Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: My 10-20-50 plan  (Read 3056 times)

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
My 10-20-50 plan
« on: October 07, 2024, 01:19:11 PM »
10 years to extract 20 billion tons of CO2 annually with enhanced rock weathering, while lowering our emissions by 50%. We'd be carbon-neutral in 10 years, and carbon negative in 11.

Can we work together on this plan and send it out into the world?

When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9767
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1380
  • Likes Given: 622
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2024, 02:01:14 PM »
No, first we must destroy Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.
Make money, not peace

El Cid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1003
  • Likes Given: 234
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2024, 04:33:52 PM »
10 years to extract 20 billion tons of CO2 annually with enhanced rock weathering, while lowering our emissions by 50%. We'd be carbon-neutral in 10 years, and carbon negative in 11.

Can we work together on this plan and send it out into the world?

I give you a better one. Soil health. Most soils have been depleted of organic matter. Good prairie or forest soils contain 5-8% carbon, most agricultural soils 1-2% only. If you put back 2% carbon into the world's 5 billion hectares of agricultural soils (and let's do it only for the top 30 cm), then that is 5 billion*30 ton*2 = 300 billion tons of carbon. Worth 30 years of carbon emissions. If we can do it in 30 years that means that all our new emissions will be negated until 2054.

Shall we start?

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2024, 06:26:54 PM »
10 years to extract 20 billion tons of CO2 annually with enhanced rock weathering, while lowering our emissions by 50%. We'd be carbon-neutral in 10 years, and carbon negative in 11.

Can we work together on this plan and send it out into the world?

I give you a better one. Soil health. Most soils have been depleted of organic matter. Good prairie or forest soils contain 5-8% carbon, most agricultural soils 1-2% only. If you put back 2% carbon into the world's 5 billion hectares of agricultural soils (and let's do it only for the top 30 cm), then that is 5 billion*30 ton*2 = 300 billion tons of carbon. Worth 30 years of carbon emissions. If we can do it in 30 years that means that all our new emissions will be negated until 2054.

Shall we start?
That's also a great idea, but how do we do that? With biochar? Wouldn't the carbon content in the soil increase with ERW as well? Or do all those carbon ions wash away?
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

John Batteen

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 259
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2024, 07:58:46 PM »
ERW fixes carbon into the rocks as carbonates, which don't contribute to organic matter.  Some good ways to build up organic matter in soil include growing plants with big tuberous roots and leaving them to rot in the ground, and growing anything that produces a lot of biomass up top, mowing it, and letting it rot and turn into soil.  This would mean not producing a crop on that ground for that growing season, but would improve future crops going forward.

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2024, 08:27:16 PM »
ERW fixes carbon into the rocks as carbonates, which don't contribute to organic matter.  Some good ways to build up organic matter in soil include growing plants with big tuberous roots and leaving them to rot in the ground, and growing anything that produces a lot of biomass up top, mowing it, and letting it rot and turn into soil.  This would mean not producing a crop on that ground for that growing season, but would improve future crops going forward.
You're right. That was a big brain fart from me. Stupid question really. ::)

What you're suggesting would mean changing the way farmers farm. A big ask for most. With ERW they wouldn't have to change anything. But certainly something that could be suggested to farmers.

Not sure what we can do with biochar, if that would be feasible. I know that we can make hydrogen from (bio)gas with thermal plasma electrolysis for the same price as steam reforming, and that would create solid black carbon instead of CO2. Using biogas, that technology would be like BECCS on steroids.
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

SteveMDFP

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2701
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 647
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2024, 09:16:27 PM »
ERW fixes carbon into the rocks as carbonates, which don't contribute to organic matter.  Some good ways to build up organic matter in soil include growing plants with big tuberous roots and leaving them to rot in the ground, and growing anything that produces a lot of biomass up top, mowing it, and letting it rot and turn into soil.  This would mean not producing a crop on that ground for that growing season, but would improve future crops going forward.

The two approaches are complementary.  Building up soil organic carbon is beneficial for plant growth and CO2 removal.  But it's primarily plant growth that builds up the carbon.  Yet, soil organic carbon can be somewhat volatile.  Soil erosion, desertification, or prolonged drought can send all that soil organic carbon straight back to the atomosphere as CO2.

Valcanic rock provides nutrients like phosphate and magnesium to facilitate that plant growth.  And minerals like olivine (and I believe basalt) break down much faster in soil through the action of bacteria and fungi.  These approaches build on each other.

