].
2.) it offers profit incentives, since the people using the trees get a direct benefit (unlike people throwing biochar into an ocean trench). Any long-lasting solution to our carbon problem is going to have to find a way to exist on something other than direct carbon-dedicated subsidies. A self-sufficient business can survive shifting political winds much better than a literal money-sink.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844
[2] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-in...
1.) it attacks three different problem sources - the carbon already in the air, and the carbon generated by concrete production, and the carbon from steel production. Cement is responsible for about 8% of global CO2 emissions [1], and steel another 8% [2].
2.) it offers profit incentives, since the people using the trees get a direct benefit (unlike people throwing biochar into an ocean trench). Any long-lasting solution to our carbon problem is going to have to find a way to exist on something other than direct carbon-dedicated subsidies. A self-sufficient business can survive shifting political winds much better than a literal money-sink.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844
[2] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-in...
Time to quit my job and become an inventor (actually something I thought was a real thing when I was a kid).
My idiot-layman brain says buy it from AirGas or capture from large emitters and pipe it into a geological structures like the do for storing helium. It could probably only get to gigatons if it's worldwide and we have enough geological structures capable of containing it.
My idiot-layman brain says buy it from AirGas or capture from large emitters and pipe it into a geological structures like the do for storing helium. It could probably only get to gigatons if it's worldwide and we have enough geological structures capable of containing it.
I thought the same thing as a child. Recently I realized that programming and making apps is like being an inventor. When I make applications for other people to use, is that not akin to making some kind of new machine or tool?
No, because the lynchpin of these physical technologies we need are going to be just that, physical. No amount of neural networking or cryptocurrency mining is going to be anything other than peripheral to the advancements based on basic research in physical science.
If the solution to carbon capture comes from a company like Deepmind (ala protein folding), i'll eat my shoe.
If the solution to carbon capture comes from a company like Deepmind (ala protein folding), i'll eat my shoe.
I don't really see it the same way. I mean, as an independent project, maybe. Most of us are basically told what to build and largely how to build it too. Someone else invented it and we just build it - we're basically factory workers.
ianlevesque(2)
Actually what would be really good is instead of looking at carbon capture you could use that invention brain to find solutions to reduce our emissions.
Carbon neutral or negative alternatives to energy production, concrete production, travel (flight), meat and many others would be incredible.
The best emissions are the ones never emitted in the first place.
Carbon neutral or negative alternatives to energy production, concrete production, travel (flight), meat and many others would be incredible.
The best emissions are the ones never emitted in the first place.
Eliminating emissions would be carbon neutral. The competition wants carbon negative solutions for sequestering carbon in the atmosphere or oceans. Sure there are some carbon negative things like the replacement for concrete that reacts with CO2, but the negative impact is not extensible beyond a specific point without better mining/refining tech.
True although I wasn't referring just to the competition - it would be good to come up with sustainable solutions in general.
Yeah, but I'm not interested since the real solutions are generally off limits. The $100M is what I really want (or even $1M would be nice). In fact what i really want is to be employed to enter competitions like this and Gates' toilet competition. I'm just too dumb.
If you find a way please consider me for your team :-)
My current attempt to support projects like these is to make them as accesible as possible on https://carbonremoved.com
You get your $1M and I will include your removal method in our portfolio!
My current attempt to support projects like these is to make them as accesible as possible on https://carbonremoved.com
You get your $1M and I will include your removal method in our portfolio!
The real issue is consumption. This drives CO2, various pollution, factory farming, deforestation, decline of natural species (eg fish stocks), etc. Some Indian states recently announced efforts to basically cap the number of children at 2. Although China has expanded it's policy from 1 to 2 and is now suggesting that 3 may be ok.
There seems to be no target beyond the amount of carbon to capture. Are they targeting for $ per tonne removal. Efficiency of removal? Climeworks already has technology that has removed more than 1000 tonnes of Carbon from atmosphere(0). Can we just give them the price? The trouble is cost. Climeworks estimates that at scale their tech would cost $500 - $600 per hour. Looks like this is still high and the current wisdom is that we need to bring it down to $100 per tonne from atmosphere. Also I think removing directly from power plant exhaust is probably a better approach that trying to shoot for a technology that sequesters from atmosphere.
(0) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/magazine/climeworks-busin...
(0) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/magazine/climeworks-busin...
If you’re interested in a good starting place for carbon removal ideas, I highly recommend the Carbon Farming Solution: https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-carbon-farming-solu...
Pay US politicians the $100M so they institute a true carbon tax. Let the industry sort out the details.
[deleted]
The bigger trouble is going to be convincing people who want to deliberately accelerate climate change, either because it will hurt the people they hate, or can be used as casus belli for the next resource war. "The problem is too many people, luckily we have a solution!" and other horrifying shit like that.
