22 ms·

Project Vesta – Mitigating climate change with green sand beaches

• simonebrunozzi 7y ago
  Mine olivine rock, spread it on a small percentage of tropical marine beaches with high levels of tide energy, remove CO2 from the atmosphere. What could possibly go wrong? Edit: not sure why the downvotes. Perhaps I should have explained my skepticism more clearly? Any geo-engineering initiative almost always fails to predict the unintended consequences for the environment - e.g. perhaps one day we'll discover that too much olivine rock on beaches destroys ecosystems, or something else.
  • QuickToBan 7y ago
    > What could possibly go wrong? Nothing. It already happens in nature, but at a far smaller scale. It is not a self-renewing or runaway process. The point is to distribute the correct amount of olivine to stabilize CO2 at ~200 PPM which is close to its pre-industrial level.
    • loons2 7y ago
      > It already happens in nature 4000 ppm CO2 was found in nature far before pre-industry came along. Does the fact that anything "happened in nature" make it "ideal?" What is the globally "ideal" level of CO2 anyway? Certainly 200ppm is an order of magnitude low when considering the ideal for plants.
      • NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        4,000 ppm was a period far before humans or advanced primates, and very different flora. 200ppm is around the level humanity, and much of the flora we share the planet with, evolved. It's the level we started to develop from, to farm. Nature and the planet has no ideal, it copes with whatever there is. Humanity on the other hand would appear best served by the level we evolved with - 200ppm or thereabouts. 400ppm causes problems for us, 4,000ppm would almost certainly be the end of us or as near as makes no odds.
        • loons2 7y ago
          Greenhouse owners generally spike their air to 1200-1500ppm CO2. That's the compromise between best cost and best for the plants and is lower than these species evolved in. As to humans, 400ppm causes zero problems, matter of fact, OSHA says 1000ppm for continuous exposure. NIOSH says 10,000 ppm for a 10 hour work shift. For instance: https://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Carbon%20_Dioxide_Exposure_Limits.php https://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Carbon%20_Dioxide_Exposure_...
          • supergauntlet 7y ago
            The GP obviously doesn't mean that 1000+ ppm CO2 is toxic, they mean that the changes to the environment it would cause are less than ideal for humans to thrive.
            • shawnb576 7y ago
              1000ppm decreases human cognitive ability by ~20%. It's hard enough to deal with these problems with the brainpower we have. [1] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037
          • hollerith 7y ago
            >As to humans, 400ppm causes zero problems You mean it causes zero known problems. Medicine and biology are not yet advanced enough to say in most case whether putting the human body in a condition humans haven't experienced in 800,000 years is harmful. It took decades to learn that asbestos is harmful. If the harm caused by asbestos were cognitive decline rather than shortened lifespan, it probably would've taken longer, and cognitive decline is the effect that appears at the lowest concentration of all of the known adverse effects of co2. (One study found cognitive decline after 2.5 hours of exposure to 1000 ppm.) Plants use co2 to make their bodies just as we use proteins, fats and carbohydrates to make our bodies, so I am not particularly reassured by knowing the plants thrive at very high co2 levels. Graph of co2 levels over the last 800,000 years: http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/co2-1024x576.jpg http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/co2-1024x576...
    • flagfeedingusa1 7y ago
      You hear that everyone? "QuickToBan" on ycombinator has officially put his stamp of approval that literally NOTHING can go wrong attempting a geo-engineering process of this magnitude! What a relief!
  • Quarrelsome 7y ago
    > What could possibly go wrong? As the water level rises we're gonna need to lose some of the cynicism around geo-engineering. Unless you're convinced that society will somehow value the stability of our climate over economics? I feel like there's more evidence (given our snail-like progress over the past few decades) to demonstrate that's a not gonna work out compared to attempting _some_ form of geo-engineering.
    • aphextim 7y ago
      I'm all for Geo-engineering if it is done in the right way to further benefit all of society and the planet. Sadly as humans we have never all come together for the benefit of the planet yet, and I am doubtful we will in the near future. My fear is that once people figure out how to Geo-engineer things with fine tuned results that it will eventually be used as a weapon. Imagine if you could turn up the temperature of an area to create a drought? Or flood/freeze out an area? This could be done covertly as it would be hard to identify the exact cause if done under the 'radar'. No bomb shells or traces left behind to place blame. I'll pass on homo-sapiens ego presuming they are smarter than the planet and can fix any problem using technology and our brains. Maybe for the first time in History we may be smart enough to mitigate the potential ill effects of the climate cycle, however this planet was here long before humans and will probably be here long after. There was a joke once, about human's being the planets Herpes, which seems to be a good metaphor for our existence on this rock.
      • aphextim 7y ago
        Technically you cannot use weather modification as a weapon but when has the rule of law stopped crazy people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Con... To restate I am all for being able to help the planet, mitigate our impact using new greener technologies and changing our habits, however this needed to be done a long time ago and trying to fix our current problems with the band-aide of Geo-engineering I personally believe is a futile effort.
    • billars 7y ago
      I think we as industry and society know nothing about geo-engineering, am I wrong? if yes doesn't this create big changes of failing and create more damage? If no can we point on geo-engineering to substain what we are doing wrong in terms of waste production and environment destruction?
  • the8472 7y ago
    Even if it has unintended, negative consequences... would they be worse than say the consequences of pulling the clathrate gun trigger?
• cupofjoakim 7y ago
  I'm sceptical. Are there calculations on shipping for the olivine? If it's primarily mined in certain parts of the world it's going to have a big cost in shipping - there's a reason why regular sand is sourced as locally as possible. It weighs a lot, which means that it's expensive for both the wallet and the environment to ship.
  • tetra_proxy 7y ago
    From Their Site: What is the Life Cycle Analysis Costs of CO2 Incurred in the Mining, Milling and Transport? The Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of the release of CO2 from mining, milling, and transport of olivine creates an approximately 4-6% loss on CO2 removed. We will always work to minimize the transport distance from the source of olivine, and utilize low impact transit such as rail and boats. Further, many tons of olivine are already mined because the deposits are found above other valuable minerals, such as diamonds (found in a rock formation called Kimberlite). Utilizing these piles of waste rock, known in the industry as tailings piles, will allow us to harvest olivine without causing a significant CO2 output. Further, the dust from mining itself can contribute to the offset of the entire mine, as well as the very ground where the olivine is exposed. It starts weathering right away, and many ultramafic mineral mines, abandoned or active, eventually offset their own footprint and even go towards negative emissions. On of our olivine weathering rate sources is actually these tailings piles. See these studies: Carbon Dioxide Fixation within Mine Wastes of Ultramafic-Hosted Ore Deposits: Examples from the Clinton Creek and Cassiar Chrysotile Deposits, Canada Integrated Mineral Carbonation of Ultramafic Mine Deposits—A Review LATERITIC EVOLUTION OF THE JACUPIRANGA ALKALlNE COMPLEX Koornneef JM, Nieuwlaar E (in prep.) Environmental life cycle assessment of CO 2 sequestration through enhanced weathering of olivine. Working paper, Group Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University
  • matznerd 7y ago
    Hi, co-founder of Project Vesta here. Based on a CO2 life cycle assessment, to minimize CO2 created during transport, the idea is to utilize mines within 300 km (186 mi) of the destination beach. Including mining, milling, and transport, we can hopefully maintain only a 4% efficiency loss in terms of CO2.[1] This paper has a few examples of models where it is 93% efficient for mines within 1,000 km. [2] Fortunately, there are olivine reserves found all over the planet in a formation called dunite (contains 90% forsterite olivine). Further, for many of the first beaches, we will be looking to use tailings piles (waste rock) from previously dug and developed mines, as well as the infrastructure from those mines, such as rail for transport. Since olivine is found in volcanic rock formations close to the surface, in the process of mining other minerals that are found in volcanic formations such as diamonds, many tons of olivine rock have already been dug up and deposited in large piles on the surface. By utilizing this rock we would not produce any additional CO2 from mining, and only from crushing/transport. We are definitely taking the CO2 penalty into account in our calculations and strategy for deployment. [1] https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_978/1/ https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_978/1/ [2] https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_93/2/ https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_93/2/
• astazangasta 7y ago
  This seems like it would fail energetically; the amount of energy required to mine and transport a bunch of rock to a beach would surely exceed the amount of CO2 sequestered.