When carbonates are formed from mineral compounds, that carbonate is not a volatile form of carbon.  Ultimately, it goes to the ocean, and will contribute towards reversing ocean acidification.  Much of that carbonate ends up as just new limestone sediments.  That's stable, permanent CO2 removal.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9012
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2024, 09:20:26 PM »
10 years to extract 20 billion tons of CO2 annually with enhanced rock weathering, while lowering our emissions by 50%. We'd be carbon-neutral in 10 years, and carbon negative in 11.

Can we work together on this plan and send it out into the world?

The world had it´s own plans which it ignores so good luck with chopping our emissions in half. And i don´t think you can get to 20B tons. You spread dust over fields which takes up carbon but that is less then the amount of dust spread.

It´s a cute plan but thin on realism.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

SteveMDFP

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2701
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 647
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2024, 09:44:43 PM »
10 years to extract 20 billion tons of CO2 annually with enhanced rock weathering, while lowering our emissions by 50%. We'd be carbon-neutral in 10 years, and carbon negative in 11.

Can we work together on this plan and send it out into the world?

The world had it´s own plans which it ignores so good luck with chopping our emissions in half. And i don´t think you can get to 20B tons. You spread dust over fields which takes up carbon but that is less then the amount of dust spread.

It´s a cute plan but thin on realism.

Funding by carbon credits could do the trick here, probably with a more robust carbon credit program.  Mechanically, it would be like spreading lime on fields.  The approach could likely be adapted to pasture lands, probably forests, beaches, maybe oyster fisheries.  Those shellfish need help against ocean acidification too, as Bruce has told us.  There's no shortage of acreage for spreading the pulverized rock, with solid economic benefits along the way.

Soil fertilization, reversal of acidification, improved shellfish yields -- all paid ultimately by emitters of carbon.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9012
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2024, 05:46:21 PM »
That still would not help cutting emissions.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

SteveMDFP

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2701
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 647
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2024, 03:16:43 PM »
That still would not help cutting emissions.

It certainly can.  If the costs for all this ERW are imposed as a fee on fossil fuel extraction, prices for fossil fuels will rise relative to renewable options, and consumption patterns will shift.

Since we can see that ERW is fairly affordable for CO2 removal, an appropriate fee might fund two or more times the CO2 removal needed per ton of carbon extraction.  Essentially:  "you want to extract a ton of carbon?  Fine, you just need to pay for removal of 3 tons of CO2."

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9012
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2024, 04:08:28 PM »
But how realistic is that goal? It once again depends on a political agreement which is not going to materialize. And once again it´s a market oriented approach which is never going to be quick enough.

We have about 5 years of carbon budget left. So ten years if we instantly half our energy use which we won´t.

So whenever we reach net zero we are beyond the 2C target. The enhanced rock weathering in all its varieties does help but we need that reduction in atmospheric carbon emissions at a much quicker rate then we care to commit too.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Sublime_Rime

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2024, 04:41:00 PM »
Honestly Kassy, there's no arguing with such a statement, but such pessimism is not helpful, and what you express is mostly pessimism from my perspective. Just because change hasn't happened does not mean it is not possible.

What would be helpful is to research ways to make such a plan as feasible as possible and who would be a likely potential "early adopter" to get the ball rolling. Answering such questions as: In what parts of the world would this be most cost-effective? Essentially where are the raw materials juxtaposed to agricultural land where ERW could be implemented? What parts of the world would be most open to such a plan, and benefit from it in the short-term?

What would the price per unit carbon needed to sequester at least twice as much carbon as emitted? What are other advantages of such a project? New jobs? increased agricultural yields? How could further incentives be tacked on to such a plan to make it more likely that it would be implemented? (e.g. coupling fertilizer with ERW, or tax credits for farmers that adopted it)
Max
Know thyself
Here to learn and connect in these wondrous and quickly changing times.

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2024, 06:13:33 PM »
A global carbon tax would really help, but we all know that this is not going to happen any time soon, or it would have already happened. So let's not waste any more time on that now. We can deal with this later.

It does exist though, in many parts of the world. It's how UNDO and 200 other companies are already making money on ERW. UNDO provides the crushed basalt to farmers for free. They spread it on their field with machines they already own, and their profit is a bigger crop yield. UNDO then collects the carbon credits to pay for logistics and other costs.