A bunch of people here are getting into the technological solutions to this problem, but I really think the even bigger challenge is the social/cultural barriers to implementing even a proven technology.
A bunch of people here are getting into the technological solutions to this problem, but I really think the even bigger challenge is the social/cultural barriers to implementing even a proven technology.
Conservation efforts, curbing emissions, etc. - that's all good and has its place, but on its own it just doesn't seem feasible to motivate enough people for a long enough time to make enough of a difference.
Reducing amount of CO2 we emit is good, finding a way to capture/convert released CO2 is better, but there is Bezos-level wealth waiting for the person who invents/discovers an actual use for it. I hope this X-prize helps encourage that style of thinking.
Reducing amount of CO2 we emit is good, finding a way to capture/convert released CO2 is better, but there is Bezos-level wealth waiting for the person who invents/discovers an actual use for it. I hope this X-prize helps encourage that style of thinking.
Musk's face on the first page, but also he probably has produced more CO2 with his crypto BS than Tesla has saved over its live span...
[Happy to be wrong, but I'd be surprised]
[Happy to be wrong, but I'd be surprised]
Can someone comment on the success of these sort of prize competitions? Particularly the success of xPrize.
Ween the world off the industrial agricultural complex, unseasonal consumption patterns, overconsumption of animal protein and the use of fossil fuels... concrete global regulatory steps would be antitrust and breakup of big-ag, big-food and big-energy... and cars.
I have absolutely no knowledge of physics or mechanical engineering.
that being said, is it possible to just send up a vacuum into space with two very long and wide hoses and a solar panel into lower earth orbit and just have it literally suck out the carbon and blow it into space?
that being said, is it possible to just send up a vacuum into space with two very long and wide hoses and a solar panel into lower earth orbit and just have it literally suck out the carbon and blow it into space?
You know, aside from the challenge of separating the carbon from other useful stuff in the atmosphere, like oxygen before you start sucking ... you'd need to suck those particles out incredibly far to escape earth's gravity. Easier to suck it just far enough to deposit the co2 on the moon and start creating an atmosphere there. But that would be a heck of a powerful vacuum.
Putting aside whether this would be effective or a good idea: if you literally mean _carbon_, no, because it’s usually a solid.
A lot of people saying "plant more trees" don't realize the scale of our carbon output.
We release about 43 billion tons of CO2 in a year. A forest fire releases about 5-30 tons of CO2 per hectare.
We're burning the equivalent of a forest the size of Africa every year.
We release about 43 billion tons of CO2 in a year. A forest fire releases about 5-30 tons of CO2 per hectare.
We're burning the equivalent of a forest the size of Africa every year.
Lots of similar questions here, good answers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmWpFCjh0Fk (Sabine Hossenfelder)
Why not invest that directly in various different prototyped technologies already being developed for this _now_ to accelerate the process?
It feels like offering free swimming floats to the first one who can swim out to get them.
It feels like offering free swimming floats to the first one who can swim out to get them.
XPrizes are a BRILLIANT way to get a big multiplier on your investment. The price is $100 million. You might end up with 100 companies that all spend $10 million on research towards it. A $100 million prize resulted in at $1 billion worth of research.
Offering a prize could potentially result in more than the prize value ($100M) being invested into those very technologies.
As an example, we can look at the Netflix Prize [1], which was only $1M. But that $1M bought them way, way more than $1M worth of work: "over 20,000 teams had registered for the competition from over 150 countries. 2,000 teams had submitted over 13,000 prediction sets." It's hard to guess the value of having 20,000 teams working on the Netflix problem, but $1M invested directly by Netflix would probably only pay for 3-4 engineers for 1 year, so it seems like they got a lot of leverage out of that $1M.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize
As an example, we can look at the Netflix Prize [1], which was only $1M. But that $1M bought them way, way more than $1M worth of work: "over 20,000 teams had registered for the competition from over 150 countries. 2,000 teams had submitted over 13,000 prediction sets." It's hard to guess the value of having 20,000 teams working on the Netflix problem, but $1M invested directly by Netflix would probably only pay for 3-4 engineers for 1 year, so it seems like they got a lot of leverage out of that $1M.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize
I don't think this prize disqualifies those right? It's looking for any scalable carbon removal technology
No I don't think it does.
(and for disclosure I'm unlikely to ever read the details enough to know for myself for certain)
I just wish it was tiered such that proper seed money backs various alternatives and the best proven tech (not just the first) gets a big boost when attempting to scale.
But not my millions to spend so I just hope it had a good impact.
I just wish it was tiered such that proper seed money backs various alternatives and the best proven tech (not just the first) gets a big boost when attempting to scale.
But not my millions to spend so I just hope it had a good impact.