  • groby_b 7y ago
    It seems like you didn't read the paper, or really anything on this. But, to make it easy for you: * 1 ton of Olivine will absorb 1.25 tons of CO2[1] * Transportation cost is 161.8 grams of CO2 per ton mile[2] * They are looking at mines within a 300km[1] (or ~190 miles) radius. That's a maximum transportation cost of ~31kg CO2. That's a rounding error. * Mining cost for a ton of Olivine is ~$30/ton right now. Let's say it's all for hydrocarbon fuels, and they're cheap, so 30 gallons of fuel. Let's make it 50 gallons, because I'm lazy. A gallon of fuel produces 20 pounds of CO2[3], so 1000 pound of CO2. That's half a ton. * Let's assume for reasons beyond our ken we'll spend another quarter ton of CO2 on this. Likely due to people arguing on the Internet. That still leaves us with half a ton of CO2/ton of Olivine. Maybe do at least back-of-napkin calculations before claiming things will certainly fail. [1] https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ [2] http://business.edf.org/blog/2015/03/24/green-freight-math-how-to-calculate-emissions-for-a-truck-move http://business.edf.org/blog/2015/03/24/green-freight-math-h... [3] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm
    • Accujack 7y ago
      Mines or potential mining sites for extracting Olivine on this scale don't exist within short distances of these tropical beaches. Many of the beaches are on islands which are essentially coral heads above the water. Digging down to any deposits of other rock are going to require either significant effort in terms of dewatering, caissons, and equipment or else mining underwater. This is a good idea that's probably not practical. It sounds ok if you accept that that much rock can be mined, processed, and moved within the constraints given, but they're probably not even close with these estimates. On top of that, you're talking about completely changing the composition of the beaches in much of the tropics, displacing the existing beach materials and probably causing mass die-offs and disruption in the ecosystems attached to them. Plus, you'll have to keep hauling sand. Beaches in active areas like the tropics aren't static. The sand migrates down them and out into the ocean. Sometimes islands like the Bahamas even have to dredge sand back out of the water to rebuild beaches. Underwater sand isn't going to absorb much atmospheric CO2.
• 24gttghh 7y ago
  At first I read this and was like "okay, you want to dump 30 Gigatons of Olivine per year for 'a number of years' on tropical beaches" That sounds crazy, considering we pump out +10Gigatons of CO2 per year as it is. But, does the science actually make sense in that if we actually did that, we'd end up with less CO2 in the atmosphere, and subsequently the oceans? That would seem to make this a great tool (possibly among many) to clean up our mess once/if/when we stop putting so much CO2 out there in the first place. Edit: I do wonder if this process would raise the alkalinity of the ocean too much in the other direction. I can't find the info on this on their site, there is so much to read!
  • Taniwha 7y ago
    At the moment the oceans are being acidified by dissolving more CO2 in them - I assume that if you dump enough olivine into them to negate that (or rather return them to preindustrialization ph) then long term you'll also soak up about the right amount of CO2
    • 24gttghh 7y ago
      What I mean is, let's say this process is able to sequester sufficient CO2 in the form of bicarbonate to lower us to a conservative 300ppm CO2. At what point, if any, would we be turning the ph of the ocean to be too alkaline?
      • Taniwha 7y ago
        Well part of this process is supposed to precipitate out the carbon in forms that can eventually be subducted (as the current natural carbon cycle does). I assume that the rate at which the carbon is sequestered by this method is also driven by the level of ocean acidity, as more CO2 is pulled out of the ocean the acidity will drop and so will the reaction rate will also drop ... this means that there's a natural negative feedback here - whether it's enough to "do the right thing" is probably still a question for science
• krisrm 7y ago
  This actually seems to have some promise - I'd be worried about other side effects (another article I was reading mentioned possible effects on marine life due to dissolved iron and nickel), but it seems like a technology that merits further exploration and rollout on at least a small scale.
  • supergauntlet 7y ago
    I think I get the worry and skepticism about geo-engineering but to be completely frank we've been (inadvertently) geo-engineering the planet at least since the industrial revolution, so I don't really think we have much of a choice, especially since we need to go carbon negative, not just neutral. This olivine solution doesn't really look any less viable than CO2 scrubbers, if I'm being honest.
    • erikpukinskis 7y ago
      I would rather we strengthen our forests than add more pollution. I guess if forestry is considered geo-engineering then I support it. But I don't think "we're already adding pollution, so we might as well add more pollution to try to net out carbon" is a sound argument.
      • graeme 7y ago
        Forests are helpful but not sufficient. The world was once covered in forests and all the oil/coal etc was in the ground. Now we have reduced forest cover and burned underground carbon. Reforestation only solves the former.
        • erikpukinskis 7y ago
          We can harvest forests without reducing canopy coverage and store the wood. You can even grow your forests on top of wood landfills.
      • philipkglass 7y ago
        Reducing forest clearance and engaging in afforestation could be enough had anthropogenic CO2 emissions started dropping significantly in the 1990s. But they have continued to rise. Forestry changes aren't nearly enough to offset anthropogenic emissions from other sectors. They may be part of the solution but additional measures are needed. Geoengineering is on the table now not because it is an easy shortcut, but because the world has failed to do enough in other ways. It's better for patients with prediabetes to change diet than develop full blown type 2 diabetes, but if diet doesn't change fast enough it's better to prescribe insulin than just let them die. Industrial civilization has discounted decades of warnings about changing its energy "diet" and will soon need more drastic measures. I'm a little optimistic because renewable energy has become cheaper faster than I expected. I'm pessimistic because the world still isn't reducing fossil use fast enough (or at all, really -- so far the best news is "the percentage growth rate is slowing.") Even when the economics start to favor non-combustion energy sources, legacy fossil industries have often delayed the transition by obtaining government support to resist the economic pressures. So I believe that the world can transition to low-emissions energy but I also believe that it's not happening fast enough. Even worse, the climate perturbation from anthropogenic emissions can trigger a dangerous positive feedback loop that will release even larger quantities of GHGs from natural stores as forests burn more frequently and permafrost thaws. I think that if people get the problem under control (as opposed to just suffering the effects, with no softening of the blow), it's going to involve 3 major prongs: - Transition to non-fossil energy sources - Geoengineering via solar radiation management, as a temporary bandaid to prevent runaway warming feedback - Geoengineering via enhanced silicate weathering, as a thermodynamically stable fix for the excess CO2 added to the environment Solar radiation management can be phased out as atmospheric CO2 levels drop. But with silicate weathering alone, I fear that thawing permafrost will outpace even the most ambitious CO2 drawdown efforts. The second two prongs are still highly controversial and advocating for them tends to get one lumped in with climate denialists. I think that most people concerned about climate are going to come around eventually, though. The IPCC already has. We clearly aren't going to avert feedback loops by 2030 via emissions-reductions alone.
