9 ms·

Experimenting with olivine crystals in the ocean to increase CO2 absorption

40 points by headalgorithm 3y ago

HarryHirsch 3y ago
We are truly living in the anthropocene, man moves more soil than the rivers carry sediment into the ocean.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Of all mammalian biomass on Earth, 34% is human and 61% is livestock. Only 5% of mammalian biomass is wild animals. Admittedly we are vastly outweighed by sea life, plants and bacteria - but our sheer mass dominates Mammalia.
  - tcbawo 3y ago
    I’m curious what the estimate for rodent population is. In the largest city near me, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were multiple large rats per human being.
    - earthling8118 3y ago
      Even if that is the case they still lose in biomass. A human has significantly more mass than even multiple of the largest rats.
  - jvm___ 3y ago
    Which is the reverse of what it was in 1900. 90% wild, 10% domesticated in 1900 Now it's the opposite and the wilds are losing. "Were there really wild Giraffes/tigers/elephants?" Is probably a question that kid will ask in the 2150's.
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      Given the latest demographic projections, kids in 2150 might actually be asking: "Were there really so much people?" while the wilds will have regained serious ground.
- version_five 3y ago
  While I think the anthropocene is a stupid concept[0] I read an interesting article yesterday that human pumping of groundwater may have shifted the axis of the earth's spin due to the mass displaced: https://nationalpost.com/news/humans-have-used-enough-groundwater-to-shift-the-earths-tilt https://nationalpost.com/news/humans-have-used-enough-ground... [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/arrogance-anthropocene/595795/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/arroganc...
adamwong246 3y ago
We will do almost anything to save the planet except what needs to be done: less electricity, less meat, less travel and fewer people. There's one sure strategy for beating climate change and no one dares speak it out loud.
- deelowe 3y ago
  Famine. What you're asking for is famine and war.
  - empyrrhicist 3y ago
    Except... It's way easier and more efficient to produce plant based calories.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deelowe 3y ago
      That alone won't fix the issue. Also, what about fertilizer?
      - empyrrhicist 3y ago
        ... Obviously? We're facing a threat to global civilization, so parden me if "that one thing that would help isn't sufficient" doesn't strike me as a particularly insightful or useful comment. Obviously we need to do lots of things. And also, what about fertilizer? Right now we're using it to grow too much corn to feed to cows and burn in cars. I'm saying we should do less of that.
      - jwestbury 3y ago
        Fertiliser is a complicated topic, and at industrial scale probably does require inputs from the livestock industry; however, there are also many options for producing large amounts of biomass without livestock, they're just more costly, and probably don't work as well with large-scale, monoculture agriculture.
atdrummond 3y ago
If anyone is interested in this space, I’ve been working on this particular approach for the past few years. Would love to chat. We have a few interested jurisdictions and now are working on solving logistics to ensure deployment isn’t half assed.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  To me the numbers don't make any sense. Maybe you can help here. We put in the atmosphere roughly 50 billion tons of CO2-equivalent per year. About half is removed by forests and the ocean, but we are still talking tens of gigatons. Humankind produces very few things in gigatons per year numbers. Obviously (and sadly) CO2 is one of them. Coal, petroleum and natural gas are part of this family too, multiple gigatons each. There are 4 agricultural crops that we produce in gigatons per year: sugar cane, corn, rice and wheat. And then there's cement and iron. About 4 gigatons and 2 gigatons per year each. Cement is mixed with sand, gravel and crushed stone to produce concrete. We make about 30 gigatons of concrete per year. Everything else we make is in numbers less than 1 GT/year. The next 2 things are fertilizers and plastics, maybe about 0.5 GT/year. I'm saying all these things to set the scene for the proposed olivine use. What is the idea here? That we will create an entirely new industry that will produce a new material (olivine) in quantities larger than anything any other industry produces, with the few exceptions mentioned above? All the industries I mentioned did not spring overnight, they had been around for hundreds of years. Is the idea to create a new industry that grows at triple digits every year for a few decades? Because if this is not the idea, then I don't think this whole thing would make a dent. I apologize for sounding a bit brusque, but I don't see how this thing makes any sense from the numbers point of view. These guys in the article are talking about 500 m3. How do you get from 500 m3 to billions of m3? Billions per year.
  - Flozzin 3y ago
    Many, including myself, don't believe that solving the climate crisis will be done, by invention of a single new technique. So I agree, scaling up this project to be the only solution would not be possible. C02, methane, and other greenhouse gasses are produced from multiple large sources. And tackling that problem will just not happen by only using 1 solution. Any project that large would almost require some other environmental impact. We are having trouble scaling up batteries without such a consequence.(as an example)

40 points by headalgorithm 3y ago

HarryHirsch 3y ago

We are truly living in the anthropocene, man moves more soil than the rivers carry sediment into the ocean.