So, anyone got any good ideas for accounting tricks that lets you credit coal power emissions into a year the rules don't check and win by making coal power carbon neutral on (biodegradable) paper?
Why doesn’t he just use a few of his billions to build free renewable power plants? Emissions reduction, now, is so much more important than the possibility of carbon reduction in ten or fifteen years
Because he has a one-off fortune that would require selling all of his investments to turn into cash. By 2050, all of the power plants he built would be just so much garbage in a landfill. Based on the growth projections of energy consumption, it wouldn't put a dent in the problem long term.
By incentivizing economical carbon capture, he might be able to kick off a self-funding industry, which would be an important part of the long term set of solutions needed to address atmospheric carbon increases.
He could also do other things like invest in some power plants too.
By incentivizing economical carbon capture, he might be able to kick off a self-funding industry, which would be an important part of the long term set of solutions needed to address atmospheric carbon increases.
He could also do other things like invest in some power plants too.
I partly agree - yes, individual people spending money is not a long-term solution. But we aren’t even in the stage of needing stable, long-term solutions - we need immediate, drastic, dramatic actions. And there are already strong incentives for carbon capture technology - it’s a big and growing market. The bigger bottleneck is not in capture innovations, but in emissions-reduction action, now, here, this decade. So, yeah, I mean, I get why he wouldn’t personally choose to do it that way, and I guess I’m excited about the prize? But man do I wish he would do more.
He kind of has an interest in solar power
The impact that even a billionaires could have is relatively trivial. The Green New Deal is estimated to cost trillions of dollars. Even if some of the proposed ideas are dubious, the amount of infrastructure needed is an order of magnitude more than what a billionaire can provide.
Yeah, I mean the green new deal was like 75% not climate spending? And a billionaire does not need to tackle the whole problem, just make a dent? My main point was that we actually already have most of the technology needed to fight climate change, we just aren’t deploying it.
Here's my proposal, take that $100M and find a Saudi/Venezuela oil well operator. Give him the $100M in exchange for not pumping $100M worth of oil out of the ground.
That's basically carbon cap and trade. One of the problems is how do you ensure that the oil well remains blocked off forever?
The risk of fraud is pretty high, especially when you consider that the involved parties are these huge practically untouchable corporations.
Burn it at the site of extraction. That way, nobody will be able to use it !
If you have $100M worth of carbon captured from the air stored somewhere under the ground, how do you make sure nobody takes advantage of this vast supply of energy?
You will have to deal with this problem either way, going straight to the Saudi Arabian oil operator just skips the middleman.
You will have to deal with this problem either way, going straight to the Saudi Arabian oil operator just skips the middleman.
I can not-pump 100M of oil in my own back yard. And you wouldn't believe the rate I can not pump it at!
But seriously, this is harder than it sounds. Unless you pay him to permanently sequester $100M of oil, I don't see how it would make a difference.
But seriously, this is harder than it sounds. Unless you pay him to permanently sequester $100M of oil, I don't see how it would make a difference.
I’ve seen this happen with farm subsidies in the UK where farmers were paid to leave the land alone. However the farmers would choose the crappiest sections to leave alone and production would be unchanged. Profit.
At 50$/BBl that's 2 million barrels, or one quarter of one day's worth of oil production for Saudi Arabia alone [0]. A new technology could do far more than just 'disappearing' 100 million dollars worth of oil.
[0]https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne...
[0]https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne...
You wouldn't pay the market price. Its costs money to extract oil, less than $10 per barrel in Saudi Arabia, in the $20s in the US.
http://graphics.wsj.com/oil-barrel-breakdown/
http://graphics.wsj.com/oil-barrel-breakdown/
OK but if I can sell 10 million barrels of oil for $750M why would I accept $100M to keep it in the ground?
You would if your extraction costs were greater than $650M. But that's not what the comment I replied to was suggesting, they were suggesting offering $750M to keep it in the ground.
But in the next 20 or 30 years when there is another energy crisis they'll just start pumping again under the pretext of an emergency.
I wonder if there is a way to poison an oil well, so that it becomes un-economical to purify. Chemical separation is obviously what the whole petrochemical industry is about, so maybe something like injecting radioactive material. Then you pay the well owner to poison and seal off their well.
End result: Price of oil goes up, more tar sands are extracted.
How about just buying the oil and putting it into storage somewhere (maybe just buy oil ships with oil in them).
This will drive up price of oil for everyone which is the most effective way to accelerate the adoption of renewables.
The world spends 6-9bn USD per day on oil (100m barrels at 60-90 USD), maybe we start with spending 1bn per day.
Edit: Fixed calculation.
This will drive up price of oil for everyone which is the most effective way to accelerate the adoption of renewables.
The world spends 6-9bn USD per day on oil (100m barrels at 60-90 USD), maybe we start with spending 1bn per day.