• scorchin 7y ago
  For other mitigations to climate change, see Project Drawdown: https://www.drawdown.org/ https://www.drawdown.org/
  • TimJRobinson 7y ago
    It doesn't look like olivine is mentioned in that. Is it under some other name / concept?
    • philipkglass 7y ago
      It's called Enhanced Weathering of Minerals. They mention olivine in its description page: https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/coming-attractions/enhanced-weathering-minerals https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/coming-attractions/enhanc... They don't try to quantify the potential, though.
    • matznerd 7y ago
      This process is typically referred to in the scientific literature as "enhanced" weathering but we think that "accelerated" weathering is easier for lay people to understand. Drawdown is mostly focused on things we can change in our current activity to lower emissions and less about methods for Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). Their top solution for becoming carbon neutral is "Refrigerant Management"... I like the concept of the project and know some people working in the org, but in my opinion, they do not give enhanced/accelerated weathering enough credit as a potential solution, even though it can scale all the way up to global CO2 level emission removal. Many of the other solutions they suggest are limited in potential, yet featured prominently... I am working to communicate this to them. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/coming-attractions/enhanced-weathering-minerals https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/coming-attractions/enhanc... https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
• numakerg 7y ago
  I didn't see the cost breakdown [1] mention how much they expect to pay countries for dumping olivine in their beaches/waters. Would a country, especially those near the equator, willingly agree to take part in an experiment like this for free? The referenced papers have explained how the project is safe, but I don't think communities or their representatives will see it that way. 1. https://projectvesta.org/#phaseIV https://projectvesta.org/#phaseIV
  • tom_mellior 7y ago
    Many tropical countries already buy sand to replenish their beaches which are carried away by currents. Would a country accept sand for free instead of paying for it, especially in a color and with an environmental impact that would make the beach a popular tourist attraction? I don't see why not.
    • dllthomas 7y ago
      Moreover a lot of these countries are most directly threatened by sea level rise and ocean acidification.
• 6d6b73 7y ago
  "The Last 3 Ice Ages Were Caused By Volcanic Rock Weathering Near the Equator [...] Project Vesta seeks to mimic this natural process but to greatly accelerate it because we do not have millions of years to wait." I'm afraid that too many these proposed geoengineering projects will actually take place, and nobody will really know how much of the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. If that happens we will end up with another Ice Age (we're due for one soon anyway), or something worse. I know it's easy to make CO2 the villain, but let's not forget that the life on this planet is not possible without it.
  • NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    We have ways of measuring CO2 in the atmosphere in ppm. It's recorded daily. 30 billion tons of rock is needed per year. That's non trivial in logistics and cost. You think if it turns out to work too well they'll just keep going year on year until no CO2 is left, and not maybe slow down or stop instead?
    • 6d6b73 7y ago
      I'm not talking about this one project, but multiple projects going on at the same time. And yes we can measure it daily but do we know what's the lag? If we remove 1mln tons of CO2 from the atmosphere today, will it show up in the results tomorrow? If not, do we know how that's going to affect the climate?
      • graeme 7y ago
        You can monitor CO2 real time. And if we ever took too much out, which is vanishingly unlikely: just burn more oil! You can buy a co2 sensor for $150 or so.
        • 6d6b73 7y ago
          Lol. Im sure $150 co2 sensor will be able to detect co2 concentration in the atmosphere of our planet. Climat is a very delicate system. Once we remove too much there might not be enough time to reverse this.
• debt 7y ago
  If you work backwards, climate change is a giant man-made disaster that literally can only be countered by a just-as-big man-made solution. Green sand on a beach is like, not as big as millions of cars on roads.
  • erikpukinskis 7y ago
    That's not logical. Just because a disaster was made by machines doesn't mean machines are the solution.
    • mattbk1 7y ago
      "Fewer machines" would be a great solution, which I think might have been the point?
    • debt 7y ago
      No, I'm saying the scale of the cause of problem vs this guy's tiny sand solution seems out of whack. Sand won't stop millions of carbon emitting cars on the road. We need bigger solutions.
      • 24gttghh 7y ago
        I have to ask: do you think 30 billion tons of olivine annually is a "tiny sand solution"?
• colinmegill 7y ago
  Anyone have a sense of the cost comparison to carbon sequestration via https://carbonengineering.com/ https://carbonengineering.com/
  • Aloha 7y ago
    it sounds cheaper, just based on the idea that all you need to do is mine something, move it and spread it.
• rwallace 7y ago
  Interesting! I didn't know olivine was that plentiful. There is said to be a problem with shortage of construction sand leading to beaches being stripped for sand. So this would solve a secondary problem at the same time.
  • matznerd 7y ago
    Yes, olivine is highly abundant, but due to lack of demand, most of it is currently staying underground. We seek to change that. We are looking for synergies like that, such as covering eroding beaches, breakwaters, etc with olivine. If you are interested in sand in construction and otherwise, I highly suggest you check out the book The World in a Grain. The importance of sand in our everyday life blew my mind. I mean the device you are using right now to access this website, has a processor made out of silicon sand, the screen is made of quartz sand. The building you are in is likely made of aggregate sand, and the road to get to your house etc. But also, don't forget that sand was used to make the lenses for reading that made possible for our older academics, extra decades of research and enabled us to carry out astronomy and to create microscopes... Sand has shaped the world in such a massive way, and we are hoping it can save us from our CO2 problems as well. https://smile.amazon.com/World-Grain-Story-Transformed-Civilization/dp/0399576428 https://smile.amazon.com/World-Grain-Story-Transformed-Civil...
    • konschubert 7y ago
      Are you selling your olivine operations as CO2 offsets? If so, how cost effective would that be vs those offsets that are based on planting trees?
    • kragen 7y ago
      a processor made out of silicon sand, the screen is made of quartz sand The processor is made from silicon, plus trace amounts of aluminum, glass, and other materials. Silicon is smelted from silica, which is silicon dioxide; same difference as hydrogen gas and water, iron and rust, or aluminum and ruby. The common crystalline form of silica is quartz, which is the most common sand (precisely because olivine sand weathers). Most glass, including the glass used in lenses today, is a non-crystalline blend of typically about 80% silica with other materials, largely to lower its Tg. Other sands (notably garnet and aluminum oxide) are important in optics as abrasives. I hope this clears up some of the confusions you are expressing.
