TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Carbon Removal Technologies

1187 pointsby samaover 6 years ago

88 comments

btillyover 6 years ago
I would strongly suggest investigating the claims of <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.innovationconcepts.eu&#x2F;res&#x2F;literatuurSchuiling&#x2F;olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.innovationconcepts.eu&#x2F;res&#x2F;literatuurSchuiling&#x2F;oli...</a> that after mining, milling, and then being spread in the ocean, olivine rocks weather quickly and take out CO2. The estimated costs of large scale CO2 sequestration this way are surprisingly reasonable, and the technology is already available.<p>Also the various ocean technologies are going to run into the same environmental complaints as the idea of seeding otherwise barren areas of the ocean with missing metals, causing algae blooms that sink to the bottom. See <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;iron-dumping-ocea...</a> for a discussion of some of those. (And see <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;timworstall&#x2F;2014&#x2F;04&#x2F;28&#x2F;iron-fertilisation-of-the-oceans-produces-fish-and-sequesters-carbon-dioxide-so-why-do-environmentalists-oppose-it&#x2F;#61cb86cb7419" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;timworstall&#x2F;2014&#x2F;04&#x2F;28&#x2F;iron-fer...</a> for a more laudatory article about this in the general press.) If you can deal with the regulatory concerns, the existing low-tech solution is one of the cheaper ways of removing CO2 that is known.<p>Speaking personally, I understand the qualms of environmentalists but consider the possibility of local toxic algae blooms to be a less serious environmental disaster than the otherwise certain ocean acidification that will wipe out all shellfish species worldwide. Yeah, nobody wants to accept a bad outcome, but in this case I think it is better than the alternative.
评论 #18287278 未加载
评论 #18288262 未加载
评论 #18286508 未加载
评论 #18286660 未加载
评论 #18287106 未加载
评论 #18291266 未加载
评论 #18290789 未加载
评论 #18286529 未加载
评论 #18287755 未加载
评论 #18287518 未加载
评论 #18286580 未加载
GreeniFiover 6 years ago
We already have carbon removal technology. They’re called trees.<p>[Edit] I’m not being facetious. 40% of emissions are as a result of poor land management. We’ll need all the technological help we can get, but if we can’t manage land as carbon stores - not sources, we’re not going to win this race.
评论 #18286502 未加载
评论 #18286204 未加载
评论 #18286894 未加载
评论 #18286208 未加载
评论 #18293221 未加载
评论 #18287352 未加载
评论 #18287411 未加载
评论 #18286458 未加载
评论 #18286233 未加载
评论 #18287664 未加载
评论 #18286392 未加载
评论 #18285941 未加载
评论 #18286157 未加载
评论 #18286843 未加载
评论 #18286299 未加载
评论 #18286513 未加载
all_usernamesover 6 years ago
I recently heard about Carbon Engineering, a B.C. Canada based firm that is extracting carbon from the atmosphere and making liquid fuel -- they call it &quot;recycled fuel.&quot; Apparently it can be used in existing combustion engines. And it is already up and running.<p>Something on the order of 10,000 of these industrial plants could get us carbon neutral rather quickly.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbc.ca&#x2F;news&#x2F;canada&#x2F;british-columbia&#x2F;b-c-company-says-it-is-sucking-carbon-from-air-making-fuel-1.4696817" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbc.ca&#x2F;news&#x2F;canada&#x2F;british-columbia&#x2F;b-c-company-...</a>
评论 #18286527 未加载
评论 #18288492 未加载
评论 #18286685 未加载
评论 #18288230 未加载
评论 #18286767 未加载
评论 #18288680 未加载
评论 #18286853 未加载
评论 #18289655 未加载
评论 #18286526 未加载
gingerbread-manover 6 years ago
An obvious step towards reducing CO2 emissions in the US would be raising taxes on gasoline. Americans are driving ever larger and less fuel-efficient cars in part because gas prices have remained steady or fallen in real terms since the 70s. In fact, Ford announced a few months ago that they will stop selling passenger cars in the US (except the Mustang), to focus on more popular trucks and SUVs.<p>But this is just about the least politically palatable policy imaginable. Democrats don&#x27;t like it because it&#x27;s a very regressive tax—the working poor across much of the country drive to work in older, less efficient cars. And besides being opposed to any &quot;new taxes,&quot; the rural Republican base would be hit especially hard by this as well.
评论 #18286920 未加载
评论 #18288220 未加载
评论 #18292316 未加载
评论 #18286259 未加载
评论 #18289243 未加载
评论 #18289449 未加载
WhompingWindowsover 6 years ago
Can we discuss space sunshades? Assuming the cost of getting freight to orbit goes down substantially as companies like SpaceX ramp up launches, what&#x27;s the limiting parameter on some sort of sunshade over the north and&#x2F;or south pole? Is it indeed the cost of launching the sunshade, or are there other factors at play which make the space sunshade unrealistic? What materials would be reflective and resilient and cost-effective to block the sun? Would polar blockers be enough to cool the planet as a whole and stop warming, or would multiple sunshades spread around the globe be better?<p>Also, generally, what about increasing cloud cover in general? Wouldn&#x27;t this reap a huge reward for cooling the planet? I know it doesn&#x27;t remove gasses and prevent ocean acidification, however it may help with heat-related issues.
评论 #18286057 未加载
评论 #18286102 未加载
评论 #18286582 未加载
评论 #18286194 未加载
评论 #18286228 未加载
评论 #18286159 未加载
评论 #18286214 未加载
评论 #18287068 未加载
评论 #18286296 未加载
评论 #18286466 未加载
评论 #18286255 未加载
zackmorrisover 6 years ago
I was just talking with my uncle a few days ago who has sailed around the Caribbean. He said there are meters-thick piles of what he thought was algae piling up on beaches. From a search:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencemag.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;2018&#x2F;06&#x2F;mysterious-masses-seaweed-assault-caribbean-islands" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencemag.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;2018&#x2F;06&#x2F;mysterious-masses-se...</a><p>So looks like this is Sargassum (brown seaweed). I feel like any large-scale geoengineering to combat carbon will probably involve growing something like this over large areas in the middle of the ocean and then burying it.<p>This would only be feasible if it scales by the square or cube. I&#x27;m thinking a genetically modified plant designed to grow in single stalks or sheets hundreds of miles long so that it can be wound up by some kind of continuous process. It could use a traditional coal power plant modified to burn some small portion (say 1%) of the plant itself.<p>Sure there are side effects and unintended consequences from this but cut me some slack, it&#x27;s only my first idea!
loupradoover 6 years ago
&quot;It&#x27;s time to invest and avidly pursue a new wave of technological solutions to this problem - including those that are risky, unproven, even unlikely to work&quot;.<p>I had a recent crackpot idea that falls into the &quot;unlikely to work&quot; category since my background is not chemistry.<p>Given that a modern automobile&#x27;s tailpipe emissions are mostly C02 + H20, those molecules can be converted into ethylene (C2H2) using known efficient electro-catalytic processes. The conversion of ethylene gas to a polyethylene (plastic) is well known and has the added benefit of being exothermic.<p>The end goal is for my car to output a lump of plastic I can drop into the recycling bin instead of CO2.<p>But my gut tells me that:<p>1) There is no way to speed up the reactions to keep up with the 80 liters per second of tailpipe exhaust (~40rps * 2.0 liter engine) without this system being impractically large and&#x2F;or requiring energy intensive compressors.<p>2) No one, including me, wants to drive around with a tank of hydrogen and a tank of ethylene gas.<p>But still, it might be fun to hack on something like this assuming I can do it safely. If anyone has any feedback, or has experience making polyethylene, I would be grateful for feedback even if it is negative. Thanks.