Edit: Fixed calculation.
Buying oil incentivizes producing more oil
We will pump the earth empty anyway, right?
Yeah with oil reserves we know of today, most estimates put it around 50 years before we run out of it (that's with the current consumption, it doesn't take into account a completely possible increase in consumption).
That doesn't mean that a) we should extract all of it, and b) we won't find more of it.
That doesn't mean that a) we should extract all of it, and b) we won't find more of it.
Only if we don’t develop cheaper energy sources. If something else is cheaper, nobody is going to bother looking for expensive oil.
If you want to drive up the price of oil for everyone, then instead of buying some oil and putting it into storage, you can just tax it, gaining revenue (that can be used for subsidizing renewables) instead of spending money to buy oil.
The problem is that driving up the price of oil for everyone significantly (so much that there would be a meaningful reduction in usage, not just a slight decrease) is politically unacceptable. Looking at historical gas crises, even literally doubling the price of gas probably would not cause sufficient reduction in driving; but a government intentionally doubling the price of gas to reduce driving would not get popular support, it get voted out for daring to impose such punitive measures.
The problem is that driving up the price of oil for everyone significantly (so much that there would be a meaningful reduction in usage, not just a slight decrease) is politically unacceptable. Looking at historical gas crises, even literally doubling the price of gas probably would not cause sufficient reduction in driving; but a government intentionally doubling the price of gas to reduce driving would not get popular support, it get voted out for daring to impose such punitive measures.
You are certainly right from a national perspective, but the climate crisis is a global issue. By reducing supply for everyone, this wouldn't give way to loopholes and cheating (as we see for instance with carbon credits).
You are also right that raising prices was very unpopular in the past. But some things need to be done to curb fossil fuel use and support alternatives. High oil prices are the most effective way.
You are also right that raising prices was very unpopular in the past. But some things need to be done to curb fossil fuel use and support alternatives. High oil prices are the most effective way.
While climate crisis is a global issue, almost all the power for taking major, large-scale action resides at the national level. The international structure is (and is explicitly designed to be) nearly incapable of forcing major nations to do anything without their consent, so global agreements and major multilateral action (e.g. affecting the global oil supply) are feasible if and only if they are aligned with what's acceptable and desired by the separate nations.
In that regard, if we're looking at how to motivate change to actually happen, it is appropriate to look at the incentives that would/wouldn't make sense from the national perspective - because otherwise it's just empty PR and wishful thinking, proposals that have no chance to get implemented. And, to put it explicitly, climate change is not currently overriding most other aspects of national interests, far from it, it's not (yet?) the #1 or even #3 concern in most countries elections or unelected leader motivations.
In that regard, if we're looking at how to motivate change to actually happen, it is appropriate to look at the incentives that would/wouldn't make sense from the national perspective - because otherwise it's just empty PR and wishful thinking, proposals that have no chance to get implemented. And, to put it explicitly, climate change is not currently overriding most other aspects of national interests, far from it, it's not (yet?) the #1 or even #3 concern in most countries elections or unelected leader motivations.
That's why spending 365 billion USD per year to reduce oil supplies by 10% seems like something which could be decided nationally but have global effect. Better than taxing or carbon credits.
> How about just buying the oil and putting it into storage somewhere
What about burying it in the ground?
What about burying it in the ground?
That would just artificially constrain supply, driving prices up and making other mining options more viable.
Reducing oil consumption by $100m worth of oil saves less than 1 million tons of CO2. We need - and the x-prize requests - solutions that can approach 10 Gt CO2 reduction per year. A one time reduction of 0.001 Gt CO2 is simply insignificant.
Oil is about $75 per barrel and world wide we consume about 35 billion barrels per year. Reducing $100M worth of oil barely makes a dent.
How would you cost-effectively enforce that commitment?
Ah yes, the thing that will solve our climate issues is to provide more capital to those groups/individuals responsible for it. Supply side Jesus would be proud.
[deleted]
How about paying a $1m/head bounty for every dead oilman the local militia can bring me? Seems more economical.
A modest proposal indeed.
I often wonder if, once the effects of climate change rack up a few million more dead, whether the people directly affected with nothing left to lose might go all Rambo on whatever responsible target of opportunity happens to be at hand. It certainly wouldn't take a $1m bounty. I suspect $1k would be just as effective in a couple of decades.
I often wonder if, once the effects of climate change rack up a few million more dead, whether the people directly affected with nothing left to lose might go all Rambo on whatever responsible target of opportunity happens to be at hand. It certainly wouldn't take a $1m bounty. I suspect $1k would be just as effective in a couple of decades.
