3 ms·

Olivine? This is mined, which means eco-system destruction from wherever it is being mined from. It means fossil fuel inputs to mine it, process it, transport i

Olivine? This is mined, which means eco-system destruction from wherever it is being mined from. It means fossil fuel inputs to mine it, process it, transport it. What's the ratio of carbon-stored to carbon-released here? Any studies on the effect of of both marine animals and the beach/dune/fringe dwellers on this? Economical? Maybe. Actually effective? Doubt it. People are so in love with the idea of a technical solution, because deep down they don't want to give up their SUVs, their large families, their expensive gadgets and cheap food. It ain't never gonna work that way. If people were serious about solving the climate problem, they would have smaller families, drive smaller cars, cut-out air travel, stop buying plastic shit they don't need, stop upgrading their phone every year ... ... but I'm not seeing many people doing it. Pretty much nobody in fact.

wiz21c 3y ago
If it can make your day a little happier: I change car/gsm/whatever when they die and can't be repaired anymore (my PC is 13 years old for example, it's alittle too weak for rust-analyze, but well :-))). I haven't taken a plane in 20 years; use the train when possible. I buy online less than once a year. I don't have a swimming pool. But I'm not involved in politics, so I don't spend much time on helping others to change. And my house's insulation is not good (old house).
- Reason077 3y ago
  > “And my house's insulation is not good (old house).” Depending on where you live and how you heat your house, fixing this one thing might be more effective at reducing emissions than everything else you’re doing combined.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    Would paying for such upgrades for people who cannot afford them be considered cost effective carbon dioxide removal?
    - master-lincoln 3y ago
      no, because it does not remove carbon dioxide, but prevent future emissions.
      - Reason077 3y ago
        Isn't the net result the same? Is it better to pay (for example) $500 to remove a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere, or to pay $100 to prevent the same amount of CO2 from being emitted in the first place? If CO2 removal costs us more than emissions reduction technologies, isn't it a false economy?
lemming 3y ago
> Any studies on the effect of of both marine animals and the beach/dune/fringe dwellers on this? https://www.projectvesta.org https://www.projectvesta.org are doing those studies, they've been on HN before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20403570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20403570, that thread answers a lot of your questions. It's based on very sound-looking science, pioneered by Olaf Schuiling in the Netherlands (see here for more explanations: https://greensand.com/en/pages/werking-olivijn-steen https://greensand.com/en/pages/werking-olivijn-steen). > What's the ratio of carbon-stored to carbon-released here? There's about a 4% loss, mostly due to crushing the olivine and shipping it around. https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_978/1/ https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_978/1/. According to Schuiling's calculations, about 7 cubic kilometres of olivine a year would offset all of humanity's emissions. For reference, the largest mine in the world is the Bingham copper mine in Utah, which is (IIRC) about 23 cubic kilometres. So, it's a lot, but it's within the reach of current technology. Schuiling estimated it would take an industry roughly the size of today's oil industry to operate, probably around a million employees. Again, it's big, but it doesn't require any new magic air-sucking machines or anything like that, it's just what we already know how to do, on a scale that we already do it. And hopefully we'll have lots of coal miners out of work soon who would know how to do it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

wiz21c 3y ago

If it can make your day a little happier: I change car/gsm/whatever when they die and can't be repaired anymore (my PC is 13 years old for example, it's alittle too weak for rust-analyze, but well :-))). I haven't taken a plane in 20 years; use the train when possible. I buy online less than once a year. I don't have a swimming pool. But I'm not involved in politics, so I don't spend much time on helping others to change. And my house's insulation is not good (old house).

Reason077 3y ago
> “And my house's insulation is not good (old house).” Depending on where you live and how you heat your house, fixing this one thing might be more effective at reducing emissions than everything else you’re doing combined.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  Would paying for such upgrades for people who cannot afford them be considered cost effective carbon dioxide removal?
  - master-lincoln 3y ago
    no, because it does not remove carbon dioxide, but prevent future emissions.
    - Reason077 3y ago
      Isn't the net result the same? Is it better to pay (for example) $500 to remove a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere, or to pay $100 to prevent the same amount of CO2 from being emitted in the first place? If CO2 removal costs us more than emissions reduction technologies, isn't it a false economy?

lemming 3y ago

> Any studies on the effect of of both marine animals and the beach/dune/fringe dwellers on this? https://www.projectvesta.org https://www.projectvesta.org are doing those studies, they've been on HN before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20403570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20403570, that thread answers a lot of your questions. It's based on very sound-looking science, pioneered by Olaf Schuiling in the Netherlands (see here for more explanations: https://greensand.com/en/pages/werking-olivijn-steen https://greensand.com/en/pages/werking-olivijn-steen). > What's the ratio of carbon-stored to carbon-released here? There's about a 4% loss, mostly due to crushing the olivine and shipping it around. https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_978/1/ https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_978/1/. According to Schuiling's calculations, about 7 cubic kilometres of olivine a year would offset all of humanity's emissions. For reference, the largest mine in the world is the Bingham copper mine in Utah, which is (IIRC) about 23 cubic kilometres. So, it's a lot, but it's within the reach of current technology. Schuiling estimated it would take an industry roughly the size of today's oil industry to operate, probably around a million employees. Again, it's big, but it doesn't require any new magic air-sucking machines or anything like that, it's just what we already know how to do, on a scale that we already do it. And hopefully we'll have lots of coal miners out of work soon who would know how to do it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]