评论 #18288996 未加载
评论 #18288992 未加载
评论 #18288695 未加载
wuschelover 6 years ago
&gt; The question then becomes, whether we can create new genetic chemistries that are not based on DNA, but some new genetic polymer?<p>Is this article a PR piece? I am a bit annoyed by the lack of reflection in this naive approach to develop xeno-biology and let it loose in our (only) planetary habitat.<p>If it were the only statement of the kind in the sub-articles, it would be fine. There is, however, a strong disregard for second&#x2F;third systems effects. Radical approaches alone do not cut it, they have to &#x27;fit&#x27;.<p>Not that it is easy to do in the first place, but please think about the ecosystem as a whole. It is hard to take these type of statements seriously - but this is YC here, an outlet with a lot of media impact. Please communicate a <i>responsible</i> call for action.
chimereover 6 years ago
Charm Industrial [1] was recently mentioned on HN, with a novel approach to BECCS using grass to produce carbon-negative hydrogen. Grasses are the highest-yielding biomass per acre and thus the cheapest CO2 removal option. It also helps if you can make a profitable product from that biomass, like Charm is doing with hydrogen.<p>Not much info online, but we have a weekly climate newsletter [2], or you can ask me (cofounder)<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.charmindustrial.com&#x2F;about&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.charmindustrial.com&#x2F;about&#x2F;</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;charmindustrial.us18.list-manage.com&#x2F;subscribe?u=aafd4c7577e4bc2bfc20baa47&amp;id=3e4a6db592" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;charmindustrial.us18.list-manage.com&#x2F;subscribe?u=aaf...</a>
peacetreefrogover 6 years ago
Good. More and more, reducing GHG gas emissions politically or through any sort of international agreement looks like a pipe dream.<p>I think Kyoto is a good example. Take (liberal and environmentally enlightened) Canada -- their Kyoto target was 6% reduction (compared to 1990 levels) in emissions by 2012. Did they come close to meeting it? No, instead they were on track to be 25% over their 1990 emissions and dropped out in 2011 in order to avoid paying billions in fines.<p>It&#x27;s even more depressing when you consider that even if Kyoto HAD been fully implemented (by every country), it wouldn&#x27;t have done enough actually stop global warming.<p>IMO, basically any political&#x2F;collective effort is doomed to fail, even if the alternative is disaster. It&#x27;s going to take something like this -- carbon&#x2F;albedo reduction&#x2F;capture technologies that can be implemented by smaller groups of people (not nation states) and probably will be if things get really bad.
评论 #18288072 未加载
评论 #18291362 未加载
ciconiaover 6 years ago
Whatever the solution is to global warming and the looming ecological crisis, I don&#x27;t believe it lies in <i>more</i> technology.<p>The only viable solution in my opinion is for people to realise that our planet&#x27;s resources are finite and that we need to accept this fact. AS others here have stated, moving from a growth-based economy to a sustainable one is the only way forward. Sustainability and technological startups are diametrically opposed.
评论 #18289461 未加载
评论 #18289442 未加载
评论 #18289313 未加载
评论 #18289360 未加载
lchengifyover 6 years ago
For anyone who is interested in the Energy Industry in general, including Carbon Capture (CCS), I would recommend &quot;The Energy Gang&quot; podcast as well as &quot;The Interchange&quot;.<p>The guys who run the podcast are not long on CCS as a savior for 1.5 degrees C, but they are incredibly knowledgable about the space and dive into a lot of technical, policy, and economic minutiae that you wouldn&#x27;t think would exist.<p>I never exactly knew how much mitigating something like peaker plant composition and more sophisticated demand response can affect existing CO2 emissions. Even things like the opinions of energy executives in the (very silo&#x27;d) regional utilities (Dominion Energy, Green Mountain Power, etc) can have a wide-reaching effect on the timeline of policy.<p>I&#x27;ve listened to the whole run of each of the podcast and it&#x27;s definitely got me more excited about the space. I&#x27;m glad YC is getting more aggressive.
评论 #18286556 未加载
评论 #18286820 未加载
super-serialover 6 years ago
I&#x27;m glad someone mentioned it above, because my favorite solution is still &quot;advanced weathering&quot; of rocks: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.innovationconcepts.eu&#x2F;res&#x2F;literatuurSchuiling&#x2F;olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.innovationconcepts.eu&#x2F;res&#x2F;literatuurSchuiling&#x2F;oli...</a><p>Just US $250 billion per year to offset ALL of humanity&#x27;s carbon emissions. Yes I said ALL. It would cost less than the ongoing &#x27;war on terror.&#x27; If I was rich I would be building autonomous mining robots so I could do it myself because I&#x27;m not confident governments will take action until it&#x27;s too late.
评论 #18286991 未加载
评论 #18288209 未加载
NeedMoreTeaover 6 years ago
The only viable carbon removal technology yet identified is <i>leaving it in the ground.</i><p>This isn&#x27;t a smart-arse answer given every additional gallon of oil dug or gas fracked makes the problem worse, the oil industry hasn&#x27;t yet accepted defeat, and politics still promotes and subsidises fossil.<p>How then to take that problem out of the realm of political corruption (lobbying) even faster?<p>We know what to do. Slightly facetiously, simply copy Orkney, we know how, and the cost. Save a little oil for chemicals and plastics that cannot be replaced. Yet we don&#x27;t. Lobbying and politics is the problem.
评论 #18287620 未加载
评论 #18299881 未加载
csenseover 6 years ago
The ocean phytoplankton technology sounds like it has the potential to screw the planet up worse than the climate change issues it&#x27;s trying to solve.<p>Massive, self-replicating system of genetically engineered bacteria? I&#x27;m certainly no marine biologist, but I&#x27;m pretty sure phytoplankton are a super important part of the world&#x27;s ecosystem. Suddenly massively increasing the number of them that exist in the open ocean seems like it would wreak havoc on the world&#x27;s ecological balance.
