12 ms·

> it seems far better to actively remove it and get our atmospheric ppm down to what we saw ~150 years ago. Sorry, that's just impossible in anything even remo

> it seems far better to actively remove it and get our atmospheric ppm down to what we saw ~150 years ago. Sorry, that's just impossible in anything even remotely approximating a human time scale. None of these purported solutions pass even the most basic of physics and economics tests. Not sure why people never ask the right questions. Someone else pointed out that we would have to build some 30,000 of these facilities just to be able to keep up with current CO2 contributions. Ignoring for a moment the utter fantasy that such a proposal would represent, just one look at what is happening this very moment with the forest fires in California should make everyone who thinks we can control atmospheric CL2 at a planetary scale take pause. These forests are burning at a rate of tens of thousands of acres and we can't control them. Last I heard the fires (there's more than one) were somewhere between 11% and 30% contained. It is likely that, in a single week, these fires emit more CO2 than then entire US ground transport fleet emits in a year. We do not have planetary-scale control of these matters. We can't fix this. That's the simple reality of the matter. We have known this for quite some time (that we can't "save the planet"). A recent thread on HN explored yet another aspect of the issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28284323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28284323

kisamoto 5y ago
I'm more optimistic. Regulation and necessity to survive will funnel more money and effort into this area. Regarding the viability of solutions I don't think there will be a one-size-fits-all approach and it will actually take many removal methods combined to make a dent.
- pjerem 5y ago
  > Regulation and necessity to survive will funnel more money and effort into this area. Does the necessity to survive even exists at civilization scale ? Because climate change will probably not put a clear end to humanity as a specie. And, sure, I’m optimistic : we’ll get through this like we happened to survive, world wars, pandemics and a load of other global catastrophic events. But what will be the cost in human lives ? If, say, 20% of the planet remains inhabitable by the time we succeed to stop climate change, is that an optimistic take ?
- heavenlyblue 5y ago
  This is a weak statement with 0 factual support. Humanity never had to deal with anything like that.
- robomartin 5y ago
  > I'm more optimistic. Nothing wrong with this. The issue is that, unfortunately, physics cares not one bit about optimism, aspirations or what we might wish for. It just doesn't care. I have not seen a single purported solution to date that passes the physics test. Not one. Most don't even pass the economics test. I'll give you a simple example without numbers. One proposal is to seed the oceans with iron powder. Let's ignore the mechanism for now, it's irrelevant. Anyone who knows anything about manufacturing will immediately zero-in on the hard and cold reality that producing such a material is an incredibly dirty and energy-hungry process. Producing it at a rate of billions, tens of billions or hundreds of billions of tons per year would likely require more energy than most nations can spare. This would mean that hundreds to thousands of new power plants would have to be built. If they are not nuclear, then they burn something. Wind and solar? They are not clean at scale, but sure. No matter what you do, you will be producing CO2 (and other substances) at an alarming rate just to produce the material. I don't even want to think about the waste product. Of course, we also have to ask what we would do to the planet in terms of the incremental mining necessary to obtain all of the raw material this would necessitate. So, after all of that, you now have what you are after, and then you have to transport and deliver it. Transporting billions of tons of iron dust at a planetary scale would engage millions of ground, air and sea vehicles, all burning oil derivatives at a, well, planetary scale rate. Millions to billions of trips would have to be made to "paint the oceans" with this stuff. We might not have enough vehicles to do this, which means we'll have to manufacture them, which comes with environmental consequences. The CO2 and pollution (because none of these processes are clean) this would produce is far more likely to make matters worse than to actually solve any problem. And then you have the reality that a planetary-scale problem isn't going to be affected in seven days. Which means that the above-noted hypothetical might require ten, twenty, fifty or a hundred years of constant effort before anything even registers. We are far more likely to kill all life on earth than to fix the planet. None of the purported solutions I have ever seen engage in any realistic full-process analysis, not even at a superficial level. If you fire-up Excel and throw some numbers at these things it quickly becomes very obvious that they all exist within a range that lies between nonsense and hubris. What's brilliant is that they are all taking advantage of nice grants and research money, which, from one perspective, makes it genius. I can think of a few other imaginary things on this planet that make tons of money, one of them has a whole city built around it! Believe it or not, my view isn't pessimistic at all. I am simply trying to make people think and understand that we are being sold a fantasy. Once that is well understood we need to focus on the reality of the matter. Which means we need to develop technology and programs aimed at living with this reality rather than living under the delusion that we can change a planetary scale problem. I also urge anyone who cares to understand the truth to go out and buy a CO2 meter