We need cheap, durable, power efficient VR technology and large quantities of cheap and high quality VR content, so that everyone stays home with the lights off
See also http://carbon.ycombinator.com/
i think the easiest way to win this price is to capture the exhaust gasses of coal power plants - this way you would have to process the least amount of input, as the stuff comes out in very concentrated form. Now the question would be where to take the electricity for the cleaning.
this is super positive of course, but I wonder - will it matter if we achieve it, but don’t stop the destruction of the environment caused by animal agriculture and fishing?
Elon Musk appears to always think crazy big. This seems crazy small?
Doesn't it seem that if you want serious teams / companies putting serious people on this for 4 years you need the prize to be $1 billion+?
Google had 100's of highly paid engineers working on virtual reality for a few years. Amazon had/has 100's working on Alexa. That's 100's of millions per year in each case. To incentivize several teams of 10's or 100's of really solid engineers, there has to be a pretty crazy high payoff given the chances of failure.
Elon how about a prize of $1 billion in Tesla stock?
Doesn't it seem that if you want serious teams / companies putting serious people on this for 4 years you need the prize to be $1 billion+?
Google had 100's of highly paid engineers working on virtual reality for a few years. Amazon had/has 100's working on Alexa. That's 100's of millions per year in each case. To incentivize several teams of 10's or 100's of really solid engineers, there has to be a pretty crazy high payoff given the chances of failure.
Elon how about a prize of $1 billion in Tesla stock?
How do I find a team to join?
Isn't this 2020 news?
[deleted]
> Funded by Elon Musk and the Musk Foundation, this $100M competition is the largest incentive prize in history, an extraordinary milestone.
Yuge
Yuge
Elon Musk has already amply demonstrated how he loves Mars. Now he is showing how much he hates Venus.
This is literally how Snowpiercer begins
with this money you can terraform Sahara desert by planting a billion trees
I knew this was already in progress but didn't realize how little funding it received. I think you're right, 100M could go a long way.
> Seven countries of the Sahel region, an area located just south of the Sahara, therefore initiated a project that will see billions of trees planted across 11 countries by 2030
> A total of 20 countries pledged support to the Sahel countries for the mammoth project. The European Commission has already invested more than €7 million ( $7.5 million).
> But according to the United Nations, the initiative has only reached 15% of its targets after just over a decade. "Progress is slow, but we have learned a lot along the way," said climate consultant Vivekananda.
https://www.dw.com/en/what-happened-to-africas-ambitious-gre...
> Seven countries of the Sahel region, an area located just south of the Sahara, therefore initiated a project that will see billions of trees planted across 11 countries by 2030
> A total of 20 countries pledged support to the Sahel countries for the mammoth project. The European Commission has already invested more than €7 million ( $7.5 million).
> But according to the United Nations, the initiative has only reached 15% of its targets after just over a decade. "Progress is slow, but we have learned a lot along the way," said climate consultant Vivekananda.
https://www.dw.com/en/what-happened-to-africas-ambitious-gre...
You think you can get a tree planted and growing in the Sahara for a dime?
One? No. A billion for 1 dime per tree? Maybe...
What is this species of tree that can grow without water or nutrients?
The average human is about 18% carbon.
We could all be doing a little more to reduce our carbon content.
We could all be doing a little more to reduce our carbon content.
How is the answer to “carbon removal” not just “turn deserts into plant areas” or “encourage algae blooms” or something? It seems implausible to me that any chemical carbon extraction process has superior externalities to just planting more trees or something.
I do not have a complete well-sourced answer, but the common argument against your suggestion is that such a carbon sink would work for only a couple of decades until it reaches a steady state, and these couple of decades do not seem to be enough to make a dent.
Also, it is difficult to plant trees in a desert. Also, algae blooms are dangerous for other life forms.
However, there are some startups working with super-fast-growing (ugly) trees that are then used as construction material, which would be a longer-term-functioning sink. Not very clear whether that scales.
Also, it is difficult to plant trees in a desert. Also, algae blooms are dangerous for other life forms.
However, there are some startups working with super-fast-growing (ugly) trees that are then used as construction material, which would be a longer-term-functioning sink. Not very clear whether that scales.
Productive forests in the US are a carbon sink.
The trees grow. We cut them down. We make houses out of them, which are wrapped to prevent deterioration. The sunk carbon becomes our buildings.
Other uses of the wood are also usually carbon sinks. Paper either gets recycled (the carbon is preserved) or it gets buried in a sealed landfill where is takes decades or longer to break down.
It'd be cool to calculate how much carbon Weyerhaeuser sucks out of the atmosphere each year.
The trees grow. We cut them down. We make houses out of them, which are wrapped to prevent deterioration. The sunk carbon becomes our buildings.
Other uses of the wood are also usually carbon sinks. Paper either gets recycled (the carbon is preserved) or it gets buried in a sealed landfill where is takes decades or longer to break down.
It'd be cool to calculate how much carbon Weyerhaeuser sucks out of the atmosphere each year.