评论 #18288043 未加载
评论 #18288223 未加载
评论 #18288028 未加载
mark_elementover 6 years ago
I&#x27;m quite impressed by this presentation. There is a tremendous amount of content here to excite some different audiences about opportunities for planet scale changes.<p>I&#x27;m super concerned about externalities for any sort of geo-engineering, but we are going to get some externalities of the present course anyway.
jasalooover 6 years ago
I&#x27;m encouraged by the full-scope approach this report takes, though I get very worried about technological fundamentalism, the idea that we might possibly engineer our way out of the worst effects of climate change. Don&#x27;t get me wrong, we might, but do we really want the reality it gives us on the other side?<p>Charles Eisenstein, a prescient thinker on this topic (and others), has advocated for our reconnection and renewed stewardship to&#x2F;of the earth. That might sound a bit new-agey to some, but after reading his recent book, he made some compelling points:<p>- mainstream environmentalism has taken a reductionist approach by almost solely dedicating itself to emissions reduction (it has also made the movement vulnerable to climate-change deniers, who are (at least partially) correct in that emissions cannot account for ALL of our environmental issues... e.g. bees dying off has likely nothing to do with carbon emissions, yet the culprit is often vaguely referred to by many activists as &quot;climate change&quot; which has become synonymous with &quot;carbon emissions&quot;)<p>- while reducing our emissions is unquestionably critical, we need to widen our focus to include the following, which are equally if not more important: restoring water cycles, considerate reforestation&#x2F;halting deforestation, ending pesticide use (which is likely a primary driver of insect die-off, causing catastrophic disruptions in global food chains and biodiversity, both of which are critical to nature&#x27;s ability to heal itself), and last but not least:<p>- regenerative, no-till agriculture (versus till-intensive, soil-eroding industrialized agriculture) is an effective tool for restoring these systems, and it also acts a stunningly powerful carbon-sink (by some estimates, if my memory serves me correctly, we could reduce current emissions enormously by converting only 10% of our global industrialized, mono-crop farmland to regenerative, no-till farmland, which IMO is a small endeavor when compared to the tech-intensive and potentially world-altering prospects of massive carbon-sucking machines or injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to induce artificial cooling)<p>For anyone interested, his recent book is &quot;Climate: A new story.&quot; It was the most meditative and thought-provoking collection of ideas that I&#x27;ve read on the state of the environment and climate. It&#x27;s also incredibly hopeful without being blindly optimistic. In fact, it&#x27;s rooted in a deep sense of awareness, not just of the many existential ecological crises we face, but of the new mindset we must adopt if we are to truly heal our planet.
singularity2001over 6 years ago
Iron fertilization!<p>1 kg of iron can fix 83000 kg of carbon dioxide and turn it into biomass.<p>The idea is that you give algae the one ingredient to growth which is very sparse in the oceans yet over-abundant on land.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Iron_fertilization" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Iron_fertilization</a><p>&quot;Give me a half a tanker of iron and I will give you another ice age&quot;
评论 #18292849 未加载
akshatrathiover 6 years ago
I wrote a series on carbon capture technologies: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;qz.com&#x2F;re&#x2F;the-race-to-zero-emissions&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;qz.com&#x2F;re&#x2F;the-race-to-zero-emissions&#x2F;</a><p>What I took away most was that carbon removal is now firmly a part of mitigating climate change. It&#x27;s part of &quot;Plan A&quot; but also there is so much from the previous &quot;Plan A&quot; that will still need to work on. There are a number of carbon-capture technologies on current emissions that need to be deployed from power plants to cement factories.
评论 #18287267 未加载
Jun8over 6 years ago
This is awesome! Some people don&#x27;t like having a Plan B along these lines because they think it distracts with the standard approach of emission reduction. In reality, for something this important (i.e. Keter level destruction event) we should pursue <i>all</i> threads simultaneously.<p>&quot;If we don&#x27;t act soon, we&#x27;ll end up in &quot;Phase 3&quot; and be too late for both of these strategies to work.&quot; In fact, let&#x27;s at least start brainstorming about plans to deal with Phase 3, too.<p>The topic of desert flooding has been thought about quite a bit, e.g. see <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sahara_Sea" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sahara_Sea</a> and <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Qattara_Depression_Project" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Qattara_Depression_Project</a>.
评论 #18285943 未加载
评论 #18287001 未加载
评论 #18287821 未加载
评论 #18286108 未加载
评论 #18285953 未加载
rb808over 6 years ago
I really think CO2 should be scrubbed from the air, however how would you store them then? Ideally something like solid carbon - a black solid which you could then bury. Its a lot like using energy to make coal out of air and putting it back in the mine.<p>But surely it makes sense to stop digging up coal in the first place.
gueloover 6 years ago
An elephant in the room not being discussed here are the propaganda networks that are persuading voters and preventing any kind of government action on climate. Disrupting these propaganda businesses is another necessary angle of attack for preventing climate change catastrophe.
评论 #18287227 未加载
评论 #18288246 未加载
评论 #18286693 未加载
评论 #18288085 未加载
cafover 6 years ago
On the Electro-Geo-Chemistry page, there is an error here:<p><i>A 500 MW renewable energy power plant dedicated to negative-emissions H2 could therefore consume and store nearly 8 million tonnes of CO2 per day while generating a little more than 2 million kWh in the form of H2</i><p>As both the math and later text makes clear, such a plant would store ~21,600 tonnes of CO₂ per day - or 8 million tonnes <i>per year</i>. The 2 million kWh generated looks more like a daily figure but doesn&#x27;t match up with the daily figure elsewhere in the article (it has 6 million kWh &#x2F; day equivalent of H₂ generated for a similar sized plant) - it was probably supposed to be 2 billion kWh &#x2F; year?
brrtover 6 years ago
Regarding the wonderfully sci-fi idea of flooding deserts, I raise you the seawater greenhouse company: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;seawatergreenhouse.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;seawatergreenhouse.com&#x2F;</a> - which have been at this game for a couple of years now.<p>I&#x27;ve always been thinking - someone should give these guys money, and lots of it.
philwelchover 6 years ago
I wonder why we can’t just extract CO2 and H2O from the atmosphere and recombine them back into hydrocarbons. Not only would this give us a closed-loop supply of hydrocarbons (meaning you could have things like airplanes) but you could just sequester the carbon by storing the hydrocarbons. The only problem is that it takes a lot of energy (more energy than we got from burning those hydrocarbons in the first place) but it would be great to solve the energy storage and carbon sequestration problems at once.
cwkossover 6 years ago
I&#x27;m curious about pickled compost of fast-growing grass to avoid CO2 release by keeping it anarobic so it produces lactic acid instead during fermentation.<p>An acre of lawn grass can sequester several tons of CO2 each year. I bet properly managed, you could achieve 10x that by optimizing growth cycle. If we could harvest and store it without releasing it, might turn into a useful agricultural product: bokashi.<p>My napkin math puts it as needing within orders of magnitude of acres used for US corn production for the 40 Gt&#x2F;yr target, but does not account for energy use.<p>Also, more wood construction? Wood is 50% carbon, but because CO2 is only ~1&#x2F;3 carbon by weight, every pound of wood represents ~1.5 pounds of carbon out of the atmosphere. If can grow, harvest and use ~13 billion tons of wood a year, that wood satisfy yearly 40gt target. Seems like forests can grow roughly a ton of wood per acre.<p>If we can redirect wood waste (sawdust&#x2F;chips) to livestock operations efficiently, the material could be used as bedding to absorb waste and then be buried&#x2F;composted for agricultural use. Less CO2 release and counteract soil depletion, so subsequent generations of plants will grow yet more vigorously.<p>Mixture of factors is likely best solution. I think Joel Salatin could probably save the planet if we let him.
jf-over 6 years ago
Here’s my crazy idea: nuclear powered high pressure differential centrifugation.<p>Under centrifugal force fluids separate into bands based on mass. The same principle as oil and water separating under gravity. Use giant centrifuges to spin compressed air until it separates into bands, then extract the bands corresponding to greenhouse gasses.<p>I don’t know the energy requirements for this or if there is a better way of doing it. But if you’re looking for blue sky thinking, that’s what I’ve got.