A key first step in scaling up ERW, as Sublime suggests, would be to locate and register all available basalt quarries around the globe. By mapping these resources, we can better plan logistics and distribution, starting with the most accessible locations before expanding operations. People excel at solving logistical challenges, and with the right coordination, this effort could be scaled up rapidly. All we need is some support from global institutions like the UN at the upcoming COP summit. A small push from such influential bodies could significantly accelerate progress.

An important part of funding will come from companies and people trying to offset their carbon emissions. Microsoft already has a deal in place with UNDO. So why not raise airline ticket prices to offset carbon? Right now, many people are buying carbon offsets through tree-planting schemes, but there’s increasing evidence that these programs can be inefficient or even fraudulent, as it takes decades for trees to sequester significant amounts of carbon. While tree planting should continue, we need to focus on more immediate and reliable methods like ERW to make a tangible impact on carbon removal.

The objective right now should be to raise global awareness of this technology. This is why I believe it's crucial to engage the UN and lobby for their support in promoting ERW. By pushing this agenda on a global stage, we could see significant progress in scaling this carbon removal solution. Lobbying key international bodies could be the catalyst we need to make Enhanced Rock Weathering a mainstream climate solution.
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9012
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2024, 10:50:32 PM »
Honestly Kassy, there's no arguing with such a statement, but such pessimism is not helpful, and what you express is mostly pessimism from my perspective. Just because change hasn't happened does not mean it is not possible.

Optimism or pessimism don´t do much. They are not actual drivers of our behaviour.

I like the original plan but how do we get the world to decline its fossil fuel output as quick as that? The problem is that we won´t. We do not have an infinite amount of time because we are running out of that carbon budget. Of course we still have to implement the same plan on a different time line because those are our options. It s still going to land us on the wrong side of 2C which is insane.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

zenith

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3460
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2024, 11:17:30 PM »
There's no shortage of acreage for spreading the pulverized rock, with solid economic benefits along the way.

let me get my diesel powered rock slinger out to help you. then the diesel powered tractors can carry on with their monoculture activities while spreading fossil fuel derived fertilizers and insecticides/fungicides/pesticides.

of course every atom of every vehicle is made out of petroleum or manufactured via petroleum processes, as are the roads and the equipment that builds and maintains them. same with the transport trucks and pumps that irrigate the fields.

forget about all that, who will be the first country to ban plastics in every form? not going to happen is the name of that country.
Where is reality? Can you show it to me? - Heinz von Foerster

zenith

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3460
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2024, 11:47:32 PM »
pulverized rock doesn't just happen, take us through every industrial process and the materials every industrial process requires to wind up with crushed rock. every step of the way. it's easy to point at an end 'product' and exclaim - ta-da! problem solved.

there's no magic bullet for industrial civilization that was/is built and maintained by fossil fuels - it's a "progress trap". look at graphs of human population growth and fossil fuel consumption and the two are inexorably linked.

Where is reality? Can you show it to me? - Heinz von Foerster

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #17 on: October 10, 2024, 12:43:17 PM »
Because we all know that the land around volcanos is very fertile, I've asked copilot if volcanic ash and crushed basalt have the same properties. Here's the answer.

Crushed basalt and volcanic ash share some similarities, but also have distinct differences:

### Similarities:
1. **Origin**: Both are derived from volcanic activity. Basalt is a type of volcanic rock, while volcanic ash is fine particles ejected during eruptions.
2. **Mineral Content**: Both contain minerals like silica, iron, and magnesium, which can be beneficial for soil health.

### Differences:
1. **Particle Size**: Volcanic ash is much finer than crushed basalt. Ash particles are typically less than 2 mm in diameter, while crushed basalt can vary in size but is generally coarser.
2. **Chemical Composition**: While both contain similar minerals, the exact composition can vary. Volcanic ash often has a higher silica content compared to basalt.
3. **Weathering Rate**: Due to its finer particles, volcanic ash weathers more quickly than crushed basalt, releasing nutrients into the soil faster.

Both materials can be used to improve soil fertility, but their effectiveness and application methods may differ based on their physical and chemical properties.
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #18 on: October 10, 2024, 12:47:23 PM »
This one was great Gero. Hope you don't mind me posting it here.

One for Freegrass to read.....