Wouldn't it break down into methane instead though?
I doubt that building buildings are carbon neutral, let alone a carbon sink.
Dried up wooden building material is pretty stable and a fairly common (even commercialized) suggestion for a carbon sink. If you let it rot/burn, then no, it is not a carbon sink.
Sure, but the way we build buildings, there's no way that's actually the case. Transport alone to the sawmill, then the lumber yard, then the job site might actually release more carbon than the tree is storing.
A 25 year old maple will sequester 400 pounds of co2 in it's lifetime. An average commuter car will emit that in 2 weeks. Hauling all that carbon out of the forest will likely emit far more than that.
A 25 year old maple will sequester 400 pounds of co2 in it's lifetime. An average commuter car will emit that in 2 weeks. Hauling all that carbon out of the forest will likely emit far more than that.
> Transport alone to the sawmill, then the lumber yard, then the job site might actually release more carbon than the tree is storing.
If we're building the buildings anyway, we have to compare with alternative building materials. That is, how much more would transporting that lumber emit, compared to transporting for instance brick?
If we're building the buildings anyway, we have to compare with alternative building materials. That is, how much more would transporting that lumber emit, compared to transporting for instance brick?
It's not going to be "anyway". Once you add incentive for wood you will also create incentive for building. Complex systems 101.
[deleted]
Beyond carbon capture, trees cool an area, which is good in its own right.
Yes, everyone here seems to think CO2 is the most important thing to reduce, but we're not suffering from CO2 (2*C never hurt anybody), we're suffering from increased weather volatility as the homeostatic influence of the biosphere has been destroyed, slash and burned for cow pasture, drained for corn and soy farms, overfished and trawled until nothing is left.
But since CO2 is easier to measure than biomass and ecosystem complexity, everyone is focused on sucking carbon out of the air when we need to be restoring grasslands, forests, and coral reefs.
Source: Charles Eisenstein's "Climate: A New Story"
But since CO2 is easier to measure than biomass and ecosystem complexity, everyone is focused on sucking carbon out of the air when we need to be restoring grasslands, forests, and coral reefs.
Source: Charles Eisenstein's "Climate: A New Story"
I'm scared of "climate change" not because of temperature rise, not because of dangerous weather, not even because of ocean acidification. We have practice in handling all those things. I'm scared of C02 directly. It sure as hell does hurt people, we are looking a 685 ppm in 2050[1], over 1000 ppm in 2100[2], spiraling worse than that for the next 5000 years. The problem is that c02 makes us dumber, even small amounts.[3] Carbon Sequestration technology, on a globally ubiquitous and household scale is an overriding priority simply because we might be too dumb to fix it later. If we don't head off this escalation of c02, we are looking at a 5000 year dark age from the cognitive results alone.
[1]https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/Outlook%20to%202050_Climate%20Ch... [2]https://www.acer-acre.ca/resources/climate-change-in-context... [3]https://www.businessinsider.com/carbon-dioxide-indoors-could...
[1]https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/Outlook%20to%202050_Climate%20Ch... [2]https://www.acer-acre.ca/resources/climate-change-in-context... [3]https://www.businessinsider.com/carbon-dioxide-indoors-could...
What if we build co2 scrubbers in every home?
13% of the population doesn't even have electricity, that would take more work than mitigating climate change.
I really hope we can curb the damage. We already had four years of political climate denial, lost and gone forever. We need to step up, but I recently read heavy industry is really dragging their feet into the sand.
All fossil fuels were eventually living biomass. I don’t see any reason we wouldn’t “resuscitate” that biomass back into living organisms. It would take a long time for the living biomass to be re-interred into fossil fuels.
> not just “turn deserts into plant areas” or “encourage algae blooms” or something?
That might be slightly more tricky (and less efficient) than you seem to imagine.
Also, the prize is not exclusively for "chemical" carbon extraction, if you can find a way to scale algae bloom to be a long term carbon sink without ruining the environment in other ways you are eligible:
> Any carbon negative solution is eligible: nature-based, direct air capture, oceans, mineralization, or anything else that achieves net negative emissions, sequesters CO2 durably, and show a sustainable path to achieving low cost at gigatonne scale.
That might be slightly more tricky (and less efficient) than you seem to imagine.
Also, the prize is not exclusively for "chemical" carbon extraction, if you can find a way to scale algae bloom to be a long term carbon sink without ruining the environment in other ways you are eligible:
> Any carbon negative solution is eligible: nature-based, direct air capture, oceans, mineralization, or anything else that achieves net negative emissions, sequesters CO2 durably, and show a sustainable path to achieving low cost at gigatonne scale.
All the fossil fuels we've been burning is introducing carbon back into the biosphere. The key to carbon removal is to sequester it back somewhere where it won't be circulating in nature. It's not enough to plant more trees, as those new trees' carbon will just continue to cycle through the environment.