评论 #18286525 未加载
评论 #18286547 未加载
评论 #18287489 未加载
评论 #18286450 未加载
danielharanover 6 years ago
I&#x27;d like to propose a different scale removal, for anyone that may have the means to do it: home and office CO2 scrubbers.<p>CO2 concentrations are higher indoors, and they&#x27;re affecting our cognitive ability. Atmospheric concentrations are going to be high for human cognition, especially in dense urban areas.<p>Better indoor ventilation will help, but if outdoor air already has higher than optimal CO2 concentrations, scrubbing that air is the only option left. Given the number of air changes needed (assuming 10X), a home unit would need to scrub CO2 from around 100,000 liters of air a day per person.<p>Small-scale removal is likely much more expensive than industrial BECCS or other carbon capture technology - but the value proposition would be fresher air for healthier, smarter workplaces and homes. Sell me cartridges of enzymes, and take spent ones with bicarbonate for reconditioning, and I can feel like I&#x27;m helping the planet a bit while making my life nicer.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thinkprogress.org&#x2F;exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thinkprogress.org&#x2F;exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-dire...</a>
评论 #18286973 未加载
giarcover 6 years ago
Is anyone aware of measures of public acceptance of carbon removal vs carbon reduction (emit less)?<p>My thoughts are that people may be more willing to invest in carbon removal as it allows them to continue to live their same life. They see it as &quot;I can continue to pollute since we can just remove the CO2.&quot; Similar to how some people may view eating and dieting... &quot;I can eat bad now, I&#x27;ll just go on a diet later.&quot;
评论 #18289980 未加载
nanomonkeyover 6 years ago
All Power Labs, a company that makes biomass gasifiers, has estimates for the amount of carbon their technology can sequester (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.allpowerlabs.com&#x2F;carbon" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.allpowerlabs.com&#x2F;carbon</a>). This appears to be the most viable process forward, as not only can one create a ton of electricity, hot water and air, but also biochar which sequesters carbon in the soil in a beneficial way for an estimated 10k years. (full disclosure, I&#x27;m an ex employee).<p>Equally exciting are the biomass gasifiers that utilize Stirling engines, such as those made by Microgen (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.microgen-engine.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.microgen-engine.com&#x2F;</a>) as they are external combustion engines which are quieter and have better runtimes and maintenance cycles.
评论 #18287110 未加载
eaenkiover 6 years ago
That was an amazing read. The fun thing, is that I started the draft of a quite similar post a couple of weeks ago. That&#x27;s a great example of definite optimism. The fact that the post mentions but doesn&#x27;t expand on outer-space solutions it&#x27;s a bummer.
ArtWombover 6 years ago
Artificial photosynthesis.<p>Basic idea is a nanoscale metal-organic &quot;hack&quot; of common bacteria systems to develop efficient pathways for the conversion of sunlight and CO2 into useful fuels. Massive search and simulation required to find ideal candidates. Which could then be incorporated directly into carbon emission sources such as factories and power plants.<p>One recent example is hybridizing M. thermoacetica with &quot;magic&quot; Au22 nanoclusters<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chemistry.berkeley.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;harvesting-solar-fuels-through-bacterium%E2%80%99s-unusual-appetite-gold" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chemistry.berkeley.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;harvesting-solar-fuels-t...</a>
orliesaurusover 6 years ago
If anyone&#x27;s reading this. I&#x27;m really passionate about this crossing of tech and environmental issues &amp; awareness. I have a tiny carbon footprint myself, I am super conscious about everything: no car&#x2F;no emissions&#x2F; tiny electricity and water bills compared to everyone else in the city&#x2F;food&amp;waste minimization etc<p>If anyone needs a developer and&#x2F;or marketing engineer with a passion for automation (think very advanced Zapier) hit me up because I&#x27;d rather work with you than working for the next &quot;Crypto currency company&quot;. Look at my profile for how to contact me!
intendedover 6 years ago
Goddamit no<p>&gt;About 10% of the world&#x27;s surface is desert, which is cheap, uninhabited, unproductive land that is drenched in some of the most powerful solar radiation on the planet.<p>Land doesn’t have to be productive to be protected. Deserts are ecosystems, and this kind of “changing the wild forest frontier to mans will!” thinking is how we landed up without forests in the first place!<p>From desert hare, to toads that come out once a year when it rains, to cactii, snakes, insects, and many other creatures - deserts are filled with living creatures.<p>Is this stewardship of the planet or just ensuring habitability for humans?
titojankowskiover 6 years ago
For an overview of 80+ startups working in carbon removal, check out AirMiners: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.airminers.org&#x2F;explore" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.airminers.org&#x2F;explore</a>
评论 #18287516 未加载
angel_jover 6 years ago
Energy is needed to separate CO2 into carbon and oxygen. At the individual molecular scale, this can&#x27;t be much. How many can I separate at once with my hands?<p>If we invent a device that helps us to physically separate oxygen from carbon, humans and farm animals could do it. It would be like milling grain, or washing clothes.<p>Idea: create filters which are big enough for carbon to pass through, but not oxygen. Then &quot;squeeze&quot; a bunch of air through, and wipe away the carbon on one side. Like a cheesecloth made of carbon nanotubes...
评论 #18287452 未加载
评论 #18287483 未加载
monkpitover 6 years ago
I feel like this would make a really interesting sim video game. Start with a certain amount of capital, research and build, and try to save the world from carbon :)
canercandanover 6 years ago
What about changing our diets?<p>&gt; Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation [1]<p>Are you will to fund any product ideas that will be willing to encourage a paradigm shift&#x2F;or smooth shift with regards to a more eco and animal fríendly lifestyle?<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cowspiracy.com&#x2F;facts&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cowspiracy.com&#x2F;facts&#x2F;</a>
评论 #18287152 未加载
narratorover 6 years ago
It seems global warming politic&#x27;s main focus is to implement a global carbon tax in one form or another. Proceeds from the tax are administered by a supra-national government. That&#x27;s how the Paris accord worked and very credible global warming authorities said was the only solution to global warming. Does this company have a business model of being the recipients of the global carbon tax?
评论 #18286419 未加载
polymath21over 6 years ago
For a great in depth but still understandable look at the race to zero emissions, including carbon capture technologies, I highly recommend this series from Quartz: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;qz.com&#x2F;on&#x2F;race-to-zero-emissions&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;qz.com&#x2F;on&#x2F;race-to-zero-emissions&#x2F;</a>
kumarskiover 6 years ago
Some of my notes on why carbon sequestration is a no-go for civilization to achieve lithospheric homeostasis.....:<p>5 Billion Cubic Meters of Oil are produced Annually by humanity.<p>30Bn Tons of CO2 generated.<p>60% is un-sequesterable because it is small and&#x2F;or mobile.<p>40% is sequestrable and large scale&#x2F;stationary.<p>12 Billion Cubic Meters of CO2 are thus sequestrable.<p>You must liquefy CO2 before putting it into the ground.<p>50% -70% efficiency in converting it to a liquid that we can shove into the ground.<p>6 to 8.4 Billion Cubic Meters of Liquefied CO2 are thus Sequestrable.<p>Shoving 6 to 8.4 billion cubic meters of liquefied CO2 into ground is no small matter.<p>Think about it this way, humanity built an entire industry focused on an annual extraction of 5Bn Cubic Meters of Oil over a time span of 100+ years with refineries and complex processes spanning multiple countries, geographies, regulations, wars, and land rights.<p>Also, who’s going to buy sequestered carbon?<p>The reality is that something like this will require spinning up an entire Trillion dollar market.