to then explore their environment. If you do that, what you will discover is that we actually live in an environment ranging between about 650 and 1100 ppm. And this has likely been the case for centuries. The most immediate observation being that humanity has obviously not turned into shapeless blobs of gelatin. In other words, someone needs to explain the "sky is falling" theory given the realities of what we actually experience in our homes, apartments, offices and cars every day of our lives. My optimism is based on the idea that we will eventually understand we are being lied to due to both political and financial interests. At some point the "emperor has no clothes" scenario has to play out. And, when that happens, we will change our focus to more productive pursuits having to do with making life better while letting the planet do what it has to in order to manage the ecosystem --as it has for billions of years. We can live with this at the micro level (because, at a planetary scale we are insignificant) while letting the macro level function as it does. One thing is certain: None of us are going to see any change of note. Changes at a planetary scale are measured in tens of thousands of years, not decades.
raffraffraff 5y ago
This. And the worst part about it is that the Paris agreement's 1.5°C target was based on the use of yet-to-be-developed CO2 capture and didn't account for already-happening-feedback-loops (like methane from Siberia, reduced reflection from melting poles and the shutdown of the Gulfstream, which is beginning to look inevitable) From the IPCC: > All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent to neutralize emissions from sources for which no mitigation measures have been identified (Note: CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal) On the CO2 budget calculated for 1.5°C: > budgets applicable to 2100 would be approximately 100 GtCO2 lower than <calculated> to account for permafrost thawing and potential methane release from wetlands in the future, and more thereafter.
- robomartin 5y ago
  A number of years ago, when the controversy was brewing, I sat down and read the Paris agreement. The thing is a joke. It will do nothing for anyone other than shift billions of dollars into a number of nations for doing nothing. We already know some nations used the money to buy fleets of cars and airplanes, which is the very definition of irony. The problem with a lot of these things is that everyone forms an opinion without investing any time reading the material (like the agreement) and doing even the most basic math to verify claims. And yet everyone knows we can "save the planet", it would be funny if it weren't so serious.
pyrale 5y ago
> Someone else pointed out that we would have to build some 30,000 of these facilities just to be able to keep up with current CO2 contributions. Must be a miscalculation here, the articles cites 4k tons scrubbed per year for this facility, and 31bn tons emited per year (to which you would have to add 5-6bn for land use change). So that's about 10 millions such facilities we need, only for co2.
- robomartin 5y ago
  I am trying to be kind. Even if you take the 30K number, the scale is pretty close to nonsensical. I have yet to find a single purported solution that passes what I call the "Excel Test". In other words, running something slightly above a superficial mathematical model of the solution that includes some physics and economics. In my experience the model doesn't have to be deep and complex to quickly reach the conclusion that the so-called solution isn't, in fact, a solution. The problem is that almost nobody does this. Nobody seems to care to take these delusion merchants to task and ask the hard questions. And so we keep talking about a fantasy rather than the hard and cold reality of the matter. We cannot fix a planetary scale problem. We simply can't. We need to focus on living with it.
  - burntwater 5y ago
    Google tells me that the world has 62,500 power plants, so 30,000 capture plants seems entirely feasible.
    - robomartin 5y ago
      No, you have to do the math. Do you mean to say we have excess energy availability? If so, you have to support that statement by running through the calculations. For starters, we don't build power plants to provide two or three times the power we need. Most power plants run at somewhere around 80% utilization with a margin for peak periods. In addition to this, if we are serious about a transition to an electric transportation infrastructure by means of electric cars, trucks, boats and planes, well, there is no way the current installed base of power plants can handle this. Again, easy math. For example, the US has somewhere around 300 million cars and trucks. The power (not energy, power is very important) an electrified version of this fleet would require far outstrips what we have available today. Aside from this, you have to look at the historical timeline. 62K power plants were not built in 10 years. If we are optimistic and assume a 50 year timeline, well, quite a few of the people reading this will not be alive by the time 30,000 non-trivial anything is built. And the impact from these 30,000 whatever-they-are will not be seen for a long time, more than likely thousands of years. That's on the very benign assumption that they actually do something. The more likely scenario is that they do nothing or make matters worse. Everyone was convinced that renewable energy was the answer...until someone actually bothered to do the math and physics work to try to understand. And the conclusion? Paraphrasing: Even if we deploy the most optimal forms of solar and wind energy (forms so efficient they are yet to be invented) at a global scale, not only will this not stop atmospheric CO2 accumulation, it will continue to rise exponentially. https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... Physics can be a real heartless monster.

