jsantos511

7 ms·

1.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Amazing point. We need more trees, and we have a lot of corn, so if we needed less corns, we could have more trees! Love it. It'll also be interesting to balance the use of that land for trees vs. solar/wind as well. We'll ne
2.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Not actively raising now, but would love to chat! josh [at] noyalabs.com
3.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Hey Tito! Thanks for the support - great seeing you here!
4.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Thanks for your support!
5.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Carbon taxes will absolutely help in solving this problem, and we hope regulation gets enacted to help incentivize people to think and act differently when it comes to their carbon emissions.
6.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Sorry for the big delay in getting back to you! I'll look more into this - this isn't a solution I'm familiar with. Thanks for sharing, and thanks for your kind words and dedication to solving this problem.
7.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Thanks for bringing up the idea! We've been in contact with Maher and Karim already. Love what they're working on.
8.
by jsantos511 6y ago
thanks for the kind words!
9.
by jsantos511 6y ago
I hear you and agree - reducing emissions is a very important thing to do, followed immediately by stopping all unnecessary power wasting (like with the windows + heating problem). In the UN's most recent climate report [1], most of th
10.
by jsantos511 6y ago
This is a great way to put it - this is our MVP, or our "Tesla Roadster", and it will be used to get us to a more permanent, scalable process for carbon removal.
11.
by jsantos511 6y ago
There are some companies that are paying people to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but yes, we absolutely need more of them. Stripe has become a huge leader in the space with Stripe Climate: https://stripe.com/climate Mi
12.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Great question - the carbon cycle definitely needs to be thought about in this scenario. The missing link here is in total embodied emissions that go into production of corn. There's data available to help piece together a comparison [
13.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Thanks for sharing - this is definitely on our radar!
14.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Absolutely right. Many carbon capture systems that are installed on top of smokestacks have much higher concentrations of CO2 than the air does (~300x higher concentrations in smokestacks). Henry's Law states that as partial pressure o
15.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Couldn't agree with you more - the less we emit, the less critical the need for carbon removal technologies becomes. We have two levers for reversing climate change: the first is reducing emissions, and the second is remove carbon from
16.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Amazingly well thought out analysis - thank you. Completely agree that we will need a lot of shots on goal and many operations pulling carbon out of the air to deal with the size of this problem. Our first commercial plant is estimated to c
17.
by jsantos511 6y ago
US CO2 consumption is ~64M tons / year, so 730M tons >> current US production. Next step for managing CO2 production is geologic sequestration to ensure we have something to do with all the CO2 we capture!
18.
by jsantos511 6y ago
The energy balance is going to be critical, I agree! We are still working on finalizing all the inputs for this process, including regeneration amounts, amount of heat added, etc. Based on our early modeling, it seems the amount of heat gen
19.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Makes sense - thanks for the recommendation!
20.
by jsantos511 6y ago
There is an energy input here. The temperatures required to regenerate the CO2 from our captured solution are low enough to be produced using renewables, and this is what we're planning on doing.
21.
by jsantos511 6y ago
The short answer is that we absolutely need more trees than we currently have, but trees alone won't be able to get us there. Trees are great at capturing CO2 from the sky, but they suffer from an impermanence issue. Trees capture CO2
22.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Totally agree - in the short-term, it's highly likely that emissions will continue as they have. In the medium- to long-term, we're aiming to develop geologic sequestration pathways that will begin to draw-down atmospheric CO2 lev
23.
by jsantos511 6y ago
You're absolutely right - there is much more CO2 in the sky than what the global CO2 markets can absorb. For scale: the US CO2 market consumes ~64M tons per year of CO2 [1]. We need to be capturing at least 1B tons per year of CO2
24.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Avoiding the second part of your question is where a huge chunk of our efforts are going right now. Re: liability, we accept responsibility for any damages made to the tower itself. If we break it, we buy it. Re: downtime avoidance, we are
25.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Ethanol sans-CO2 is definitely realistic, but the timing is what's up in the air (no pun intended). There are a few different teams that have developed materials that enable ethanol production from CO2 (!!!) and are starting to scale [
26.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Yep - there will definitely be a few losses, specifically in cooling tower drift (water droplets blowing out the top) and blowdown (water being expelled from tower to improve water purity). Luckily, our chemicals are all found in every day
27.
by jsantos511 6y ago
We had a similar observation and related feelings — cooling towers move, quite literally, tons of air every day. One suggestion I'd make to the math above: the concentration of CO2 in the air is a bit higher, at 415ppm per Scripps UCSD
28.
by jsantos511 6y ago
The US currently consumes ~64M tons of CO2 / year: https://www.iea.org/reports/putting-co2-to-use We need to remove somewhere between 100B-1T tons of CO2 from the air to get back to safe, non-planet-warming levels
29.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Oh yes - definitely on our radar!
30.
by jsantos511 6y ago
Thanks for the willingness to support! We have not looked into this yet, but we definitely will.

More ›