Much about the costs in $ and CO2 and KW of grinding up rocks, but strangely not one word on the amount and timing of carbon sunk through the weathering process.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2024.1380651/full
Quote
Geospatial assessment of the cost and energy demand of feedstock grinding for enhanced rock weathering in the coterminous United States

In an effort to mitigate anthropogenic climate impacts the U.S. has established ambitious Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) targets, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% before 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Enhanced rock weathering (ERW)—the artificial enhancement of chemical weathering of rocks to accelerate atmospheric CO2 capture—is now widely seen as a potentially promising carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy that could help to achieve U.S. climate goals. Grinding rocks to smaller particle size, which can help to facilitate more rapid and efficient CO2 removal, is the most energy-demanding and cost-intensive step in the ERW life cycle. As a result, accurate life cycle analysis of ERW requires regional constraints on the factors influencing the energetic and economic demands of feedstock grinding for ERW. Here, we perform a state-level geospatial analysis to quantify how carbon footprints, costs, and energy demands vary among regions of the coterminous U.S. in relation to particle size and regional electricity mix. We find that CO2 emissions from the grinding process are regionally variable but relatively small compared to the CDR potential of ERW, with national averages ranging between ~5–35 kgCO2 trock−1 for modal particle sizes between ~10–100 μm. The energy cost for feedstock grinding also varies regionally but is relatively small, with national average costs for grinding of roughly 0.95–5.81 $ trock−1 using grid mix power and 1.35–8.26 $ trock−1 (levelized) for solar PV for the same particle size range. Overall energy requirements for grinding are also modest, with the demand for grinding 1 Gt of feedstock representing less than 2% of annual national electricity supply. In addition, both cost and overall energy demand are projected to decline over time.

These results suggest that incorporating feedstock grinding into ERW deployment at scale in the coterminous U.S. should generally have only modest impacts on lifecycle emissions, cost-effectiveness, and energy efficiency.
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9012
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2024, 07:03:36 PM »
China, India, the USA and Brazil have great potential to help achieve average global CDR goals of 0.5 to 2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year with extraction costs of approximately US$80-180 per tonne of CO2. These goals and costs are robust, regardless of future energy policies. Deployment within existing croplands offers opportunities to align agriculture and climate policy. However, success will depend upon overcoming political and social inertia to develop regulatory and incentive frameworks.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32641817/

It´s an older article but its highest removal goal is 10x lower then the proposed goal.

Of course the other part of the budget is the big problem. We don´t want to remove current emissions, we would want to remove historical emissions because then it actually does something for our near term future. That takes years and we can´t wait for that but how effective it is depends on how quickly we can reduce the total fossil fuel emissions. And then we are back to square one.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2024, 08:37:04 PM »
Why are you being so pessimistic Kassy? UNDO is already removing carbon, and they are making money with it from current carbon credits. Which means that the technology is economically feasible. They are talking about $50 per tonne. Others say it could be as low as $20 per tonne if we ramp this up.

And this doesn't interfere with any action on emissions reductions. It's not a choice between the two. We have to do both. That's the entire purpose of this plan. Right now we are still failing to lower emissions. They keep going up. So your plan isn't working. That's why we need to build in an insurance policy. So please stop the pessimism. This will work.
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

zenith

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3460
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2024, 08:50:56 PM »
not buying into your simplistic fantasy/delusion is pessimism? why aren't you advocating for less consumption? there are billionaires with giant warehouses full of super/hypercars, 10 mansions, 5 private planes and 12 yachts burning the place down as they take tourist trips into space.

begin at the beginning - decadence. there's no magic bullet to keep this party going.
Where is reality? Can you show it to me? - Heinz von Foerster

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2024, 09:01:38 PM »
Please move all the posts discussing the viability of ERW to the CDR thread, where they belong. That is not the purpose of this thread.
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

zenith

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3460
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2024, 09:10:13 PM »
Please move all the posts discussing the viability of ERW to the CDR thread, where they belong. That is not the purpose of this thread.

obviously the purpose of this thread is to indulge your narcissistic fantasies as though they're a relevant solution to anything. there's something called scope and scale, along with a whole host of geographic/ecological/political/economic/environmental realities to account for.

i'm not saying some crushed rocks, or whatever, couldn't absorb some co2 but there are far bigger dynamics at play.
Where is reality? Can you show it to me? - Heinz von Foerster

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9012
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2024, 05:16:02 PM »
Why are you being so pessimistic Kassy?

I have been addressing the weak point in your proposal: cutting our emissions in half in 10 years.
 
We have been growing them unto now and while we keep adding green energy it is not replacing fossil fuels so that goal is hardly realistic.

