5 ms·

“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 t

“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.
  - strainer 7y ago
    Aforestation is another big opportunity to absorb carbon and can be combined to increase habitat for animals and biophillic settings and work for people, as well as produce sustainable building and manufacturing materials - and even some fuel. The IPCCs primary goal is to reduce carbon output, not figure out a way to enable it to continue. We have renewable and sustainable power technologies ready to reduce carbon output rapidly as soon as the political will to proceed is won. This potentially huge mining scheme involves releasing what is in simple terms very large amounts of a pollutant into the Ocean. Its anticipated that the effects of this particular pollution will be beneficial, but we have no natural history to show for its ecological effects. Forests are already a great part of our worlds natural history. I think it is a worthwhile scheme to begin implementing and observing the effects on Ocean ecology and also on the global mining industry which it has potential to stimulate. But the 100% target is an oversell in my view.
  - baron816 7y ago
    I mean using this project to counteract 10% instead of 100%. We don't have to rely on a single tool to eliminate carbon emissions, we can use a bunch of them.
  - tom_mellior 7y ago
    We need to eliminate actul emissions. As in, actual exhaust gases coming out of cars and planes and snokestacks, not just mathematically offset "net" emissions. There is no way around that. Then, on top of that, an additional 10% through this scheme looks pretty useful.
    - lmm 7y ago
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Disappointing to see that Wikipedia page says we use 0.8 of a CMO (cubic mile of oil) in coal. Not clear how current that is either.
- jtbayly 7y ago
  The oil number was rounding down from a 2005 number. 2014 number I found would be 1.3 cubic miles. So take the numbers with a grain of salt. https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/627842?section=US&keywords=oil-consumption-world-daily&year=2015&month=03&date=02&id=627842&oref=duckduckgo.com https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/627842?section=US&...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Aloha 7y ago
Enough to cover all of nevada with an even 4 inches
rob74 7y ago
The first question that came to my mind was how much CO2 would be generated by moving this amount of rock (if they theoretically were able to produce it, of course)?
pms 7y ago
What matters is not the volume but the cost. A back-of-the-envolope calculation shows that olivine rock is about 20 times cheaper than crude oil. Olivine rock: 10-25$/ton Crude oil: $60/barrel, so about $400/ton Their website reads that "A volume of 7 cubic miles (11 km^3) of olivine, or around 30 Gigatons, is needed each year. This is less than half the volume of construction materials and less than that of fossil fuel equivalents mined yearly". If olivine rock needs to be mined in comparable amount to fossil fuels to offset global CO2 production, it will cost about 5% of the fossil fuels, i.e., the price of oil will grow by about 5% globally, which is not much.
- credit_guy 7y ago
  “ 7 cubic miles (11 km^3)” They think the conversion factor between cubic miles and cubic km is the same as between miles and km? Hm ....
  - pms 7y ago
    Wow, didn't expect this. Good catch. They underestimated the volume of olivine rock about 3 times, which means that its mining would cost about 15% of the overall cost of mining of fossil fuels, assuming current prices of olivine rock and crude oil. This is a very rough estimate that doesn't take into account several factors, most importantly economy of scale.

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.
- strainer 7y ago
  Aforestation is another big opportunity to absorb carbon and can be combined to increase habitat for animals and biophillic settings and work for people, as well as produce sustainable building and manufacturing materials - and even some fuel. The IPCCs primary goal is to reduce carbon output, not figure out a way to enable it to continue. We have renewable and sustainable power technologies ready to reduce carbon output rapidly as soon as the political will to proceed is won. This potentially huge mining scheme involves releasing what is in simple terms very large amounts of a pollutant into the Ocean. Its anticipated that the effects of this particular pollution will be beneficial, but we have no natural history to show for its ecological effects. Forests are already a great part of our worlds natural history. I think it is a worthwhile scheme to begin implementing and observing the effects on Ocean ecology and also on the global mining industry which it has potential to stimulate. But the 100% target is an oversell in my view.
- baron816 7y ago
  I mean using this project to counteract 10% instead of 100%. We don't have to rely on a single tool to eliminate carbon emissions, we can use a bunch of them.
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  We need to eliminate actul emissions. As in, actual exhaust gases coming out of cars and planes and snokestacks, not just mathematically offset "net" emissions. There is no way around that. Then, on top of that, an additional 10% through this scheme looks pretty useful.
  - lmm 7y ago

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Disappointing to see that Wikipedia page says we use 0.8 of a CMO (cubic mile of oil) in coal. Not clear how current that is either.

jtbayly 7y ago
The oil number was rounding down from a 2005 number. 2014 number I found would be 1.3 cubic miles. So take the numbers with a grain of salt. https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/627842?section=US&keywords=oil-consumption-world-daily&year=2015&month=03&date=02&id=627842&oref=duckduckgo.com https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/627842?section=US&...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Aloha 7y ago

Enough to cover all of nevada with an even 4 inches

rob74 7y ago

The first question that came to my mind was how much CO2 would be generated by moving this amount of rock (if they theoretically were able to produce it, of course)?

pms 7y ago

What matters is not the volume but the cost. A back-of-the-envolope calculation shows that olivine rock is about 20 times cheaper than crude oil. Olivine rock: 10-25$/ton Crude oil: $60/barrel, so about $400/ton Their website reads that "A volume of 7 cubic miles (11 km^3) of olivine, or around 30 Gigatons, is needed each year. This is less than half the volume of construction materials and less than that of fossil fuel equivalents mined yearly". If olivine rock needs to be mined in comparable amount to fossil fuels to offset global CO2 production, it will cost about 5% of the fossil fuels, i.e., the price of oil will grow by about 5% globally, which is not much.

credit_guy 7y ago
“ 7 cubic miles (11 km^3)” They think the conversion factor between cubic miles and cubic km is the same as between miles and km? Hm ....
- pms 7y ago
  Wow, didn't expect this. Good catch. They underestimated the volume of olivine rock about 3 times, which means that its mining would cost about 15% of the overall cost of mining of fossil fuels, assuming current prices of olivine rock and crude oil. This is a very rough estimate that doesn't take into account several factors, most importantly economy of scale.