评论 #18288360 未加载
评论 #18288372 未加载
rogergr3over 6 years ago
Hi, there&#x27;s a lot of interest comments in this thread, we have found, in our own experience, is that now we have a much create of push at all levels than we used to from individuals to governments even though the latest is still being to slow. We believe that the future looks much better in brighten, that we are still on time to move from phase 2 back to (the improbable) phase 0 and we are working to make this happen and will continue until the job is done. :D<p>We believe though there is still a lot to be done, and not just in CO2 capture, but in air pollution in general.<p>Here&#x27;s the website: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pureairindustries.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pureairindustries.com&#x2F;</a>
clomondover 6 years ago
I appreciate the focus here and applaud all progress and work related to any kind of carbon capture&#x2F;sequestration technologies. These approaches are necessary and important.<p>BUT<p>I think it is too often overlooked that a fundamental prerequisite for making any meaningful progress in this area predicates on cheap, affordable, abundant &quot;clean&quot; energy. Anytime you talk about hydrolysis, desalination, or increasing concentrations of CO2 in a gas or a solution - each of those processes require non-trivial amounts of energy to do at scale and the limitations are often in the realm of physics. Ultimately, energy from somewhere is needed to break the bonds of the CO2 so it can bond to new inert compounds and that requires lots of energy.
评论 #18286569 未加载
lifeisstillgoodover 6 years ago
I do understand the direction of travel here (and notwithstanding the idea that most geo-engineering and other &quot;solutions&quot; seem to carry James Bond Villan levels of unintended consequences) what I feel is missing is tackling the elephant in the room.<p>The article says it clearly &quot;It&#x27;s a collective action problem the world has been unable to solve&quot;<p>Well, can we place a call out for investment in innovative solutions to collective action.<p>Can we fix democracy - both where it lives but could do better and where it does not live at all?<p>I don&#x27;t accept that &quot;Social Media&quot; already does this. We need more<p>In short - Let&#x27;s have investment and innovation in the democracy and freedom space (as well as) in the carbon sequestration space.
chimprichover 6 years ago
Just because you like them, should that trump significant threats to the environment or or civilisation?<p>I rather like spending money, but I know I only have a certain budget. Consequently I only spend what money is available rather than only depending on how much I want things.<p>I feel we should look at the environment in the same way; decide our carbon budget, and work within what&#x27;s possible according to that, rather than start with what is palatable to the individual and working backwards.<p>Keeping our environment habitable seems like something we have to do rather than a nice-to-have.
dv_dtover 6 years ago
The most impactful technology would be some sort of financial instrument to fund known and future carbon reduction techniques which could be implemented independently (or with the help) of governments.
devyover 6 years ago
Besides CO2, Caron removal should also target other greenhouse gas with much higher potency like Methane&#x2F;CH4 [1], which is the central point of why livestock is a big cause of global warming in Gate&#x27;s Note about Climate Change Quiz.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Methane" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Methane</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gatesnotes.com&#x2F;Energy&#x2F;Climate-change-quiz" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gatesnotes.com&#x2F;Energy&#x2F;Climate-change-quiz</a>
ilove_banh_miover 6 years ago
Any plan to massively capture CO2 should take into account that removing too much CO2 from the atmosphere would cause a mass extinction of land-based plant life if CO2 levels fall below 150 ppm.
all_usernamesover 6 years ago
Anyone thinking about or considering working on these technologies owes it to themselves to read Charles Mann&#x27;s The Wizard and the Prophet. Whatever you may think of the author&#x27;s various statements on Peak Oil etc., the book is a worthwhile meditation on two very different approaches to our current crises.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.goodreads.com&#x2F;book&#x2F;show&#x2F;34959327-the-wizard-and-the-prophet" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.goodreads.com&#x2F;book&#x2F;show&#x2F;34959327-the-wizard-and-...</a>
评论 #18287554 未加载
dsalzmanover 6 years ago
Would like to see YC address the economic incentive problem with carbon sequestering. How do you incentivize companies and individuals to capture C02? What lessons from the failed cap and trade systems can be adapted to a new &quot;sequester and trade system&quot;?<p>Solving this problem would open up resources to this field. Right now we suffer from global bystander&#x2F;freeloader syndrome. The cost of global warming is spread to thin&#x2F;gradual across the global population.
markvdbover 6 years ago
According to the World Bank[0], the US produces 75% more CO² per $1000 of economic output than the EU.<p>The US should be able to reduce that inefficiency delta to just over 5% by cutting CO² emissions by 40% without any impact on luxury whatsoever. This alone would cut worldwide CO² emissions by about 5.73%.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.worldbank.org&#x2F;indicator&#x2F;EN.ATM.CO2E.KD.GD" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.worldbank.org&#x2F;indicator&#x2F;EN.ATM.CO2E.KD.GD</a>
aidenn0over 6 years ago
I&#x27;m worried that it&#x27;s too late for carbon removal to prevent some of the worst effects (since no large scale carbon removal plan can be implemented overnight) and we need to look into more short-term ways of reducing warming such as albedo modification.<p>Or in the terms on this page, we need a Plan C.<p>[edit]<p>They actually do list this, I didn&#x27;t notice at first since it&#x27;s not a carbon removal technology.
评论 #18287588 未加载
timkaover 6 years ago
According to 1st Geochange report (2010), anthropogenic factors don&#x27;t play significant role in climate change<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;geochange-report.org&#x2F;index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=83:summary&amp;catid=35:1st-report&amp;Itemid=113" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;geochange-report.org&#x2F;index.php?option=com_content&amp;vie...</a>
jasonlaramburuover 6 years ago
The post mentions the significant logistical challenges associated with moving large quantities of biomass and biochar. What about a mobile biochar production system? ie a device that could be delivered to a farm and towed through the field to convert waste biomass in-situ into biochar and till it directly into soil?