kisamoto 5y ago

I'm more optimistic. Regulation and necessity to survive will funnel more money and effort into this area. Regarding the viability of solutions I don't think there will be a one-size-fits-all approach and it will actually take many removal methods combined to make a dent.

pjerem 5y ago
> Regulation and necessity to survive will funnel more money and effort into this area. Does the necessity to survive even exists at civilization scale ? Because climate change will probably not put a clear end to humanity as a specie. And, sure, I’m optimistic : we’ll get through this like we happened to survive, world wars, pandemics and a load of other global catastrophic events. But what will be the cost in human lives ? If, say, 20% of the planet remains inhabitable by the time we succeed to stop climate change, is that an optimistic take ?
heavenlyblue 5y ago
This is a weak statement with 0 factual support. Humanity never had to deal with anything like that.
robomartin 5y ago
> I'm more optimistic. Nothing wrong with this. The issue is that, unfortunately, physics cares not one bit about optimism, aspirations or what we might wish for. It just doesn't care. I have not seen a single purported solution to date that passes the physics test. Not one. Most don't even pass the economics test. I'll give you a simple example without numbers. One proposal is to seed the oceans with iron powder. Let's ignore the mechanism for now, it's irrelevant. Anyone who knows anything about manufacturing will immediately zero-in on the hard and cold reality that producing such a material is an incredibly dirty and energy-hungry process. Producing it at a rate of billions, tens of billions or hundreds of billions of tons per year would likely require more energy than most nations can spare. This would mean that hundreds to thousands of new power plants would have to be built. If they are not nuclear, then they burn something. Wind and solar? They are not clean at scale, but sure. No matter what you do, you will be producing CO2 (and other substances) at an alarming rate just to produce the material. I don't even want to think about the waste product. Of course, we also have to ask what we would do to the planet in terms of the incremental mining necessary to obtain all of the raw material this would necessitate. So, after all of that, you now have what you are after, and then you have to transport and deliver it. Transporting billions of tons of iron dust at a planetary scale would engage millions of ground, air and sea vehicles, all burning oil derivatives at a, well, planetary scale rate. Millions to billions of trips would have to be made to "paint the oceans" with this stuff. We might not have enough vehicles to do this, which means we'll have to manufacture them, which comes with environmental consequences. The CO2 and pollution (because none of these processes are clean) this would produce is far more likely to make matters worse than to actually solve any problem. And then you have the reality that a planetary-scale problem isn't going to be affected in seven days. Which means that the above-noted hypothetical might require ten, twenty, fifty or a hundred years of constant effort before anything even registers. We are far more likely to kill all life on earth than to fix the planet. None of the purported solutions I have ever seen engage in any realistic full-process analysis, not even at a superficial level. If you fire-up Excel and throw some numbers at these things it quickly becomes very obvious that they all exist within a range that lies between nonsense and hubris. What's brilliant is that they are all taking advantage of nice grants and research money, which, from one perspective, makes it genius. I can think of a few other imaginary things on this planet that make tons of money, one of them has a whole city built around it! Believe it or not, my view isn't pessimistic at all. I am simply trying to make people think and understand that we are being sold a fantasy. Once that is well understood we need to focus on the reality of the matter. Which means we need to develop technology and programs aimed at living with this reality rather than living under the delusion that we can change a planetary scale problem. I also urge anyone who cares to understand the truth to go out and buy a CO2 meter to then explore their environment. If you do that, what you will discover is that we actually live in an environment ranging between about 650 and 1100 ppm. And this has likely been the case for centuries. The most immediate observation being that humanity has obviously not turned into shapeless blobs of gelatin. In other words, someone needs to explain the "sky is falling" theory given the realities of what we actually experience in our homes, apartments, offices and cars every day of our lives. My optimism is based on the idea that we will eventually understand we are being lied to due to both political and financial interests. At some point the "emperor has no clothes" scenario has to play out. And, when that happens, we will change our focus to more productive pursuits having to do with making life better while letting the planet do what it has to in order to manage the ecosystem --as it has for billions of years. We can live with this at the micro level (because, at a planetary scale we are insignificant) while letting the macro level function as it does. One thing is certain: None of us are going to see any change of note. Changes at a planetary scale are measured in tens of thousands of years, not decades.

