3 ms·

I did not say crushed rock is the solution. I just used it as an example that solution may not require us to supply the amount energy from the grid that we woul

I did not say crushed rock is the solution. I just used it as an example that solution may not require us to supply the amount energy from the grid that we would normally get from emitting the CO2 in the first place. Also, I think you are just flat wrong about how unprecedented this operation would be. Digging oil and coal from under the sea or thousands of meters below ground is certainly more difficult than crushing rock that is readily available on the surface basically everywhere. I think the bigger issue is figuring out what to do with that crushed rock so that it has contact with air so that it can actually perform the reactions we want (this might not be solvable). We can use crushed rock to some extent. For example, I use powdered basalt in my garden. It improves the soil and provides nutrients over long periods of time. But I think we would quickly run out of agricultural soil to fertilise this way.

mjhay 4y ago
Crushing many cubic kilometers of rock, transporting it, and then spreading over large areas takes quite a bit of energy, you'll find. It's not easy as you say, and only specific types of silicate rocks work. You seem to keep thinking that the "tech" is what matters here, and not the necessary enormous industrial and ecological inputs this would take. Also, no, I'm not wrong about the scale. This solution would require orders of magnitude times more mass than the oil/coal extraction you're describing. Again, you still aren't grasping how big this would be. It would require giant open pit mines to take out literal cubic kilometers of rock, and keep doing this for ages.
- twawaaay 4y ago
  > Again, you still aren't grasping how big this would be. You seem to be very sure about knowing what I can or cannot grasp. You wield this sentence as some kind of weapon against me but the fact is you are not presenting any arguments. Humanity has shown that it can do a lot if it just wants. Look at the scale of world wars where large part of world's output was converted to war effort because we just didn't like the idea of being conquered by Nazis. The great pyramid of Giza is 0.2% of cubic kilometers and it was literally built with sticks and rope, for vanity, with relatively few people. Your claim that humanity can't crush a bunch of cubic km of rock and spread over vast areas of land when faced with existential crisis is shortsighted.
  - mjhay 4y ago
    The existential crisis you are talking about is happening right here, right now - and nothing meaningful is being done about it. The correct course of action is to reduce further damage, and not count on our ability to tech our way out of this in a further degraded environment decades from now. I keep saying "you don't grasp" the scale here because really you don't. Myself and others have explained how enormous this undertaking would be, but you haven't given any kind of solution to the manifold problems we outlined.
  - landemva 4y ago
    humanity can't crush a bunch of cubic km of rock and spread over vast areas of land in a non-polluting way. It won't be carbon negative after drilling, blasting, digging, crushing, transporting, and spreading it around. If you can do it on your garden as a side-effect of hobby gardening, that is a nice benefit. BTW, I worked as mechanic on heavy equip, crushers, drills, and haulage at many mines.
thrown_22 4y ago
You would need 96 gigatons of rock a year to just stop the current CO2 production. By comparison all coal mining in before covid was 8 gigatons. To start removing CO2 in meaningful quantities you'd need to increase that number by 5 or more times. Your low energy solution isn't.

mjhay 4y ago

Crushing many cubic kilometers of rock, transporting it, and then spreading over large areas takes quite a bit of energy, you'll find. It's not easy as you say, and only specific types of silicate rocks work. You seem to keep thinking that the "tech" is what matters here, and not the necessary enormous industrial and ecological inputs this would take. Also, no, I'm not wrong about the scale. This solution would require orders of magnitude times more mass than the oil/coal extraction you're describing. Again, you still aren't grasping how big this would be. It would require giant open pit mines to take out literal cubic kilometers of rock, and keep doing this for ages.

twawaaay 4y ago
> Again, you still aren't grasping how big this would be. You seem to be very sure about knowing what I can or cannot grasp. You wield this sentence as some kind of weapon against me but the fact is you are not presenting any arguments. Humanity has shown that it can do a lot if it just wants. Look at the scale of world wars where large part of world's output was converted to war effort because we just didn't like the idea of being conquered by Nazis. The great pyramid of Giza is 0.2% of cubic kilometers and it was literally built with sticks and rope, for vanity, with relatively few people. Your claim that humanity can't crush a bunch of cubic km of rock and spread over vast areas of land when faced with existential crisis is shortsighted.
- mjhay 4y ago
  The existential crisis you are talking about is happening right here, right now - and nothing meaningful is being done about it. The correct course of action is to reduce further damage, and not count on our ability to tech our way out of this in a further degraded environment decades from now. I keep saying "you don't grasp" the scale here because really you don't. Myself and others have explained how enormous this undertaking would be, but you haven't given any kind of solution to the manifold problems we outlined.
- landemva 4y ago
  humanity can't crush a bunch of cubic km of rock and spread over vast areas of land in a non-polluting way. It won't be carbon negative after drilling, blasting, digging, crushing, transporting, and spreading it around. If you can do it on your garden as a side-effect of hobby gardening, that is a nice benefit. BTW, I worked as mechanic on heavy equip, crushers, drills, and haulage at many mines.

thrown_22 4y ago

You would need 96 gigatons of rock a year to just stop the current CO2 production. By comparison all coal mining in before covid was 8 gigatons. To start removing CO2 in meaningful quantities you'd need to increase that number by 5 or more times. Your low energy solution isn't.