Then i would like to have more numbers on the amount we can capture. How fast could we scale it from now.

Your plan is an overly simple path to net zero in a decade which is nice but even the most optimistic predictions are a decade more out.

The question of how much of this gap we could plug with removal techniques is interesting.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2024, 06:14:31 PM »
Why are you being so pessimistic Kassy?

I have been addressing the weak point in your proposal: cutting our emissions in half in 10 years.
 
We have been growing them unto now and while we keep adding green energy it is not replacing fossil fuels so that goal is hardly realistic.

Then i would like to have more numbers on the amount we can capture. How fast could we scale it from now.

Your plan is an overly simple path to net zero in a decade which is nice but even the most optimistic predictions are a decade more out.

The question of how much of this gap we could plug with removal techniques is interesting.
I'm sure we can do it. We have 5 billion hectares of farmland, and we can remove 4 tonnes of CO2 per hectare. That's 20 billion tonnes. If we can do half, that's 10 billion tonnes, only on land. In the ocean, we can do a lot more. But that research is still ongoing. Hopefully we can speed that up.

But the numbers don't matter all that much right now. It's just a slogan, a goal, a plan. Hope. An incentive to start.

The EU wants to cut emission 55% by 2030. So we have 5 years to cut the rest with ERW, and make Europe carbon-neutral in 5 years.

The most important thing to do now is to keep them from wasting money on CCS and DAC to get to their goal.

Let's get this plan out into the world ASAP, and we worry about the numbers later. Once people see that it's viable, the rest will follow.
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

Bruce Steele

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2699
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2024, 07:09:14 PM »
Not all basalt is created equal. So the other minerals in the basalt become important, like arsenic .
Ideally you could get basalt high in various other micronutrients that could be supplied to supplement soil fertility. For example my recent soil analysis said my soil was low in zinc so if you could source basalt high in Zinc I could apply it to “ kill two birds with one stone “. Boron is another trace mineral , or iron. Farmers adjust their soil nutrients and micronutrients as common practice so if ground basalt could be sourced with specific trace minerals farmers could apply them as a way to adjust their soil fertility. The CO2 they fix would be an additional benefit to what is already common practice of adding trace minerals. Just the source of those minerals needs change and the volume of applied material.
 I am with Kassy about the overarching need to focus on reducing emissions as a priority. As a purely hypothetical construct a farmer might apply ground basalt that raises soil fertility at some cost benefit over current practices and  then utilize the profit to buy a bigger tractor and more land
Jevons paradox.

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2024, 07:58:04 PM »
Not all basalt is created equal. So the other minerals in the basalt become important, like arsenic .
Ideally you could get basalt high in various other micronutrients that could be supplied to supplement soil fertility. For example my recent soil analysis said my soil was low in zinc so if you could source basalt high in Zinc I could apply it to “ kill two birds with one stone “. Boron is another trace mineral , or iron. Farmers adjust their soil nutrients and micronutrients as common practice so if ground basalt could be sourced with specific trace minerals farmers could apply them as a way to adjust their soil fertility. The CO2 they fix would be an additional benefit to what is already common practice of adding trace minerals. Just the source of those minerals needs change and the volume of applied material.
 I am with Kassy about the overarching need to focus on reducing emissions as a priority. As a purely hypothetical construct a farmer might apply ground basalt that raises soil fertility at some cost benefit over current practices and  then utilize the profit to buy a bigger tractor and more land
Jevons paradox.
That's a good idea, but if they have to source that basalt from far away, you're reducing the efficiency of removal.

I had to look up Jevons paradox. And that's a good point. But it shouldn't stop us from doing it anyway. We have to do something, and those details can be solved later on in the process.

The biggest problem right now is datacenters and AI. We're going to need a lot more renewables to power them, and tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Meta are the first to invest in enhanced geothermal to power their datacenters. So there could be a benefit too.

But I'm not smart enough to figure all that out. This is something for economists and other very smart people. So let's just ignore those details for now. What we require immediately is a first proposal. A moonshot. Something to get us going.

If this plan is out there, and people start debating those details, we've already won. We will have reached our goal. Smarter people than me will figure out those things as we move forward.

All I want right now is a plan that we can send out into the world before COP29. Let's make the world talk about this. And let's get that ridiculous idea out of their heads that we need CCS and DAC.