• pfdietz 7y ago
  Dissolving olivine on beaches means releasing nickel into the environment. What is the effect of the release of many megatons of this element?
  • 6d6b73 7y ago
    "massive application of olivine in agriculture may cause imbalances in plant nutrition, notably at low Ca availability, and will bring Ni into the food chain." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415406/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415406/
    • wincy 7y ago
      Super exciting for someone like me who breaks out horribly when a quarter or a nickel belt touches my skin.
  • crazydoggers 7y ago
    Yikes... I know coral and other invertebrates are very sensitive to heavy metals like nickel.
    • matznerd 7y ago
      We will be testing the sources of olivine for nickel, and as posted upstream, we have potential solutions for phytomining the olivine reserves for nickel with nickel hyper-accumulating plants, and then burning plants, retrieving the nickel ore and using the proceeds it to further fund operations...
      • crazydoggers 7y ago
        I hope you would still run tests to determine how much left over Nickel is getting into the ocean. Not just coral will be effected by Nickel, but other important invertebrates as well such as amphipods which play an enormous role in the food chain and health of reef environments. And we’re talking parts per billion (ppb) when heavy metals can start to become toxic. And correct me if I’m wrong, but Manganese is another element often found in olivine, which is another metal that can be toxic to marine life.
• jeffdavis 7y ago
  Can this be targeted to areas with lots of erosion that may welcome a bunch of additional rock/sand as a barrier? E.g. Florida, New Orleans?
• asauce 7y ago
  Hey, heads up to anyone associated with Project Vesta... currently your webshop shows an empty store[0]. Also, if executed right then this project could market itself. Travel "influencers" love to show off unique beaches and destinations, and uniquely coloured beaches are always a huge hit. By marketing these beaches appropriately it will generate a lot of attention and (hopefully) a lot of funding for the project. Good luck! I'll definitely support the project once there are more items in the store. [0] https://projectvesta.org/shop/ https://projectvesta.org/shop/
  • matznerd 7y ago
    Hi, if you'd like to donate at this point please check out https://projectvesta.org/donate https://projectvesta.org/donate where we currently have our "Grain of Hope" necklace available. It is a single grain of olivine, suspended in a sand timer vial, to symbolize that although time is ticking, it is not too late to stop (and reverse) the damage. Since we do not have a beach yet where we can place olivine, we were originally not planning to offer the additional jewelry yet. That said, we are seeing demand for additional pieces at this point, so as long as people are clear that we don't have our $25 spent -> 1 ton of olivine on the beach process going yet, and that the donation is going to fund operations and to get our pilot project onto the beach, we will be happy to put them up. For now, I have removed the Cart from the menu, which I am guessing allowed you to work your way to the empty shop :) And also you are right on target about the beaches and influencers. While we will be working on a top-down policy level with government and other groups to deploy the beaches, the plan is to simultaneously work from the bottom up to create a global movement of people who want to take action on climate change through influencers and ambassadors visiting the beach and also wearing the jewelry to spread the message.
    • asauce 7y ago
      Awesome! Thanks for the response. I will definitely donate once I'm off work today.
    • gwbas1c 7y ago
      Just bought one for my wife! It would be cool if I could kick in a few extra dollars so you could send one to every female American congressman and senator.
• nickparker 7y ago
  This is related to one of my 'scary emergency solutions' governments might adopt if they wake up to the emergency too late: Detonate nukes in shallow bore holes in silicate heavy regions and launch enormous quantities of the stuff into the atmosphere that way.
• plopz 7y ago
  From the pictures it makes the beach look like its covered in algae or seaweed. I don't think people will be very receptive to the idea if it looks like that.
  • onemoresoop 7y ago
    If it's not sticky and smelly like algae then be it, people will get used to it.
  • mosselman 7y ago
    I don't think people will be very receptive to the desolate hellscape that will be the world if we don't do drastic things to mitigate climate change. I am not saying that this is the solution though.
    • ant6n 7y ago
      So far it appears most ppl are looking forward to that desolate hellscape
  • jpindar 7y ago
    There already are green sand beaches, which are considered something of a tourist attraction. https://www.google.com/search?q=Green+Sand+Beach&client=firefox-b-1-d&channel=tus&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYz7GggavjAhXiUN8KHe8PCXIQ_AUIECgB&biw=1438&bih=748&dpr=1.25 https://www.google.com/search?q=Green+Sand+Beach&client=fire...
  • alach11 7y ago
    Those pictures are heavily edited. When I visited Papakōlea several years ago, the sand had a green tint but looked more like this picture: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/detail/natural-world/papakolea-beach/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/detail/natural-w...
• nosleeptill 7y ago
  Seems like a get rich quick scheme.
• pier25 7y ago
  Even if this is actually feasible and does not have negative environmental impacts, I don't see countries implementing it on their beaches where a lot of tourism is located. For example in Mexico Riviera Maya, Cancún, Holbox, etc, the main selling point are the white beaches and turquoise sea.
  • empath75 7y ago
    you can overcome a lot of objections with money.
  • dsr_ 7y ago
    When most beaches are green, white ones will be more valuable real estate.
  • notatoad 7y ago
    I didn't read the whole site in detail so maybe i missed it, but does this plan require replacing white sand beaches with green sand, or would it also work to dump green sand on rocky beaches? I don't see too many countries objecting to more sandy beaches.
  • QuickToBan 7y ago
    It might whiten after the CO2 has reacted with it.
  • matznerd 7y ago
    Our goal is not to cover up existing tourist beaches. You would be surprised how much coastline around the world is undeveloped and not even accessible by roads etc, those beaches are likely to be the places where we go first. That said, we believe that green sand beaches will become their own tourist attractions as the naturally occurring ones, such as Papakolea in Hawaii, are (which is the beach pictured on our site). They are beautiful and we are considering ways we could create ecotourism hubs for climate change education etc. Because most rivers are now damned and sediment flows impeded, many beaches in developed areas are eroding away with no sources of replenishment. Beach replenishment/nourishment is a huge industry and there are not only sand shortages, but even sand mafias who steal sand. So as resorts have to replace their sand, in the future, they might consider creating olivine sand beaches. We have had early interest from a few parties who own resorts with rocky beaches and would consider replacing their beach with green sand, but at this time, that is not our focus. We are focused right now on getting a pilot project deployed that can definitively and irrefutably prove the minimum accelerated olivine weathering rate on a real-world, high-energy tropical beach. The questions of ecotourism and specific beaches is what we will be dealing with as we move to Phase II-III. See an outline of our deployment plan here -> https://projectvesta.org/plan/ https://projectvesta.org/plan/ [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/inside-india-sand-mining-mafia/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/insid... [2] https://smile.amazon.com/World-Grain-Story-Transformed-Civilization/dp/0399576428 https://smile.amazon.com/World-Grain-Story-Transformed-Civil...
• itissid 7y ago
  Curious question why not also study the naturally occurring green sand beaches in Hawaii?
  • pms 7y ago
    They do that already and they mention it in comments in this thread. The photo on their website is from there.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• crimsonalucard 7y ago
  What if we accidentally trigger an ice age.
  • empath75 7y ago
    We can just burn down some forests.