评论 #18287221 未加载
hughesover 6 years ago
Getting really good at carbon capture (specifically direct air capture) could also have the side benefit of proving technologies that drive in-situ propellant production within the carbon dioxide atmosphere of Mars.<p>Similarly, this could drive a net carbon-neutral source of natural gas on Earth.
hantuskover 6 years ago
Cheap energy is the enabler for several of the solutions proposed among the comments.<p>I really see nuclear energy as the solution. The nuclear reactions are emission free, and the emissions in the supply chain to drive the reactions have very low emissions compared to other sources of energy.
theuttickover 6 years ago
I am a structural engineer of moderate capability. I have developed an engineering platform as a startup. If anyone is serous about doing one of these projects, I would love to speak with you about helping and about using my platform to design anything you need.
drewmasseyover 6 years ago
I work at a startup that is using AI to reduce emissions in industrial and data center contexts. I like the big sky approach of this post but so much savings &#x2F; reduction is an execution question.<p>We are hiring so DM me if you would like to learn more!
adamrezichover 6 years ago
Anyone else find it weird when people talk about &quot;carbon removal&quot; instead of &quot;CO2 removal?&quot; Maybe it&#x27;s just me but &quot;carbon removal&quot; evokes &quot;eradication of life&quot; in a sci-fi way
评论 #18288202 未加载
crispinbover 6 years ago
For anyone who still clings to the weird, blinkered, narcissistic technofix superstition: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;environment&#x2F;2018&#x2F;oct&#x2F;30&#x2F;humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;environment&#x2F;2018&#x2F;oct&#x2F;30&#x2F;humanity...</a><p>Climate breakdown is not a problem worth tackling in isolation, because it is merely one prominent symptom of a general catastrophe. Capitalism will not allow evolved complex systems to continue to exist, because they can either be extracted directly for short-term profit, or destroyed in side-effects (appearing costless to the brutish actuarial mind) of other profit-making activities. Our home (the so-called &#x27;environment&#x27;, a term we really should abandon) cannot survive our way of life. We have no other home (Mars fantasies aside). Ergo, our way of life must change.
samstaveover 6 years ago
For flooding of the deserts, id like to determine the size and power requirements for a renewably powered valve-pumping section that will work in series to pump water along the required route.
jwrover 6 years ago
I&#x27;m very happy to see this new interest in saving our planet among the tech elites (this includes the recent post from Bill Gates). Maybe we are not all too stupid to save our planet...
hamilyon2over 6 years ago
We need a video game where all global planetary effects are simulated. Like civilization or alpha centauri but with plot twist regarding global warming. Our children will finally get it.
starpilotover 6 years ago
Do carbon offset projects like Terrapass have any merit? I know it&#x27;s not as good as selling my car and decking my life to planting trees, but is there any benefit at all?
ghosthamletover 6 years ago
I think discard&#x2F;reduce most of the non life-essential technology is more important than inventing new technologies, than opening countless startups.
xchaoticover 6 years ago
Like any sane person, I totally accept the global warming is real and most likely mostly man made. But rather than fighting that change which is already underway, can we not adapt to the higher temperatures and entropy? I appreciate that there&#x27;s lots of side effects that we see as disastrous, but generally warmer = better for life in many parts of the earth. Most likely the positive outcomes of global warming do not outweight the negatives, but it looks like relatively very little attention is paid to what is most natural course of action - adaptation.
评论 #18287130 未加载
评论 #18287372 未加载
评论 #18287100 未加载
评论 #18288506 未加载
intendedover 6 years ago
Desert flooding is out - long time back an article on solar energy in the desert pointed out that the desert isn’t dead.<p>It’s an ecosystem in its own right with specialised creatures that live there. Plus it’s not like the people in the Sahara are going to be happy that a bunch of people decide that their nation should be flooded.<p>Remember we can’t convince Brazillians to stop ranchers from decimating the rainforest.<p>Also that added water, if it is stable, will result in ,ore growth and human presence, adding to the heat engine. (Assuming people in the region don’t drain it for irrigation almost immediately )
ilove_banh_miover 6 years ago
Note that phytoplankton accounts for 50% of photosynthesis on the planet, already capturing 50 GtC&#x2F;year.
EGregover 6 years ago
Finally! I want to invest in YC batches just for this. Didn’t care to invest before.
Diggityover 6 years ago
Are there any crowd funding efforts out there for carbon removal?
marauder016over 6 years ago
I&#x27;m surprised by the hype around for-profit direct-air capture (DAC) companies because, unlike afforestation or biochar, which produce useful products, there is a very small market for CO2. Somewhat ironically, the biggest market for CO2 is for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which is exactly what it sounds like: it allows for more oil to be extracted from oil wells.<p>There is in fact no market for CO2 separated using DAC because it costs an order of magnitude more to separate CO2 (&gt;$100&#x2F;T) than its value on the market (max $15&#x2F;T). So, the real question is, who is going to pay for it?<p>The companies currently operating in this space (e.g. Climeworks, Carbon Engineering) are doing so at a massive loss. In the case of Climeworks, they are pumping the CO2 to a greenhouse.[0]<p>I don’t think DAC alone can ever make sense, there has to be a second step in the process where the CO2 is converted into a marketable product, so that product displaces emissions. This means something like converting CO2 to plastic or fuel that would otherwise be produced using petrochemicals. Carbon Engineering recently announced that they are pursuing this. Of course, in addition to two technical breakthroughs that need to occur (cheap CO2 separation from air and cheap CO2 conversion to fuel), they will somehow have to get those fuels to be cost-competitive with current fossil fuels.<p>The thing to keep in mind is that CO2 emissions from man-made sources total 60 GT per year (pa). And eventually all 60 GT must be removed every year. To put this into perspective, the amount of oil produced globally by weight is about 5 GT p.a. The amount of CO2 produced is truly enormous.<p>The market for CO2 for EOR is about 80 Mtpa (around 1000x less than CO2 emissions)[1]. EOR actually makes some sense as we will be using oil for some time, the carbon footprint of EOR-extracted oil is lower than conventional oil.<p>At the end of the day, CO2 capture, especially DAC, seems more like something that is run at a loss for public benefit, like public transit, not as a for-profit enterprise.<p>[0] On the face of it, this seems great because the CO2 is being used, but the problem is that the plants would remove the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere whether they were grown with captured CO2 or not (they might just grow a bit faster in the greenhouse). In fact, the energy required for the carbon capture process means that the carbon footprint of the plants grown in the greenhouse using captured CO2 is likely higher than if they were grown outdoors!<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hub.globalccsinstitute.com&#x2F;publications&#x2F;global-status-ccs-2012&#x2F;market-and-price-co2" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hub.globalccsinstitute.com&#x2F;publications&#x2F;global-statu...</a>
derekeover 6 years ago