Quote
Economists have observed that consumers tend to travel more when their cars are more fuel efficient, causing a 'rebound' in the demand for fuel.[12] An increase in the efficiency with which a resource (e.g. fuel) is used causes a decrease in the cost of using that resource when measured in terms of what it can achieve (e.g. travel). Generally speaking, a decrease in the cost (or price) of a good or service will increase the quantity demanded (the law of demand). With a lower cost for travel, consumers will travel more, increasing the demand for fuel. This increase in demand is known as the rebound effect, and it may or may not be large enough to offset the original drop in fuel use from the increased efficiency. The Jevons paradox occurs when the rebound effect is greater than 100%, exceeding the original efficiency gains.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2024, 08:20:08 PM »
What do we have for renewables that we should promote?

We already have solar and wind. Can't get enough of that.
Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) with free battery would help fix the duck curve. I'm a big fan.

Hydroelectric is almost exhausted, and it's not good for wildlife.
Pumped hydro is good. But why do it if we can use EGS? That needs figuring out.

I love CorPower wave energy. But that's not ready yet for commercial use. It will be soon, and will be the perfect addition to offshore wind power.

Nuclear is too expensive. It's a no-go for me. Unless they're already running. Then we should keep them.

But the most important thing is the grid. We need to fix the grid. Let's make it smart. We've wasted way to much time already on that. And again, EGS could be a solution. Drill a hole, and use old power stations.

I really love EGS...

What else?
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

John_the_Younger

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 590
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 196
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2024, 08:57:52 PM »
The problem with “the grid” is that AI folks want to grab every bit of power that’s made, so there will never be grid stability again. Sigh

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4509
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2024, 09:34:05 PM »
The problem with “the grid” is that AI folks want to grab every bit of power that’s made, so there will never be grid stability again. Sigh
Then let's make a rule that they have to produce their own energy. These people are billionaires! You want to use a lot of energy? Then make your own! Drill baby, drill! EGS is the base load power they need, and it doesn't take up much space on their property. Almost everything is happening underground.

We could even make a rule that for every 5 fracked oil wells, the oil industry would have to drill one EGS well. I did the calculations before. They would get more energy out of an EGS well over its entire lifespan than out of a fracked oil well. It just takes longer to get ROI with an EGS well. So 20% would balance out their balance sheet.

Why 20%, and not more? Because we have to start somewhere. It has to be acceptable for the oil industry. Bought politicians would never agree with more than 20%. And we still need oil during the transition.

I'm sure they will eventually see the light, that they can make more money with EGS. The money will be in providing battery services to the solar and wind industry. Buy low, sell high.

What else?
I forgot hydrogen production. We live in a hydrocarbon world. So we'll need hydrogen to make all those hydrocarbons. And that's where Thermal Plasma Electrolysis comes in. Using biogas, we could produce hydrogen while extracting CO2.

If we don't have enough biogas, I'm willing to let them use natural gas instead. But this has to be phased out over time.

It's alcohol day, so time to start shutting up now. But this is fun! :)
Thank you so much for challenging me! I need that. That's why I made this thread.
Happy New Year! 8)
« Last Edit: October 12, 2024, 11:21:32 AM by Freegrass »
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

zenith

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3460
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2024, 09:51:34 PM »
I'm sure we can do it. We have 5 billion hectares of farmland, and we can remove 4 tonnes of CO2 per hectare. That's 20 billion tonnes. If we can do half, that's 10 billion tonnes, only on land. In the ocean, we can do a lot more. But that research is still ongoing. Hopefully we can speed that up.

we can't even equitably distribute food, clean water, basic sanitation and an elementary education on this spaceship.
Where is reality? Can you show it to me? - Heinz von Foerster

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9012
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: My 10-20-50 plan
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2024, 08:31:53 PM »
I'm sure we can do it. We have 5 billion hectares of farmland, and we can remove 4 tonnes of CO2 per hectare. That's 20 billion tonnes. If we can do half, that's 10 billion tonnes, only on land. In the ocean, we can do a lot more. But that research is still ongoing. Hopefully we can speed that up.

But the numbers don't matter all that much right now. It's just a slogan, a goal, a plan. Hope. An incentive to start.

Numbers do matter. 4 ton per hectare seems really high for an annual number. The result over soils varies due to local conditions so you cannot multiply the highest number.

Your plan is basically doing what we should do by the end of the decade for ERW on land (and we are once again short on commitments for that date) but then do that today.

The idea is good and we have no need to wait so everybody should pester their local politicians/interests groups to start using this method. 

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.