  • crimsonalucard 7y ago
    This is a legit worry. The same material we use to stabilize the climate could be the same material that throws it into a negative feedback loop. This happened during the ice age, which is exactly stated in the article.
    • carapace 7y ago
      Okay, no, it's not. You're being silly. We could always fire the Clathrate Gun... (^_^) But you bring up an interesting point: there's no going back. This really is the Anthropocene Age and we're going to have to manage the planet from now on, now that we can, now that we know.
      • crimsonalucard 7y ago
        How am I being silly? Logically if the same conditions caused an Ice age in the past and we take steps to replicate those conditions in the present then this is a genuinely possible outcome. How is this not something to think about?
        • carapace 7y ago
          First, I'm not an expert, maybe you aren't being silly, I don't really know. Second, this is actually totally something to think about, and it seems to me like matznerd & co. are thinking about this very clearly and scientifically. The reasons I think it's kind of silly to worry about olivine weathering triggering an ice age is that it seems to me (again, NOT an expert) that we would have enough warning to deal with it, now that we know it's something we have to deal with. We could put less olivine out than we had planned, or remove some (make it into concrete or something), or even just burn off fuel or release methane to counteract the cooling. Like I said, you are bringing up an important point: we can no longer pretend that we're not already "geoengineering" our home world. "We are as Gods, we might as well get good at it."
• jedberg 7y ago
  What happens if we do this but we also reduce planetary carbon emissions in other ways? Will we cause another ice age?
  • JshWright 7y ago
    We are so massively far away from being able to do that, it's not worth worrying about. Especially since active carbon capture methods can easily be switched off long before we approached any "dangerous" level.
    • kragen 7y ago
      Olivine beaches cannot be switched off, but you're probably right that the risks are manageable.
      • JshWright 7y ago
        You can stop making new olivine beaches. The scale necessary means it would be a long, slow process.
        • kragen 7y ago
          The beaches will continue absorbing CO₂ long after you stop making them. I think this is probably a manageable problem but it's important to recognize that, as with emitting the CO₂ in the first place, the feedback can be a long time in coming, so there is a risk of the system running out of control.
  • Skunkleton 7y ago
    We already have fairly functional knobs for increasing carbon emissions.
  • ByThyGrace 7y ago
    Well in that case the combustion engine will earn a second golden age. :-)
• mveety 7y ago
  This is cool. I’ve thought about carbon sequestration a lot using big nuke plants/solar plants+air liquidification+some plant to distill off and turn the CO2 into like methane or some hydrocarbon. My thought here was put half back in the ground and sell the other half to fund the installation/make sure we don’t run out of hydrocarbons. The olivine process, though, is probably easier because it takes much less infrastructure and is more fire and forget. We need some method for sequestration running at scale now (probably multiple). With the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere already, the amount continuing to go in, and the amount of inaction we’re pretty fucked. The current solution (getting the whole damn world to reduce emissions) is unrealistic. Even if we stop putting more in, it’s already there and we’re already fucked. It’s a day late and a dollar short. The countries willing to face this need some way to save us without the cooperation of the countries with their heads in the sand. Sequestration is a good answer for that.
  • dllthomas 7y ago
    I'd say this project also has their heads in the sand.
• yellowapple 7y ago
  Now I'm curious where I can buy a ton of olivine. I've got $30 in my pocket and would love to build me a giant carbon-scrubbing sandbox.
  • jpindar 7y ago
    There are many listings on Alibaba & Aliexpress.
  • kragen 7y ago
    Maybe consider places that sell supplies to metal foundries; olivine sand is used as a refractory in some ferrous casting processes. Or maybe check eBay or Mercadolibre or whatever your local equivalent is. I don't think there's a construction or pottery use for olivine sand, so the usual sand suppliers may not have it.
• itissid 7y ago
  Let's assume the Pilot is a smashing success, let's also say math works out in some country to do it for 0.2% of their GDP. How do the logistics of policy adoption work for the first "pilot" country? 1. You would need environmental clearance and the government's own stud(ies) on it. How do you get a government to do this assessment? 2. If you have to get Costa rica(or any listed potentials on the page) to show interest do you go to the Environment Ministry and do a power point and ask "So?". 2.1. Do you get them to do this as part of implementing some climate pledge. And in this case what are you mostly competing with for the fixed size pot of $$?
  • estebarb 7y ago
    At least in Costa Rica beaches are already used for private resort beaches (illegal in law, but meh), extracting salt and dumping construction debris or stealing sand. With those antecedents I don't think the government would oppose to do something actually useful.
• jsky_goog 7y ago
  The wording of "less than half the volume of construction materials" mined each year seems hand wavy as a justification that this is possible. If I'm reading the chart right that would suggest we'd need a roughly 25% increase in the amount of global mineral extraction.
  • matznerd 7y ago
    That is not meant to be "hand wavy," as there is no "hand-wavy" way to gloss over the fact that humans are putting out massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. It is now on the order of over 45,000,000,000 tonnes (45 Gt) yearly, meaning we need at least 36 Gt of olivine to offset it. That is no small amount of rock and we do not plan to start at that level. The reason we mention those numbers is to let you know that it is more than possible to acquire that much material each year, as we are doing it for multiple other industries each year. Olivine mining is open-pit near the surface and is neither labor nor energy intensive. Based on current olivine (dunite) mining in Norway, where they mined 3.4 million tonnes of dunite with only 141 employees[1], it can be extrapolated that the 36 GT of olivine needed could be mined by less than 1.5 million people working at the same capacity globally. To put that in perspective for you, the Chinese coal market employeed 5.29 million people in 2013, and based on a 2017 report, they are trying to remove 2.3 million people from the industry[2]. So there are plenty of people who could do this, it is about creating the demand for the mineral. There are many developing countries around the world lacking other valuable exports, yet that have olivine reserves, and we look at helping them create "green" jobs as a potential benefit. [1] Mineral Resources Norway: The Norwegian Mining and Quarrying Industry in 2004 [pdf] https://www.ngu.no/FileArchive/227/2005_042.pdf https://www.ngu.no/FileArchive/227/2005_042.pdf [2] https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9967-2-3-million-Chinese-coal-miners-will-need-new-jobs-by-2-2- https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9967-2-...
• qwerty456127 7y ago
  Whoever cares about climate should also read about the biotic pump theory.
  • carapace 7y ago
    Huh. I dunno about that, but I have definitely seen the coastal forests exhaling clouds up in N. California. FWIW.
• nostromo 7y ago
  I have this invention that runs on solar power and water, removes carbon from the atmosphere day and night, lowers the nearby temperature of the Earth dramatically, is bio-degradable, and best of all, it self replicates. I'm calling it Tree and I'll sell you it for $0.
  • oh_sigh 7y ago
    Only problem is you would need 300+ million acres of new forest to offset human activity. 300 million acres is larger than Texas and California combined. And then you need to deal with mature trees which aren't sequestering CO2 at any appreciable rate. http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm
    • loons2 7y ago
      Planting a trillion trees could be our best strategy to tackle climate change. Can we do it? https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/planting-trillion-trees-could-be-our-best-strategy-tackle-climate-change-can-we-do-it/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/planting-trillion-tree...