I&#x27;ve been watching waay too many youtube videos about reforestation, agriculture and land management recently and I think I&#x27;ve learned a little from it (links at the end).<p>We no longer have the number of massive herds of animals that used to roam the plains&#x2F;savannahs grazing, pooing and to a lesser extent escaping from predators.<p>This has meant that the grasslands are no longer trampled on and &quot;fertilised&quot;. This has caused the grasses to die back, the soil to degrade, to not hold water and to turn to desert. (see the sahara, the outback, parts of china and the usa).<p>Subsequently we&#x27;ve tried to be really careful with the land and not over graze it etc. which tends to have the opposite effect than what is desired.<p>Now I also looked into reforestation because I thought trees were the answer. Grow trees sequester carbon etc. But it turns out the cost of doing this £&#x2F;$ and water (desalination) would actually be outweighed by both the albido effect (green trees absorb more sunlight than deserts that reflect it back) and that trees don&#x27;t really grow fast enough to have the impact required.<p>Getting back to the grasslands, it turns out that when you intensively drive a herd over grasslands the grass initially dies back but the root system expands, the plant grows quickly and sequesters carbon into the ground. It actually builds soil and traps carbon and it does it faster than previously thought. The ground is also more permeable to water so when big storms come it actually soaks up the water for later use rather than it running off and causing floods, erosion etc. Also grass is lighter (colour) than trees so the albido effect is not so bad.<p>This is just my understanding of one part of the problem. This is what I think may be a solution to that:<p>We need to change the way we manage livestock. Probably change legislation so they can&#x27;t be kept indoors or feed grains (I think that is a big methane contributor as well). We should have grazing plans for entire countries that manage existing land well and restore broken land. We should stop eating them because we need a big herd to restore the land and we probably need to employ a lot of people to drive the herds (yeeha).<p>Grazing plans are simple, illiterate people seem to cope fine with them. We&#x27;ve got the technology to scale this and in the west we probably have the maps&#x2F;surveys etc. to make this relative straight forward.<p>Whatever ends up being the solution to these problems we need to make government act. Historically the best way to do that has been non violent direct action. As we are at crisis point now (5yrs until the arctic has melted based on current melt) it is really our final option. You may be interested in joining the Extinction Rebellion to make this happen.<p>My interest grew from this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI</a> But this video has a lot more detail: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=q7pI7IYaJLI" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=q7pI7IYaJLI</a> Why growing trees in the sahara won&#x27;t work: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=lfo8XHGFAIQ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=lfo8XHGFAIQ</a> And this is long but has a lot of detail about holistically managing livestock and the effect on soil structure etc. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=8HmoAIykljk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=8HmoAIykljk</a> Finally the Extinction Rebellion - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;extinctionrebellion.org" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;extinctionrebellion.org</a>
评论 #18292539 未加载
astrodustover 6 years ago
At the rate we&#x27;re setting up for a future where the entire ocean blooms, dies, and we&#x27;re left with nothing.<p>Already jellyfish are taking over. We&#x27;re killing off so many life forms we&#x27;re essentially going back in time to the precambrian era.<p>Instead of looking for &quot;quick fixes&quot; like iron seeding, which has just as much a chance of going awry as Australia importing cane toads to deal with their crop insects, let&#x27;s just <i>curtail CO2 emissions</i>.
评论 #18286698 未加载
评论 #18286740 未加载
评论 #18286945 未加载
评论 #18286950 未加载
评论 #18286700 未加载
评论 #18287119 未加载
crispinbover 6 years ago
This is just symptom-chasing. Growth ideology in general, and capitalism in particular, are incompatible with the continued existence of a living planet. The problem space of replacing complex living systems with crude technological ones will be explored fully by these crazed systems in all possible directions even if&#x2F;when this one symptom (climate breakdown) is countered with a narrow technofix.<p>The first crucial question is whether catastrophic damage to Earth&#x27;s ecosystems is biologically inevitable given human cognitive capacities. Given a satisfactory answer to that (which I think unlikely), the next question is: how can we displace the cancerous ideology of limitless growth? These are obviously more challenging issues, requiring the recruitment of a far broader range of human capacities and knowledge than dangerous &amp; blinkered technological capitalists can offer.
makewavesnotwarover 6 years ago
So I would love to get some feedback from this group on my takeaway from what I&#x27;ve learned of global warming.<p>The general consensus seems to be that gasses like carbon dioxide and methane heat cause an increase in global warming. I don&#x27;t dispute that, but out of fun a few years ago on earth day I started crunching some numbers regarding our direct thermal pollution.<p>In the US our current consumption of gasoline alone is as 142.98 billion gallons per year[0]. At an average of 120,429 BTUs per gallon [1] that puts the US at ~17.219 quadrillion BTUs a year (in gasoline consumption alone)<p>Does this matter? Well at that scale we&#x27;re talking about a Hiroshima Nuclear Bomb level event (15 Kilotons of TNT or ~60 Billion BTUs) every 0.54 minutes all day every day in this country when just considering American consumption of gasoline alone. If volcanoes are your thing, Mt. Saint Helens produced 24 megatons of thermal energy in its 6 years of eruptive activity. The US on the other hand produces the thermal equivalent of that every ~2.1 days... and again, that&#x27;s just gasoline.<p>Most of our heat comes from gas which is converted directly to thermal energy. And then we have coal power...<p>Regardless of how &quot;clean&quot; you make it. We&#x27;re talking about burning things to create energy so the basic law of the conservation of energy comes into play. And as hot air rises, it doesn&#x27;t just magically become cooler... it dissipates that energy until it reaches an equilibrium. Thereby transferring energy into the geosphere.<p>And then when you explode things like natural gas or coal use, it&#x27;s sometimes being used to heat, but even when it&#x27;s being used to cool, we&#x27;re not getting 1-to-1 efficiency. Air conditioners output more heat than they dissipate.<p>And if people use ACs more as atmospheric heat increases, we&#x27;re talking about a positive feedback loop without even taking into account the thermal pollution of creating the energy by burning stuff in the first place. (Even nuclear plants tend to use ocean water for cooling - thereby directly heating the oceans)<p>I&#x27;m not saying carbon dioxide and methane aren&#x27;t potentially catastrophic, but I don&#x27;t think it makes sense to discount our direct thermal pollution as a potential cause. I only based figures in my argument on US gasoline consumption. That&#x27;s a minor piece of the global energy pie.<p>Either way, reducing personal wattage through efficiency and reduced use seem to be pretty productive in terms of reducing my personal thermal impact so it seems like a step in the right direction whether thermal pollution is directly related to global warming or not.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eia.gov&#x2F;tools&#x2F;faqs&#x2F;faq.php?id=23&amp;t=10" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eia.gov&#x2F;tools&#x2F;faqs&#x2F;faq.php?id=23&amp;t=10</a> [1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eia.gov&#x2F;energyexplained&#x2F;index.php?page=about_energy_units" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eia.gov&#x2F;energyexplained&#x2F;index.php?page=about_ene...</a>
memmcgeeover 6 years ago
I highly doubt capitalism is going to save us from climate change considering it has largely driven the problem.
skookumchuckover 6 years ago
Or we could just plant trees. Lots of them. Give people a small tax deduction per acre of forest on their property.
prolikewh0aover 6 years ago
Stop polluting entirely and plant trees? All of these useless ideas above could be solved by getting rid of the endless growth required by capitalism, but nobody wants to give up their Alexa to save the entire population.
rexpopover 6 years ago
...are stupid even to contemplate while we&#x27;re still increasing carbon emissions. If you actually cared about the impact — and weren&#x27;t just cynically cashing in on environmentalism&#x27;s recapitulated caché — you&#x27;d be shorting big markets. The biggest threat to the world is unbridled capitalism, which VC&#x27;s like you are incapable of abandoning. May as well ask a fish to bicycle.<p>This post is a pitiable joke, whose highest purpose is to stand in a museum, one day, as a testament to how blindly we charged into the apocalypse. I only hope that museum&#x27;s curated by our children, and not whatever species finds our remains.<p>For a good, hard look at why I believe this, read Naomi Klein&#x27;s &quot;This Changes Everything,&quot; and Peter Frase&#x27;s &quot;Four Futures.&quot;<p>If you&#x27;re daring enough, you can follow those with Nancy Isenberg&#x27;s &quot;White Trash,&quot; and Barbara Ehrenreich&#x27;s &quot;Dancing in the Streets&quot; and &quot;Witches, Midwives, &amp; Nurses&quot; for a deep look at how and how long we&#x27;ve been going wrong.<p>If that all doesn&#x27;t make you straight up suicidal (let alone quit maintaining your startup pyramid scheme), I have more reading suggestions for how to turn this ship around.