Why do I want to prevent carbon from circulating in nature? I like plants and animals and I want more of them.
The main problem is that we've released so much, so fast, that there really isn't a productive place for it to go. The other problem is that humanity keeps expanding and there's not much free space left for nature preserves. If you wanted to plant a new rainforest, where would you possibly put it? We're already cutting down swathes of existing ones just to feed and house our expanding populations. So sadly, most of that extra carbon just remains in the air.
Planting trees it is very difficult to keep up with global production.
TL; DW: planting 20 million trees would equal roughly the CO2 emissions of the USA for half a day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqht2bIQXIY
TL; DW: planting 20 million trees would equal roughly the CO2 emissions of the USA for half a day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqht2bIQXIY
Just one of the many problems of fundraisers like Team Trees:
1. Trees will eventually die and release their CO2 through rot or burning
2. Consequences of changing the ecosystem so rapidly
1. Trees will eventually die and release their CO2 through rot or burning
2. Consequences of changing the ecosystem so rapidly
If you can increase arable land then other trees will grow there. I would prefer to create as much biomass as possible. Surely the net biomass stored in fossil fuels could be completely resuscitated, so to speak.
The usual way to increase arable land is by cutting down a forest.
"Surely the net biomass stored in fossil fuels could be completely resuscitated, so to speak." - that's a strong no - fossil fuels have accumulated over millions of years, having all that carbon become biomass all at once would not be returning to something that existed earlier but something completely unprecedented, it would require many times more biomass than the Earth has now or has had at any particular moment of history.
"Surely the net biomass stored in fossil fuels could be completely resuscitated, so to speak." - that's a strong no - fossil fuels have accumulated over millions of years, having all that carbon become biomass all at once would not be returning to something that existed earlier but something completely unprecedented, it would require many times more biomass than the Earth has now or has had at any particular moment of history.
A quick google search suggests there are about 500 trillion pounds of oil left and about 1000 trillion pounds of living biomass. Assuming 5:1 mass:carbon ratio, it shouldn’t more than ~quadruple the total biomass. We could definitely fit that by turning the Sahara into a rainforest or something.
> turning the Sahara into a rainforest or something
I was surprised that Sahara has been green cyclically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Desertification_and_pre...
I was surprised that Sahara has been green cyclically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Desertification_and_pre...
You might find this interesting:
'What the heroin industry can teach us about solar power' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53450688
The satellite images show the green areas over the desert increasing.
They're pumping water from underground to irrigate the poppies using electric pumps and solar panels.
I wonder how quickly the water table will be depleted though.
'What the heroin industry can teach us about solar power' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53450688
The satellite images show the green areas over the desert increasing.
They're pumping water from underground to irrigate the poppies using electric pumps and solar panels.
I wonder how quickly the water table will be depleted though.
At least for terrestrial plants, the math just doesn't work out. Plants are really not fast or efficient enough to suck up carbon in meaningful quantities.
Algae can be >100 times as efficient at that than terrestrial plants, so there might be a there there, but even still, fracking basalt probably beats that by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Algae can be >100 times as efficient at that than terrestrial plants, so there might be a there there, but even still, fracking basalt probably beats that by a couple of orders of magnitude.
I understand this concern but I was blown away when I heard this fact which I wanted to share with you.
> Certain species of bamboo can grow 910 mm (36 in) within a 24-hour period, at a rate of almost 40 mm (11⁄2 in) an hour (a growth around 1 mm every 90 seconds, or 1 inch {2.54 centimeters} every 40 minutes).
At least it's better than no trees at all.
> Certain species of bamboo can grow 910 mm (36 in) within a 24-hour period, at a rate of almost 40 mm (11⁄2 in) an hour (a growth around 1 mm every 90 seconds, or 1 inch {2.54 centimeters} every 40 minutes).
At least it's better than no trees at all.
The giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) is the fastest-growing plant in the world, living mostly on the Pacific coast, off the shores of California and British Columbia. It had economic value at one point, so kelp farming was a major industry in the early 20th century. Though, I suspect if CO2 is all that matters, simple algae is easier to manage than large plants.
Sadly, the natural kelp forests are in really bad shape. I haven't seen the stats on giant kelp, but the bull kelp forests have been practically been wiped off the map by sea urchins and warming waters over the past decade or two. The natural kelp forests probably didn't provide much in terms of CO2 absorption, as dead plant matter would decay quickly in the ocean, but it's been a huge loss for aquatic wildlife.
Sadly, the natural kelp forests are in really bad shape. I haven't seen the stats on giant kelp, but the bull kelp forests have been practically been wiped off the map by sea urchins and warming waters over the past decade or two. The natural kelp forests probably didn't provide much in terms of CO2 absorption, as dead plant matter would decay quickly in the ocean, but it's been a huge loss for aquatic wildlife.