  • HunOL 7y ago
    Can I buy from you 100k trees for $0?
    • nostromo 7y ago
      I'm only selling the IP rights for $0, so yes, you may.
  • kragen 7y ago
    Because it's biodegradable, the carbon it removes is only temporary. Also you are lying when you say it removes carbon from the atmosphere day and night; some Trees remove it during the day, while others remove it at night, but none do both.
    • 7y ago
• credit_guy 7y ago
  “To carry out this plan, it will take a volume of 7 cubic miles of olivine rock placed on 2% of the world high-energy, tropical shelf-seas each year.” To put this in perspective, the global annual oil production is about 1 cubic mile [1], and concrete production is about half a cubic mile [2], [3] (4.4 BN tons at 2.4 t/m3 = 1.83 cubic km = 0.44 cubic miles) [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil [2]https://archpaper.com/2019/01/concrete-production-eight-percent-co2-emissions/ https://archpaper.com/2019/01/concrete-production-eight-perc... [3]https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml
  • matznerd 7y ago
    In terms of fossil fuel volume in oil equivalents, we are at a yearly level greater than 10 km^3... In terms of construction materials, these 2009 calculations give 2005 numbers of over 60 Gt... Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century - http://www.vegetal-e.com/fichiers/2009-krausmann-al_1469691627.pdf http://www.vegetal-e.com/fichiers/2009-krausmann-al_14696916...
    • pms 7y ago
      Sounds fine, but I think you need to correct this statement "A volume of 7 cubic miles (11 km^3)", because 1 cubic mile = 4.17 cubic km.
  • baron816 7y ago
    That’s to counteract for 100% of emissions, right? A more reasonable goal would be to go for 10%. Still very ambitious, but could be done and would have a pretty huge impact. Combine that carbon pricing, technological advancements, and other sequestration schemes, and targets for avoiding environmental catastrophe seem achievable.
    • ForHackernews 7y ago
      Sorry, can you explain why you think counteracting 10% of emissions would have "a pretty huge impact"? The best science from the IPCC suggests we have to cut net carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 in order to have a moderate chance of avoiding the most catastrophic effects of the climate disaster. I'm not saying 10% isn't ambitious, but it's entirely insufficient to the scope of the problem.
• fc_barnes 7y ago
  Well jeez. I know it's not a popular thought on HN, but climate change is a problem of such scale that it's going to need government-level funding and oversight to find and validate geoengineering solutions, and global-level funding and coordination to implement them. This third-way aspiration to a non-government solution just seems like a pipe dream.
  • ksec 7y ago
    The world could agree on Carbon Tax, and all the Tax will all be used for battling Climate Change. Funding Project like this one. ( Although. doubt this Project isn't without its downside, my guts reaction tells me there will be other problems in chemical reaction at this scale ) And it should be something like the EURO Cars emission standards, where the whole plan goes in multiple stages, giving time for businesses to adopt. And all of a sudden all the business have an incentive to lower the Total Carbon emission, that includes everything they consume ( which would have Carbon Tax on it ). They could also buy Carbon Credit to offset any Carbon they produce. These Carbon Credit will obviously come from project like this or Renewable Energy. Having the World to agree on Carton Tax is the hardest part.
    • lonelappde 7y ago
      And if the tax cripples business, it will slow emissions anyway
      • goatlover 7y ago
        Also innovation.
        • usrusr 7y ago
          The opposite of innovation is business as usual. Taxation always leads to innovation, sometimes they are not exclusively in the field of accounting.
          • 7y ago
• lallysingh 7y ago
  We'll ultimately need a bunch of techniques working together. I suspect this would even be effective with less than 1. But really, what's the cost? That's the main factor. It may be a reasonable way to shove money at poorer countries to do manual work to solve the rich countries' problems.
  • Gabriel_Martin 7y ago
    Everyone's problem, no?
    • lonelappde 7y ago
      Not really. Poor countries don't have expensive infrastructure investments in the current climate, so can adapt to climate change by moving a few miles. Moving New York City and Los Angeles is much harder, and the loss much more expensive.
      • cardamomo 7y ago
        I think you're making a number of assumptions that can't be backed up. > Poor countries don't have expensive infrastructure investments in the current climate... What do you mean by this? There are major cities in poor countries that are physically threatened by rising sea levels [0]. Agriculture throughout the tropics is threatened, because rising temperatures will dramatically reduce crop yields [1]. These are already affecting the poorest countries. > ...can adapt to climate change by moving a few miles. Moving New York City and Los Angeles is much harder, and the loss much more expensive. I think you're underestimating the effort required to migrate. We're largely not talking about a family here and there moving up the road. Climate change will cause -- and has already caused [2] -- mass migration of whole regions. [0] https://grist.org/article/rising-seas-are-lapping-at-the-shores-of-the-worlds-poorest-countries/ https://grist.org/article/rising-seas-are-lapping-at-the-sho... [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613386/climate-change-has-already-made-poor-countries-poorer-and-rich-countries-richer/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613386/climate-change-has... [2] https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-02-06/climate-change-overlooked-driver-central-american-migration https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-02-06/climate-change-overlo...
• TimJRobinson 7y ago
  With the ability to reduce pH levels in the surrounding water this seems like something the Australian Government would be very interested in investing in to save the Great Barrier Reef. That could be a good pilot site as the government has said they're going to spend $500MM on saving the reef so money is already available if the technology works.
  • psandersen 7y ago
    Whats the chance that $500M is actually to help the reef and not just used for corruption or forgotten about until the next election? I have zero faith in the current Australian gov doing anything to mitigate climate change... Otherwise this is a great idea!
    • willyt 7y ago
      I thought one of the big problems with Australian politicians doing anything about climate change was that the ruling conservatives are in hock to the big open cast mining companies. Seems like this could be a great opportunity to get these companies on side, especially if there is $500M to be made from it. Much easier to give out the money to them in the open for a good reason than to somehow launder it through some complicated corrupt process.
      • psandersen 7y ago
        Great point, the incentives and mutual interests are definitely there. I think it comes down to how ideological the opposition to climate change is in Aus... I.e. are they completely committed to not doing anything effective to mitigate it that might break their narrative around climate change. I'm pretty jaded after the NBN...
• petra 7y ago
  It costs about $1 to transport an oil barrel 1000 miles. 35 billion oil barrels are transported each year. So transporting that olivine rock will cost an order of $250B. This will compensate for the yearly co2 emissions , ~38B tons. With carbon offsets priced at $15-$40 per ton - so there's potential for profitability .
  • ttul 7y ago
    In Canada, the national carbon price will go to $50 by 2022. So it will very shortly be profitable in Canada.
    • tempestn 7y ago
      That's assuming we don't have a Conservative government later this year.
      • ttul 7y ago
        Polls are trending Liberal.. stand by. It’s a long summer ahead and the Conservatives are short on real answers.
        • typon 7y ago
          Assuming Trudeau doesn't have another gaff or corruption scandal.. But I'm not holding out hope. Although NDP looks weak as hell too... I'm depressed for the future of this country.
  • cardamomo 7y ago
    Profitability? Put that idea away for a moment. We need to look at this through other lenses as well. Our very lives on Earth depend on our ability to remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. In that light, profitability is a rather weak criterion by which to judge projects like this.