评论 #18286227 未加载
评论 #18286077 未加载
评论 #18286766 未加载
评论 #18286350 未加载
评论 #18287530 未加载
godzillabrennusover 6 years ago
YC should be investing in Deep Isolation.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;deepisolation.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;deepisolation.com</a>
评论 #18286409 未加载
aezellover 6 years ago
This scientism approach to what is a problem of crumbling connections to our selves will get us nowhere. Instead of having the best minds of our generation flailing away at marginal gains within a flawed hypothesis, maybe we should embrace the Earth as the whole biological system that it is. These approaches are fixing the bruised elbow while the heart is laid bare and shooting spurts of blood onto the floor.
microdrumover 6 years ago
Ah, the irrelevance of YC has begun.
评论 #18286937 未加载
olvar_over 6 years ago
Could this endeavour be detrimental to the environment? (Please read my whole reasoning before calling me a Climate Change Denier or something like that)<p>I understand that humans are changing the Earth&#x27;s environment, but with this we need to acknowledge that other organisms are doing it too. In particular plants have been taking CO2 from the atmosphere for ages and continue to do so. If you look at CO2 concentrations for long periods of time, you&#x27;ll find that the levels of today are not very different from what has happened cyclically for hundreds of thousands of years.<p>The difference may be on the fact that now we are adding an extra influx of CO2 to the atmosphere, but in doing so we may be balancing greater concentrations of water vapour, which is a much more efficient greenhouse gas. If doubling the concentration of CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere, in say one degree, to gain another degree you&#x27;ll need to double the concentration of CO2 again, so the effect of concentration of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic. Water vapour is much more efficient and by decreasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we may increase the amount of water.<p>This is because of how photosynthesis (and agriculture) works. A plant breathes air in through small pores on their leaves called stomata. Doing so allows water to evaporate through those same pores. If the concentration of CO2 in the air is low, the plant will need to evaporate more water to absorb the same amount of CO2. On the other hand, if the plant doesn&#x27;t have enough water to evaporate, it will close its stomata and the result will be lower growth and poor yield, simply because of the lack of carbon. Since nowadays many agricultural plots are using water from aquifers and other underground sources, we are actually putting into the environment much more water than would have been without agriculture. If we decrease the amount of CO2 we may push even further the plant&#x27;s need for water and produce more water vapour, pushing even further the warming, since water is much more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.<p>We may be fighting against the wrong enemy. And in doing so punishing unfairly the poorest of the world, who rely on fossil fuel for energy and those who will be the most affected when crop yields start falling and the water available becomes insufficient.<p>I haven&#x27;t been able to find a global warming model that incorporates this effect, but if someone made it this far into this comment and knows of any model that does, I&#x27;ll be very grateful to hear from it. If someone related to this project reads this, please discuss it. It may be a mute point because some reason that I don&#x27;t know, but it may very well be an important one.
beatpandaover 6 years ago
Just came here to say:<p>1) Thank you for doing this<p>2) You should have been doing this 10 years ago because it was exactly as obvious then that this kind of acceleration of investment was necessary, and YC sank millions of dollars into social media bullshit in the intervening period instead.
gibsonf1over 6 years ago
Given that every global warming&#x2F;climate change prediction has been wrong so far, why would it make sense to believe the same political entity making predictions now? If you plug in the data from 10 years ago into any climate model, the prediction for now is wildly wrong.<p>A more prudent approach, in terms of believing that a prediction for the future may happen, would be to plug the data from a decade or more ago into a model and see if it accurately predicts now. If not, reject that model, try to do a root source analysis to find out what&#x27;s actually happening, and try again.
chutiyapantiover 6 years ago
Hey, let me play the devil&#x27;s advocate here and say that these are nothing but knee jerk reactions.<p>Call me cynical or pessimistic, but the time has already passed. Maybe we should focus on saving as much as we can.<p>Funding a few companies may be the right thing to do, but shouldn&#x27;t it have been ten years ago. Or were the smartest people on the planet were hoping that it would all just go away.<p>It&#x27;s already too late. Sorry, but you have to invest in saving as many people as possible.<p>Unfortunately, the politicians would never understand that.<p>Its actually funny. After decades of dystopian future being manifested in the literature and movies, we have come to believe that&#x27;s it&#x27;s all just another science fiction movie or a conspiracy theory.<p>We are heading towards a earth altering event, and we can&#x27;t stop it.<p>Save yourself.
评论 #18287170 未加载
phyllerover 6 years ago
&gt; Genetically engineered phytoplankton might be used to photosynthetically convert CO2 into an ultra-stable carbon sequestration medium<p>If you downvote this please leave a note with what is wrong with my logic.<p>This is so wildly irresponsible. Every time I hear of these mega projects to remove CO2 I get scared. Let&#x27;s try to think about this coolly and logically for a minute.<p>Our planet is used to change. Our ecosystem is ready to deal with change, and CO2, and heat. It takes a lot of hyperventilating to even imagine a way in which global warming destroys life on Earth. Worst case scenario is stronger weather, higher oceans, and change of ecosystems. Maybe we get forests in Antarctica again. Maybe North America becomes one big desert. Or a jungle. Life adapts.<p>The biggest existential climate threat is a permanent ice age. Our planet has been slowly sequestering carbon for eons. The ice ages last longer than the warm periods. All of human history has been in a warm period. You want to genetically engineer little organisms that we can in no way control, to remove carbon from our atmosphere? Sounds like a great way to kill everything on the face of the earth and turn our giant spinning miracle into just a big ice ball. Just one team needs to do it one time, take that decision into their own hands.<p>Think of hurricanes becoming routine in some parts of the world. Then think of literal miles of ice, flexing the tectonic plates as they crush everything beneath them, creeping towards the equator.<p>I&#x27;m not going to even address the other ideas right now. We have a small fraction of the understanding and intelligence to be making these kinds of decisions. Just my opinion, but the best thing we can do for now is stop adding carbon to the air, and learn more about this world we live in.
评论 #18291001 未加载
pdonisover 6 years ago
I know this is going to get downvoted but I have to say it: the problem is not CO2, the problem is CO2 alarmism. The models on which the IPCC predictions of doom are based do not match the data. Even the IPCC admits that in the AR5. The actual data says that CO2-driven warming is not enough to worry about. (Not to mention that the prediction of doom also depends on economic models which are even worse at matching data than the climate ones are.)<p>We should not be spending the valuable resource of startup founders on this problem. We should be spending it on creating enough wealth to bring everyone in the world out of poverty and giving them the tools to adapt to whatever happens in the future, including changes in climate.
评论 #18287112 未加载
评论 #18287720 未加载
评论 #18287073 未加载
评论 #18287080 未加载
评论 #18287517 未加载