Hacker News Reader

Comment by 634636346 | Hacker News Reader

If geoengineering worked, was safe, and was much more affordable than meeting the aggressive greenhouse emission reduction targets needed to forestall further warming, climate activists would still oppose it anyway, since they've come to view the burning of fossil fuels as inherently immoral, in an almost religious-like manner. They'll say things like

> that still doesn't solve our addiction to fossil fuels!

why do we need to "solve" our addiction to fossil fuels? If we can geoengineer away the consequences and keep using cheap, plentiful fossil fuels (which our entire modern lifestyle is built on), then what's the problem? Eventually, probably by the end of this century, renewables will win out anyway. For example, if fusion ever pans out, that will probably do to fossil fuels collectively what natural gas did to thermal coal.

View on HN

Geoengineering doesn't solve all the consequences but it solves some. I've done some analysis of the problem of building a factory that builds a factory that turns something like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/253_Mathilde

into solar sails that navigate on their own power to the Earth-Sun L1 point. (Part of the problem is how do you build chemical factories that work in space, part of it is like building a ship in a bottle except you are in the bottle.) Such a scheme has few off-target effects on Earth because very little is done on Earth. It sure cools the planet but it does nothing to stop ocean acidification.

People in places like Saudi Arabia that are rich with both sulfur and oil might find it to be a convenient way to preserve the status quo, but many people who are interested in geoengineering also want to see decarbonization.

Funny in my research project I found that the chemistry it takes to make plastic out of the "coal", carbonates and volatiles that exist on asteroids is very similar to the chemistry to make jet fuel out of atmospheric CO2 and of course carbon is so precious on an asteroid that however you produce iron (abundant enough to use on CC and stony asteroids and the moon despite what you read in sci-fi novels) you are going to recycle whatever volatiles you use to reduce iron be that CO or H2.

Even in the absence of environmental costs, the fossil fuel system creates centralization and incentives toward dictatorship. It also requires a global fuel supply chain, which is inefficient and destructive compared to delivering e.g. solar panels once.

It would be nice to live in a city and not be bothered with the smell, noise and health risks of thousands of engines. It would also be nice if our environment wouldn't be plastered with microplastics.

ICEs have numerous inherent disadvantage over EVs, including more moving parts and higher and more frequent maintenance costs, and are inevitably going to be displaced by EVs, provided electricity is cheap enough (and probably some battery tech advances).

Right now, natural gas is dirt-cheap, plentiful, and relatively clean, and can provide the cheap electricity needed for EVs.

The trouble with natural gas is that it leaks, and once you account for the leaks, it isn't much better than using coal or oil because of the sheer GWP of methane. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-leaks-era...

Yes, but many manufacturers didn't particularly care about that. Especially not those in my country. Without pressure from the people and the following laws that were implemented by the government, BMW & Co. would still be happily developing new ICEs.

Also, the most ideal solution in my book would be to do less work, not more. Geoengineering requires quite a lot of work on a permanent basis.

> It would also be nice if our environment wouldn't be plastered with microplastics.

Does burning fossil fuels distribute microplastics?

Idk, maybe indirectly due to wear and tear or whatever. What i'm trying to say, though, is that the dependency on oil should be reduced in general. Nobody needs tupperware to last for centuries. That might also be the point of most environmentalists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com