5 ms·

I would have liked to see https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ commented on in the article. They claim to be able to sequester carbon by scatter

by btilly 7y ago

I would have liked to see https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ commented on in the article. They claim to be able to sequester carbon by scattering olivine rock in an active and warm coast. The cost of the rock is $25/ton now, with the prospect of $10/ton in the future. Plus whatever it costs to break it up and scatter it. That makes it at an interesting price point if it works as advertised. Even more interesting to me is that the absorption happens in the water. Meaning that it can counteract ocean acidification near the coral reefs that are the most vulnerable.

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
I would aggressively vote and promote a us presidential candidate who stated they would negotiate an arrangement to do this for financial compensation on coastal equator countries- and failing that, a hostile military invasion to force it upon them. Probably no need for the latter, but having it on the table makes the former easier to negotiate. This process could release deadly nickel into the water. It probably would harm the coral reefs more than help... but I really feel like much of the ocean is pretty f*ed longer term anyway. Also the countries most poised to do this are the ones most at risk from climate change both in terms of heat, tidal forces, and horrible storms. I feel it would be a powerful platform. It makes an optimistic message out of an otherwise negative concept- and it makes America the hero saving the world. Who wouldn’t vote for that?
- pjc50 7y ago
  > and failing that, a hostile military invasion to force it upon them. Eco-fascism! I mean, once you're willing to murder people to reduce carbon emissions, there are simpler ways to do it. But make sure you've got suitable carbon offsets for the invasion and the crematoriums. > optimistic message "Good news: America is going to improve the world at gunpoint again!"
  - virmundi 7y ago
    I know people won’t like it, but the alternative is a Mad Max world. We’re told the whole planet will be either an ocean or a desert unless we return to the Stone Age. Therefore we need to follow the Georgia monument and reduce the global population to 500 million. Anything less than the total dissolution of human rights in the name of environmental protection is a death sentence anyways. At least we can use the benevolence of democracy to pick winners and losers.
  - throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
    > Eco-fascism! I mean, once you're willing to murder people to reduce carbon emissions, there are simpler ways to do it. But make sure you've got suitable carbon offsets for the invasion and the crematoriums. I think this disingenuous. I am fully aware this is not a virtuous path (noting again that I think it could be done easily and more preferably with economic solutions). From a utilitarian perspective it is massively moral. It would likely minimize suffering of the target populations too. Yes yes killing billions would reduce carbon emissions but that’s clearly not a good solution and not comparable. Using military might to force coastal equator nations to comply with what is plausibly our only chance at saving the planet is very low on the scale of shit countries have done for self betterment. Crematoriums imply killing is a first order goal. Killing is a bad thing in the eyes of this plan that is trying to be minimized.
tekstar 7y ago
I believe this type of project is referred to as geo-engineering, which is a bit more controversial as it's typically assumed that the side effects are somewhat unknown.
- yifanl 7y ago
  They're targeting a pilot within the next 5 years on a single beach, which should help towards figuring what side effects exist. They also note there exist naturally occurring green sand beaches (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papakolea_Beach https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papakolea_Beach), though those are tourist spots and probably haven't been deeply studied.
pfdietz 7y ago
I would worry about nickel and chromium pollution.
- dx034 7y ago
  Why is that? I couldn't find any reference to that on their homepage. Is it a byproduct of the process?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Olivine rock usually contains those elements.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      And the scheme would involve many gigatons of olivine, so the release would be very large.
  - ahartman00 7y ago
    "mineral processing approach using carbon dioxide to promote mineral alterations that lead to improved extractability of nickel from olivine ((Mg,Fe)2SiO4)" "main products of the carbonation reaction include quasi-amorphous colloidal silica, chromium-rich metallic particles, and ferro-magnesite ((Mg1−x,Fex)CO3)" https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/5/3/1620/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/5/3/1620/htm

by btilly 7y ago

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago

I would aggressively vote and promote a us presidential candidate who stated they would negotiate an arrangement to do this for financial compensation on coastal equator countries- and failing that, a hostile military invasion to force it upon them. Probably no need for the latter, but having it on the table makes the former easier to negotiate. This process could release deadly nickel into the water. It probably would harm the coral reefs more than help... but I really feel like much of the ocean is pretty f*ed longer term anyway. Also the countries most poised to do this are the ones most at risk from climate change both in terms of heat, tidal forces, and horrible storms. I feel it would be a powerful platform. It makes an optimistic message out of an otherwise negative concept- and it makes America the hero saving the world. Who wouldn’t vote for that?

pjc50 7y ago
> and failing that, a hostile military invasion to force it upon them. Eco-fascism! I mean, once you're willing to murder people to reduce carbon emissions, there are simpler ways to do it. But make sure you've got suitable carbon offsets for the invasion and the crematoriums. > optimistic message "Good news: America is going to improve the world at gunpoint again!"
- virmundi 7y ago
  I know people won’t like it, but the alternative is a Mad Max world. We’re told the whole planet will be either an ocean or a desert unless we return to the Stone Age. Therefore we need to follow the Georgia monument and reduce the global population to 500 million. Anything less than the total dissolution of human rights in the name of environmental protection is a death sentence anyways. At least we can use the benevolence of democracy to pick winners and losers.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
  > Eco-fascism! I mean, once you're willing to murder people to reduce carbon emissions, there are simpler ways to do it. But make sure you've got suitable carbon offsets for the invasion and the crematoriums. I think this disingenuous. I am fully aware this is not a virtuous path (noting again that I think it could be done easily and more preferably with economic solutions). From a utilitarian perspective it is massively moral. It would likely minimize suffering of the target populations too. Yes yes killing billions would reduce carbon emissions but that’s clearly not a good solution and not comparable. Using military might to force coastal equator nations to comply with what is plausibly our only chance at saving the planet is very low on the scale of shit countries have done for self betterment. Crematoriums imply killing is a first order goal. Killing is a bad thing in the eyes of this plan that is trying to be minimized.

tekstar 7y ago

I believe this type of project is referred to as geo-engineering, which is a bit more controversial as it's typically assumed that the side effects are somewhat unknown.

yifanl 7y ago
They're targeting a pilot within the next 5 years on a single beach, which should help towards figuring what side effects exist. They also note there exist naturally occurring green sand beaches (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papakolea_Beach https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papakolea_Beach), though those are tourist spots and probably haven't been deeply studied.

pfdietz 7y ago

I would worry about nickel and chromium pollution.

dx034 7y ago
Why is that? I couldn't find any reference to that on their homepage. Is it a byproduct of the process?
- adrianN 7y ago
  Olivine rock usually contains those elements.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    And the scheme would involve many gigatons of olivine, so the release would be very large.
- ahartman00 7y ago
  "mineral processing approach using carbon dioxide to promote mineral alterations that lead to improved extractability of nickel from olivine ((Mg,Fe)2SiO4)" "main products of the carbonation reaction include quasi-amorphous colloidal silica, chromium-rich metallic particles, and ferro-magnesite ((Mg1−x,Fex)CO3)" https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/5/3/1620/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/5/3/1620/htm