Slashdot Mirror
XPRIZE Projects Aim To Convert CO2 Emissions, But Skepticism Remains (scientificamerican.com)
The XPRIZE foundation exists to encourage particular innovations that might be useful but from which conventional financial backers are likely to shy away. Previous X Prizes have been awarded for feats such as flying a reusable spacecraft to the edge of space, and designing cheap sensors to measure oceanic acidity. This week, the foundation announced a new prize. From a report: One pioneering team hopes to use carbon dioxide to make a stronger form of cement. Another wants to use carbon to make bioplastic. Still another is planning to transform CO2 into solid carbonates that can be used as building materials. The XPRIZE Foundation unveiled 10 teams yesterday as finalists in its $20 million contest to find a solution to carbon emissions.
Its carbon competition is meant to find an economic use for planet-warming emissions. The basic idea: If emissions can be turned into a product, power companies will have an incentive to capture and sell carbon instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. A group of 47 teams from across the world initially submitted proposals. The remaining 10 teams will compete in two groups. One will test their technologies at a coal-fired power plant in Gillette, Wyo. The other will compete at a natural gas plant in Calgary, Alberta. Winners will be announced in 2020. They will split the $20 million purse.
[...] Significant skepticism over carbon utilization's effectiveness persists, however. The chief concern is that global carbon emissions outweigh the market for carbon products. "There is no question you can do it. The question is whether it can be a meaningful contribution to climate mitigation," said Edward Rubin, a professor of environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.
Its carbon competition is meant to find an economic use for planet-warming emissions. The basic idea: If emissions can be turned into a product, power companies will have an incentive to capture and sell carbon instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. A group of 47 teams from across the world initially submitted proposals. The remaining 10 teams will compete in two groups. One will test their technologies at a coal-fired power plant in Gillette, Wyo. The other will compete at a natural gas plant in Calgary, Alberta. Winners will be announced in 2020. They will split the $20 million purse.
[...] Significant skepticism over carbon utilization's effectiveness persists, however. The chief concern is that global carbon emissions outweigh the market for carbon products. "There is no question you can do it. The question is whether it can be a meaningful contribution to climate mitigation," said Edward Rubin, a professor of environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.
Cool Earth is one thing. It isn't going to take one thing or one law passes (like how CFCs were stopped by a global ban so we have an ozone layer left.) It really takes a multi-pronged effort on a bunch of fronts.
I tread in dangerous political waters here, but what would happen if both Mexico and the US built a joint solar farm instead of a wall? Similar to how Brazil and Paraguay went in on a dam, and now reap much from the hydroelectric power. It wouldn't be cheap, but with modern solar cell technology, once built, it would be a relatively low maintenance item, and would greatly benefit both countries.
Instead of finding ways to use the waste products of power plants that create harmful waste products, we should be finding ways to get rid of power plants of this type and replace them with power generation that doesn't create harmful waste products. Creating incentives and investing money in making these kinds of power generation facilities more relevant instead of less relevant is going in the wrong direction.
Complete agreement. We're highly unlikely to solve everything via carbon offsets. We need to transition in general carbon neutral power systems. Unfortunately, while some places are doing a pretty decent job on this, some places, especially the US and Australia, are very much not so. However, there are ways one can help out there as well.
In terms of personal lifestyle differences, the biggest options are to eat less meat and to use a personal car less. If you live somewhere where public transit is an option, you can massively cut down on your carbon footprint by simply using public transit. Not everyone has that option, since you may live somewhere where public transit isn't available or may have a job or family that necessitates getting a car, in which case, if you get a new car, make sure to buy an electric or hybrid. Also in terms of personal activity, one can keep the air conditioning or heating in one's house at not as extreme temperatures or one can better insulate one's house. All these personal changes are also things which overall cause one to save money.
In terms of direct changes to the system as a whole, two good options for solar are donating to Everybody Solar https://www.everybodysolar.org/ which gets solar panels for non-profits like museums and homeless shelters, and the Solar Electric Light Fund https://www.self.org/ who helps get solar panels for locations in the developing world. SELF's work is especially important because it helps to cut off the potential of rising carbon dioxide in the developing world even as it helps increase their economies. For wind power, I recommend donating to The New England Wind Fund https://www.massenergy.org/the-wind-fund.
Also, as uncomfortable as it is, responding with political action is important also. The next big upcoming special election in the US is for one of Arizona's House seats. The Democrat who has a decent environmental record is Hiral Tipirnenii http://hiralforcongress.com/, while her opponent has a literal F rating from multiple different environmental groups. So if you want to effect political change, donating to her campaign is a definite option.
To put all the carbon back into mines.
Speaking of doing lots of different things; wind power, geothermal, hydro, and passive solar are all more efficient than solar-electric, and in locations where they make sense, they are overall much better than solar-electric. Nuclear is an important carbon-free power source that can largely replace coal and other carbon-producing power.
Solar-electric gets the most press because those companies have the best political lobbying machinery and marketing, not because it's the best solution. Don't make the mistake of thinking "carbon-free" means "solar-electric".
Agreed that there are a lot of options; I generally push for donating to solar and wind because those are frankly the easiest ones to actually donate to. There's no really easy way to simply donate money to build more nuclear, geothermal or hydro. Solar and wind also have relatively fast turn around times which means that there's a short span between when one donates money to when it is used. A nuclear plant can take a decade or more to build (not that this is a criticism of nuclear power as much as simply recognizing the unfortunate political reality which we have to pragmatically work with).