Bamboo is something like 5 meters per kilo. You don't really care about the length. You care about the mass.
That's really cool.
As long as we don't end up with monocultures (also bad for the environment) they should be part of the solution!
We could plant fast growing bamboo and turn it into biochar/bio-oil? Or use it for sustainable housing?
As long as we don't end up with monocultures (also bad for the environment) they should be part of the solution!
We could plant fast growing bamboo and turn it into biochar/bio-oil? Or use it for sustainable housing?
While it makes for impenetrable forest (scrub? Bush) when mature, you’d have to imagine that the acreage requires to sequester meaningful amounts of carbon would be absolutely vast. Bamboo just isn’t that dense.
My personal experience of having bamboo on my property is that it seems incredibly dense. Bamboo is a actually a grass and has root systems similar to grasses, it grows very close together. here is another resource about the carbon sequestration of bamboo: https://drawdown.org/solutions/bamboo-production
Another interesting tidbit: bamboo is actually a grass, not a tree.
There is no silver bullet. It has to be a combination of:
1) Reduce emissions to zero (will take some time).
2) Use more natural solutions (trees, algae, kelp etc. - will also take time).
3) Enhance natural solutions with tech (enhanced weathering).
4) Develop carbon capture tech to reverse the damage done by the fossil-fuel burning tech.
1) Reduce emissions to zero (will take some time).
2) Use more natural solutions (trees, algae, kelp etc. - will also take time).
3) Enhance natural solutions with tech (enhanced weathering).
4) Develop carbon capture tech to reverse the damage done by the fossil-fuel burning tech.
Presumably entrants will skew towards #4 as we don't have as many solutions there, and depending on how quickly you could scale up a good one, it would be quicker than 1-3, you'd expect.
Why do we have to reduce emissions to zero? I prefer freeing up carbon from the ground as long as it’s not causing greenhouse heating.
Well, it is causing greenhouse heating, that's the whole point, any freeing up carbon is inherently linked to that. But it is more appropriate to say that we have to reduce net emissions to zero; there would be no problem with emissions if there's a compensating carbon capture of equal amount. At least after we've "paid back the debt" by recapturing the excess emissions of earlier decades - there needs to be some period of negative net emissions before zero net emissions would be okay.
Why do you prefer "freeing up carbon from the ground" ? Usually that's just a sideeffect that happens only because we want some other thing e.g. extract energy from oil or manufacture cement by calcinating limestone; and if we want a stable atmosphere then we can't be freeing up carbon from the ground without putting it back.
Why do you prefer "freeing up carbon from the ground" ? Usually that's just a sideeffect that happens only because we want some other thing e.g. extract energy from oil or manufacture cement by calcinating limestone; and if we want a stable atmosphere then we can't be freeing up carbon from the ground without putting it back.
> 1) Reduce emissions to zero (will take some time).
How many centuries is it going to take to reduce global emissions to... Half of their current levels?
How many centuries is it going to take to reduce global emissions to... Half of their current levels?
Hopefully one century or less?
But this depends on global willingness to do so by choosing (more expensive) sustainable products and voting for politicians who want to enforce/encourage carbon reductions
But this depends on global willingness to do so by choosing (more expensive) sustainable products and voting for politicians who want to enforce/encourage carbon reductions
1. Is there any reason at all to believe that billions of people will change their minds and make both of them happen in a century or less?
The New Soviet Man was an experiment only 70 years in the making, and it was in no way a successful one.
2. Let's suppose that actually happens. Let's suppose we get to 50% of current emissions in... 50 years.
We currently increase CO2 concentrations by 2.5 ppm/year. This would put us at over 500 PPM in my expected lifetime... In one of the more optimistic interpretations of your predictions.
For bonus points, even if we hit 50% reduction in 50 years, that would way overachieve what the Paris Accord set out. We are currently not on track to hit any of the targets in the Paris Accord.
The New Soviet Man was an experiment only 70 years in the making, and it was in no way a successful one.
2. Let's suppose that actually happens. Let's suppose we get to 50% of current emissions in... 50 years.
We currently increase CO2 concentrations by 2.5 ppm/year. This would put us at over 500 PPM in my expected lifetime... In one of the more optimistic interpretations of your predictions.
For bonus points, even if we hit 50% reduction in 50 years, that would way overachieve what the Paris Accord set out. We are currently not on track to hit any of the targets in the Paris Accord.
For some context, if we planted trees wherever we could around the world we can only undo a decades worth of emissions[0].
Not only that but it would still take a century for the trees to reach maturity.
Our use of technology threw nature out of balance and we need to use technology to get the balance back again.
[0] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6463/eaaz0388.ful...