    • petra 7y ago
• jordan801 7y ago
  My personal opinion is that, every time we try to do something that would not naturally happen, we're making things worse. Especially on a grand scale such as this. You can't introduce a massive new variable to an environment, and not expect there to be some kind of negative effect. You're changing the environment this ecosystem has adapted to, in a radical way. I think humans are still coming to terms with the possibility that we can't live like we do, with the number of individuals we have. And absolutely no one wants to hear that we either have to take their electricity, or let them die of cancer, metaphorically speaking. You can't have seven billion lions, and expect there to be any gazelle. Exponentially so when the lions have laser guided ballistic missiles.
• legym 7y ago
  Where does one buy one ton of olivine in the US?
• nkoren 7y ago
  I would be significantly less skeptical about this if it were significantly less ambitious. I'm sure there are low-hanging opportunities where this makes a good amount of sense. Places where there are olivine-rich mine tailings -- somehow uncontaminated by heavy metals -- adjacent to a tropical shoreline. In those instances, then yeah, I'm sure it makes good sense to just shove them over to the beach and let decomposition do its thing. However, pitching this as THE solution to carbon sequestration is much more problematic. At gigaton scale, you're going to run out of mine tailings quite quickly. After that, you're talking about mining fresh olivine, from locations that are increasingly distant to tropical shorelines. This would incur tremendous energy costs, and I'm skeptical that its balance would work in favour of olivine. How much does energy is required to mine a 1,000kg of olivine? How much energy is required to move it (say) 100km to the shore? If that net energy were applied to other forms of carbon capture, would it sequester more than 1,250kg of Co2? If so, then in that instance at least, olivine sequestration would be a bad idea. Even if the energy balance works out favourably, I'm still not sure it's a good idea. Mining doesn't just have energy impacts, it has tremendous land impacts. 7 cubic miles per year of olivine is a very large amount of material. If you don't like the local impacts of mining gold and copper and coal and shale and sand and gravel, then this would have an environmental impact similar to all of those put together. Which is too much impact. It is probably preferable to pursue a less-efficient sequestration strategy than to engage in something with this kind of side-effects. So I'm afraid that the way this is being presented will trigger a lot of skepticism / opposition. This is a shame, because in certain edge-cases I suspect it's quite a good idea. Even if this only addresses a small percentage of the total problem, every little bit helps. I'd hate to see the baby get tossed out with the bathwater.
  • matznerd 7y ago
    We are not pitching this as "THE" solution, but as "a" solution that can scale up to and beyond the global level of yearly CO2 emissions. Even after the "low-hanging opportunities" it makes a good amount of sense, as mining olivine is not difficult and there are large reserves on every continent. You are incorrect that olivine mining at a large scale would incur tremendous energy costs, it will not. I would suggest you check out this model of a 5,000 tonne per day open pit mining for porphyritic rock. (This model also includes 5,000 tonnes per day of "waste" rock which will likely not be wasted in our use case) http://costs.infomine.com/costdatacenter/miningcostmodel.aspx http://costs.infomine.com/costdatacenter/miningcostmodel.asp... In this model, which is not in any way optimized for environmental efficiency, it requires a diesel fuel quantity of around 4,751 liters/day to mine the 5,000 tonnes. At 2.68 kg of CO2 per 1 liter of diesel, that generates 12,732.68 kg of CO2 per day. That 12,732.68 kg = 12.73268 tonnes of CO2. The 5,000 tonnes of olivine mined will eventually weather and sequester 6,250 tonnes of CO2 (1 tonne of olivine sequesters 1.25 tonnes of CO2), for a net capture of 6,237 tons at the mine. We have life cycle assessment that calculates the CO2 penalty and loss on efficiency, including milling and transport to locations less than 300 km (186 mi) at around a 4% loss [1]. Just for your information and for others, from a financial perspective the mining in that model costs $7.32 per ton, and then the transport and milling/crushing only costs about $3 per ton, so olivine could be transported to a beach at around $10/ton, with the price per ton of CO2 sequestered at less than $10. You are also incorrect regarding the mining impact. The mining of things like shale requires fracking and the injection of sand and chemicals, our mining is simply open pit. Essentially, you open a pit on the surface and simply dig it up. As mentioned above, it is not all that energy intensive either. For global CO2 level removal in terms of mining, it would likely require 30-50 mines in the wet tropics, preferably at a level of greater than 100 million tons/year (due to economies of scale).[2] There are large reserves on every continent and plenty near coastlines[3]. If you wanted to open fewer mines, you could theoretically find a few large reserves. For example, there is an open pit mine in Bingham Canyon that has an excavated volume of over 25 km^3, which would be the equivalent of 2-3 years worth of the volume of material needed. Don't worry about this idea getting "tossed out with the bathwater," if anything we will actually be removing CO2 from the bathwater and de-acidifying it at the same time ;) [1] Environmental Life Cycle Assement of CO2 Sequestration Through Enhanced Weathering of Olivine https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_978/1/ https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_978/1/ [2] https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_77/9/ https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_77/9/ [3] https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_90/25/ https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_90/25/
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• b_tterc_p 7y ago
  I see a lot of comments about not harming luxury tourist beaches. But I would (perhaps naively) imagine there’s a lot of garbage beaches along the equator. Is this reasonable? Perhaps in polluted areas that aren’t especially valuable anyway?
• evanhynes 7y ago
  Amazing! When you're team is hiring or looking for volunteers, let me know and I'll throw you some free job post credits to use on https://climate.careers https://climate.careers :) - Evan
• pstuart 7y ago
  Trees get mentioned a lot for mitigation (as they should), but should we also be looking at kelp plantations too? A bonus would be addressing ocean acidification.
• mc32 7y ago
  I skimmed through the site. I didn’t see how they convince countries to have their beeches altered. I can understand the assumption that countries would be eager to receive something which will benefit them directly, but they also know that they are serving as a “commons” as well and may want compensation for that.
  • tempestn 7y ago
    If they're altering the beaches for free, the countries would enjoy a portion of the common benefit without any cost. In fact, the new 'green' (literally and figuratively) beaches would probably be a greater tourist attraction, so if anything I'd expect it to be beneficial, plus secondary economic benefits from the work being done.
    • empath75 7y ago
      Possibly but they’re not going to be particularly walkable.
      • tempestn 7y ago
        Why not? Sounds like it would be similar to other sand.
    • evan_ 7y ago
      It would be such a great tourist attraction that flights to visit the green sand beaches would spike dramatically... the jet exhaust offsetting the CO2 absorption. I kid.
• rland 7y ago
  I first read about this idea here: http://innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf http://innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivine... Estimates in this paper put it at 250bn per year. It strikes me as imminently doable, and as an additional benefit would eliminate the issue of ocean acidification as well, which in my view is a much larger problem than simply temperature change. Like a human extinction scale problem.