The quote expressing skepticism is commiting a slight logical fallacy: Just because this might not be THE single answer doesn't mean it can't be PART of the solution. Anyone who thinks there is a single best solution to CO2 emissions is likely to be extremely disappointed.
The most likely solution is going to be a collection of initiatives such as cutting emissions, switching from coal to natural gas, using nuclear energy + wind + solar, geoengineering, creating carbon sinks, painting roofs/roads/whatever white, reducing deforestation, etc. It's very possible the winners of this contest could provide 5% of the solution, and that 5% (which I just made up) could be a very useful addition to the complete solution.
It's great that XPRIZE is putting up $20 million for contests like this.
Rainforests are carbon neutral.
Yes they absorb a large % of the carbon absorbed by the biosphere, they also emit a large % of the carbon emitted by the biosphere, when the leaves/wood rots.
Unless an area is 'putting down' carbon, it's carbon neutral. That's rare: Only example I know of is the Okefenokee swamp.
Some areas that are currently reforesting (e.g. the eastern half of the USA) are short term carbon sinks. Will only last until the tree cover reaches the new equilibrium. Landfills and suburbs are also short term carbon sinks. Until that wood and paper burns/rots it's locked up.
The earth has been sinking carbon since the uplifting of the Tibetan plateau. Exposed limestone is a carbon sink. But slow.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Cool Earth merely stops some rainforest destruction. This is great, but it is not carbon sequestering.
Mature forest is pretty much in CO2 balance, it does not sequester significant amounts of CO2. Obviously we should not burn it, but equally obviously we should not dig concentrated carbon out of the ground and burn that.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The US and Australia are actually leading the way in renewable energy production. Google and Apple just went 100% renewable with their energy use. Other US companies are looking do the same
Individual companies aren't a good guide for what is happening. In this case, government policy matters a lot. It is true that Australia has a boom in solar power, but that's despite the current government https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/11/australias-solar-power-boom-could-almost-double-capacity-in-a-year-analysts-say https://www.marketforces.org.au/campaigns/ffs/ not because of it. And in many respects Austarlian coal plants are producing all sorts of pollutants that wouldn't even be allowed in most of China https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/15/australian-coal-power-pollution-would-be-illegal-in-us-europe-and-china-report.
On the other hand China and India are ordering more coal plants be built than any other counties. China is taking a look at scaling back coal use but still major cities in China are simply unfit to live in because of pollution.
It is true that China and India are building new coal plants also, but that's only a fraction of their new grid production. In fact, Chinese cities have become substantially cleaner in the last few years https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-pollution-beijing-insight/beijing-may-be-starting-to-win-its-battle-against-smog-idUSKBN1EN0ZJ.
Africa is scheduled to become major problem in the next ten years too as more power is needed to provide for their growing economies. Coal is the only source of fuel for Africa that is cheap enough for them to exploit.
Actually, there are a lot of solar projects in parts of Africa also. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/26/the-race-to-solar-power-africa, but if you note in the comment you are replying to, I specifically included a link to the Solar Electric Light Fund; as I explained in that comment, it is particularly important to help get solar panels for Africa precisely so they don't turn to fossil fuels. So if you are concerned about Africa's fossil fuel production, then by all means donate to SELF.
The X-prize project is hoping to find a way to make money (they call it incenttivize) by making a product using the concentrated CO2 and waste heat from a conventional power plant. That product is supposed to sequester the CO2 from the environment.
An alternative direct attack for reducing human generated CO2 is to pay people to substitute low CO2 activities for high CO2 activities. An example is, pay people to accept riders and engage in ride sharing. A gasoline burning commuter is paid to be a rider. The rider doesn't buy $30 a week of gasoline, so the rider's net wealth goes up $30, plus the rider is paid some number of dollars, like 5 dollars in Ethereum for 15Kg of CO2 not emitted (by the rider not driving). The driver still buys $30 in gasoline and he gets 5 dollars in Ethereum that can be spent to purchase an electric vehicle and a share of a destination charging station. As soon as the driver shows statistical likelihood of dependably carrying riders, the driver qualifies for a huge Ethereum loan switch to electric power and have $30 per week retained wealth also.
See my blog:
http://www.lowco2america.com/2...
In effect, we pay people to not burn gasoline, which results in retained cash in the individuals personal finance plus an accumulating amount of Ethereum that can be invested in activities that are alternative to the combustion of fuel. For the individual or family, the goal is to make not emitting CO2 more economically and socially advantageous than the conventional gasoline burning consumer life. Generous payment is needed because the program needs everybody to join in and conserve, no matter where they reside on the climate change denial scale. From the government point of view, we are buying down the globe's CO2 burden. The further development of this is to set off a conservation cascade. Think up ways to directly not emit CO2 and fund them. Suppose we establish the right to a low co2 emission public education for the child and her parents. Think three day work weeks, Local baseball and football teams. Four week long local music and dance festivals per year. Manufacture of 100 year roofs from locally collected plastic.
No, not the feelgood treehugger variant where you try to use less fuel. The physical one.
CO2 has a few very, very crappy properties. One of them being that it takes a LOT of energy to break up. Because forming it released a LOT of energy. Well, duh, why do you think we use ICEs burning hydrocarbons that produce CO2 and H2O (another one of those hard to split molecules).
You can now of course use a lot or energy to transform CO2 back to something useful. We could instead take that energy and use it as a replacement for energy that is now generated by burning something that creates CO2. Yes, we could of course also do both, but until we actually produce ALL energy by means that do not produce CO2, the energy is better used by fueling whatever it is that is now fueled in a CO2 producing way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, I guess I don't have to ask you to document your statements. :)
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.