raffraffraff 5y ago

This. And the worst part about it is that the Paris agreement's 1.5°C target was based on the use of yet-to-be-developed CO2 capture and didn't account for already-happening-feedback-loops (like methane from Siberia, reduced reflection from melting poles and the shutdown of the Gulfstream, which is beginning to look inevitable) From the IPCC: > All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent to neutralize emissions from sources for which no mitigation measures have been identified (Note: CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal) On the CO2 budget calculated for 1.5°C: > budgets applicable to 2100 would be approximately 100 GtCO2 lower than <calculated> to account for permafrost thawing and potential methane release from wetlands in the future, and more thereafter.

robomartin 5y ago
A number of years ago, when the controversy was brewing, I sat down and read the Paris agreement. The thing is a joke. It will do nothing for anyone other than shift billions of dollars into a number of nations for doing nothing. We already know some nations used the money to buy fleets of cars and airplanes, which is the very definition of irony. The problem with a lot of these things is that everyone forms an opinion without investing any time reading the material (like the agreement) and doing even the most basic math to verify claims. And yet everyone knows we can "save the planet", it would be funny if it weren't so serious.

pyrale 5y ago

> Someone else pointed out that we would have to build some 30,000 of these facilities just to be able to keep up with current CO2 contributions. Must be a miscalculation here, the articles cites 4k tons scrubbed per year for this facility, and 31bn tons emited per year (to which you would have to add 5-6bn for land use change). So that's about 10 millions such facilities we need, only for co2.

robomartin 5y ago
I am trying to be kind. Even if you take the 30K number, the scale is pretty close to nonsensical. I have yet to find a single purported solution that passes what I call the "Excel Test". In other words, running something slightly above a superficial mathematical model of the solution that includes some physics and economics. In my experience the model doesn't have to be deep and complex to quickly reach the conclusion that the so-called solution isn't, in fact, a solution. The problem is that almost nobody does this. Nobody seems to care to take these delusion merchants to task and ask the hard questions. And so we keep talking about a fantasy rather than the hard and cold reality of the matter. We cannot fix a planetary scale problem. We simply can't. We need to focus on living with it.
- burntwater 5y ago
  Google tells me that the world has 62,500 power plants, so 30,000 capture plants seems entirely feasible.
  - robomartin 5y ago
    No, you have to do the math. Do you mean to say we have excess energy availability? If so, you have to support that statement by running through the calculations. For starters, we don't build power plants to provide two or three times the power we need. Most power plants run at somewhere around 80% utilization with a margin for peak periods. In addition to this, if we are serious about a transition to an electric transportation infrastructure by means of electric cars, trucks, boats and planes, well, there is no way the current installed base of power plants can handle this. Again, easy math. For example, the US has somewhere around 300 million cars and trucks. The power (not energy, power is very important) an electrified version of this fleet would require far outstrips what we have available today. Aside from this, you have to look at the historical timeline. 62K power plants were not built in 10 years. If we are optimistic and assume a 50 year timeline, well, quite a few of the people reading this will not be alive by the time 30,000 non-trivial anything is built. And the impact from these 30,000 whatever-they-are will not be seen for a long time, more than likely thousands of years. That's on the very benign assumption that they actually do something. The more likely scenario is that they do nothing or make matters worse. Everyone was convinced that renewable energy was the answer...until someone actually bothered to do the math and physics work to try to understand. And the conclusion? Paraphrasing: Even if we deploy the most optimal forms of solar and wind energy (forms so efficient they are yet to be invented) at a global scale, not only will this not stop atmospheric CO2 accumulation, it will continue to rise exponentially. https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... Physics can be a real heartless monster.