• fiblye 7y ago
  So we need to mine and strip the earth of materials at rates far beyond anything we’ve ever done before, then load it up on a fleet of ships larger than anything we have today, all burning the filthiest bunker fuel there is at unprecedented rates to manage the largest shipping operation ever, and dump it all on isolated, natural beaches far from human eyes. Plus we need to check the purity of all of this to ensure no nickel wipes out life as we know it, since inspecting a quantity of stone greater than our entire global fuel harvest operations is a reasonable expectation. I’m sure no cost cutting or harm would come about from this. These companies would definitely be ethical with their operations from start to finish, and they’d be held to high environmental scrutiny. Alternatively, we plant trees, reduce meat consumption, and buy local so that we’re not shipping shit back and forth from across the planet.
  • adrianN 7y ago
    No, alternatively we radically change how we produce energy, how we transport goods and people and how we heat homes. Don't make it sound easy. Reducing consumption only buys time. We need an absolutely massive effort.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• matznerd 7y ago
  Hi HN, I am Eric Matzner, the Co-Founder of Project Vesta and I have been responding to all of the questions on this thread and will continue to answer them, but I just wanted to say thank you for all of the interest. When YC posted their Carbon Removal Technologies Requests for Startups page[1] about 8 months ago, I responded to a comment on the post where @btilly[2] mentioned one of the research papers that our project is based on.[3] We were in stealth mode back then, as I was still putting the project together, but the positive response there helped energize and inform our operations, so thank all of you for that as well. I do not personally know the person who posted this today either, but thank you for posting it (although we were not prepared for this amount of inbound interest today). Please note that we will get back to everyone who submitted our "Get Involved" form over the next couple of days. Thank you to all who donated as well for your support, the HN community has been very generous and we appreciate your enthusiasm and support for the project. I can also give you a project update that we have not announced anywhere else as of yet. After our launch on Earth Day in April, we received an individual contribution/grant that has given us enough funding to take significant steps forward towards getting our pilot project on a beach. It has greatly accelerated our progress and we are now moving more rapidly to make this a reality. We are engaged with the Dutch independent institute for applied research in water and the subsurface, Deltares[4], to help us design the pilot project experiment. Project Vesta is a non-profit, globally decentralized entity and we are looking for additional partner universities, groups, and others to team up with. We are looking for input on our experimental design from researchers, engineers, and experts in the fields related to this project (such as geochemistry and the marine sciences). The design of the experiment is crucial and has to be rigorous in terms of calculating the accelerated weathering rate of olivine in the open system of a beach and in terms of demonstrating marine safety so that the results will be accepted as definitive by the scientific community and the public. Our greatest fear right now is that we will spend a year running a study and then when the results come back, the data will not be accepted for one reason or another and we are asked to go back to get more data. We and the planet frankly do not have the time to wait another year, so we want to make sure we do it right the first time around and have the right stakeholders involved before it is deployed. To make sure it is done properly, we want to run the experimental design by as many relevant parties as possible so that when the data comes back we have an accepted consensus that is irrefutable in terms of the weathering rate and safety data, so we can move forward with deployment. If you want to join our scientific advisory board or just help give input on our experimental design, please reach out on our Get Involved [5] page -> https://projectvesta.org/get-involved/ https://projectvesta.org/get-involved/ We are also looking for additional donors/family offices/etc and partners who want to sidestep the climate change debate and move forward on taking direct action to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. While we are proponents of cutting emissions and agree it needs to be done, we want to get started removing as much CO2 from the atmosphere as we can until we are back down to Pre-Industrial CO2 levels. We believe that by making extremely effective, permanent, and cheap CO2 removal available, we can dramatically change the conversation and force action. Please reach out if you would like to help. Thank you, Eric p.s. If you want to learn a bit more about the process and our organization, check out this interview with me on the Nori podcast [6] -> https://nori.com/podcasts/carbon-removal-newsroom/project-vesta-for-olivine-drawdown-leaves-stealth-mode https://nori.com/podcasts/carbon-removal-newsroom/project-ve... We are just launching our social profiles, but feel free to follow us for updates: Twitter -> https://twitter.com/Project_Vesta https://twitter.com/Project_Vesta Instagram -> https://instagram.com/projectvesta https://instagram.com/projectvesta FB page -> https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVestaCO2Removal/ https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVestaCO2Removal/ [1] http://carbon.ycombinator.com/ http://carbon.ycombinator.com/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285606 [3] https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_77/1/ https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_77/1/ [4] https://www.deltares.nl/en/ https://www.deltares.nl/en/ [5] https://projectvesta.org/get-involved/ https://projectvesta.org/get-involved/ [6] https://nori.com/podcasts/carbon-removal-newsroom/project-vesta-for-olivine-drawdown-leaves-stealth-mode https://nori.com/podcasts/carbon-removal-newsroom/project-ve...
• evan_ 7y ago
  Is there an issue with replacing light-colored beaches, which reflect a great deal of sunlight, with Olivine, which presumably absorbs more of it?
• foobarbecue 7y ago
  It seems these folks think km = miles. They also seem to think that "porphyritic" and "olivine" are rocks (one is an adjective and the other is a mineral). From the FAQ: "We currently put out a significant amount of CO2 per year, so we need a volume of 7 km^3 of rock. The equivalent amount of hydrocarbons acquired each year is currently greater than a volume of 10 km^3."
• wazoox 7y ago
  The question of the impact of mining has been talked about in the thread. But there's another important: what could be the local ecological impact of dropping large quantities of artificial olivine sand on beaches where it was not present, particularly on the local flora and fauna?
• atman399429 7y ago
  your entire operation revolves around CO2 and you can't even bother to typeset the "2" in subscript on your webpage?
• tgirod 7y ago
  Hey, we are fucking up the environment by altering such a complex system way too fast for it to keep balance. Maybe if we alter it on a whole new scale with our limited understanding of the consequences, we can fix things up? To be more constructive, this is exactly the kind of hubris that gets me very wary of technoscience. Let's assume Project Vesta is run by well intentionned folks and has the potential to offer a net positive in a distant future. Even in those conditions, such a project serves the toxic political agenda of not facing the elephant in the room: our growth based economic model is not sustainable and we need to transition away from it.
  • alikim 7y ago
    Agreed, but climate change is a monumental issue and even if we assume the government can act in a timely manner to shift the economic model to one that is more environmentally friendly, that won't be enough to fix the problem. I don't think this should be viewed as a cop out, or an alternative to economic change, but rather as something that augments it and moves us in the right direction.
    • tgirod 7y ago
      IMO the problem here is the leap of faith you are making by believing an untested technology, operating on a planet scale, will help. We only have one planet here, so instead of betting on a massive terraforming technology to suck the CO2 out of the air, I'd rather use a more conservative approach such as massive reforestation - something that is low-tech, can be done by anyone, anywhere, and improve the resilience of the ecosystem rather than kicking its balance again.
  • jamesbvaughan 7y ago
    Could you explain more what you mean about our growth based economic model not being sustainable? This is a topic that I'm fairly new to and the only substantial thing I've read about it is Tyler Cowen's "Stubborn Attachments" which presented what I found to be a very compelling argument that long term economic growth is very good and is in fact the only sustainable way forward. I've been hoping to read some counter arguments to that idea to round out my exposure to the topic.
• skydv 7y ago
  idiots
• stefek99 7y ago
  I'm recently in the camp of "Deep Adaptation"