HPsquared 3y ago
Of all mammalian biomass on Earth, 34% is human and 61% is livestock. Only 5% of mammalian biomass is wild animals. Admittedly we are vastly outweighed by sea life, plants and bacteria - but our sheer mass dominates Mammalia.
- tcbawo 3y ago
  I’m curious what the estimate for rodent population is. In the largest city near me, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were multiple large rats per human being.
  - earthling8118 3y ago
    Even if that is the case they still lose in biomass. A human has significantly more mass than even multiple of the largest rats.
- jvm___ 3y ago
  Which is the reverse of what it was in 1900. 90% wild, 10% domesticated in 1900 Now it's the opposite and the wilds are losing. "Were there really wild Giraffes/tigers/elephants?" Is probably a question that kid will ask in the 2150's.
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    Given the latest demographic projections, kids in 2150 might actually be asking: "Were there really so much people?" while the wilds will have regained serious ground.
version_five 3y ago
While I think the anthropocene is a stupid concept[0] I read an interesting article yesterday that human pumping of groundwater may have shifted the axis of the earth's spin due to the mass displaced: https://nationalpost.com/news/humans-have-used-enough-groundwater-to-shift-the-earths-tilt https://nationalpost.com/news/humans-have-used-enough-ground... [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/arrogance-anthropocene/595795/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/arroganc...

adamwong246 3y ago

We will do almost anything to save the planet except what needs to be done: less electricity, less meat, less travel and fewer people. There's one sure strategy for beating climate change and no one dares speak it out loud.

deelowe 3y ago
Famine. What you're asking for is famine and war.
- empyrrhicist 3y ago
  Except... It's way easier and more efficient to produce plant based calories.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deelowe 3y ago
    That alone won't fix the issue. Also, what about fertilizer?
    - empyrrhicist 3y ago
      ... Obviously? We're facing a threat to global civilization, so parden me if "that one thing that would help isn't sufficient" doesn't strike me as a particularly insightful or useful comment. Obviously we need to do lots of things. And also, what about fertilizer? Right now we're using it to grow too much corn to feed to cows and burn in cars. I'm saying we should do less of that.
    - jwestbury 3y ago
      Fertiliser is a complicated topic, and at industrial scale probably does require inputs from the livestock industry; however, there are also many options for producing large amounts of biomass without livestock, they're just more costly, and probably don't work as well with large-scale, monoculture agriculture.

atdrummond 3y ago

If anyone is interested in this space, I’ve been working on this particular approach for the past few years. Would love to chat. We have a few interested jurisdictions and now are working on solving logistics to ensure deployment isn’t half assed.

credit_guy 3y ago
To me the numbers don't make any sense. Maybe you can help here. We put in the atmosphere roughly 50 billion tons of CO2-equivalent per year. About half is removed by forests and the ocean, but we are still talking tens of gigatons. Humankind produces very few things in gigatons per year numbers. Obviously (and sadly) CO2 is one of them. Coal, petroleum and natural gas are part of this family too, multiple gigatons each. There are 4 agricultural crops that we produce in gigatons per year: sugar cane, corn, rice and wheat. And then there's cement and iron. About 4 gigatons and 2 gigatons per year each. Cement is mixed with sand, gravel and crushed stone to produce concrete. We make about 30 gigatons of concrete per year. Everything else we make is in numbers less than 1 GT/year. The next 2 things are fertilizers and plastics, maybe about 0.5 GT/year. I'm saying all these things to set the scene for the proposed olivine use. What is the idea here? That we will create an entirely new industry that will produce a new material (olivine) in quantities larger than anything any other industry produces, with the few exceptions mentioned above? All the industries I mentioned did not spring overnight, they had been around for hundreds of years. Is the idea to create a new industry that grows at triple digits every year for a few decades? Because if this is not the idea, then I don't think this whole thing would make a dent. I apologize for sounding a bit brusque, but I don't see how this thing makes any sense from the numbers point of view. These guys in the article are talking about 500 m3. How do you get from 500 m3 to billions of m3? Billions per year.
- Flozzin 3y ago
  Many, including myself, don't believe that solving the climate crisis will be done, by invention of a single new technique. So I agree, scaling up this project to be the only solution would not be possible. C02, methane, and other greenhouse gasses are produced from multiple large sources. And tackling that problem will just not happen by only using 1 solution. Any project that large would almost require some other environmental impact. We are having trouble scaling up batteries without such a consequence.(as an example)