
Project Vesta – Mitigating climate change with green sand beaches - QuickToBan
https://projectvesta.org/
======
matznerd
Hi HN, I am Eric Matzner, the Co-Founder of Project Vesta and I have been
responding to all of the questions on this thread and will continue to answer
them, but I just wanted to say thank you for all of the interest. When YC
posted their Carbon Removal Technologies Requests for Startups page[1] about 8
months ago, I responded to a comment on the post where @btilly[2] mentioned
one of the research papers that our project is based on.[3] We were in stealth
mode back then, as I was still putting the project together, but the positive
response there helped energize and inform our operations, so thank all of you
for that as well. I do not personally know the person who posted this today
either, but thank you for posting it (although we were not prepared for this
amount of inbound interest today). Please note that we will get back to
everyone who submitted our "Get Involved" form over the next couple of days.
Thank you to all who donated as well for your support, the HN community has
been very generous and we appreciate your enthusiasm and support for the
project.

I can also give you a project update that we have not announced anywhere else
as of yet. After our launch on Earth Day in April, we received an individual
contribution/grant that has given us enough funding to take significant steps
forward towards getting our pilot project on a beach. It has greatly
accelerated our progress and we are now moving more rapidly to make this a
reality. We are engaged with the Dutch independent institute for applied
research in water and the subsurface, Deltares[4], to help us design the pilot
project experiment.

Project Vesta is a non-profit, globally decentralized entity and we are
looking for additional partner universities, groups, and others to team up
with. We are looking for input on our experimental design from researchers,
engineers, and experts in the fields related to this project (such as
geochemistry and the marine sciences). The design of the experiment is crucial
and has to be rigorous in terms of calculating the accelerated weathering rate
of olivine in the open system of a beach and in terms of demonstrating marine
safety so that the results will be accepted as definitive by the scientific
community and the public.

Our greatest fear right now is that we will spend a year running a study and
then when the results come back, the data will not be accepted for one reason
or another and we are asked to go back to get more data. We and the planet
frankly do not have the time to wait another year, so we want to make sure we
do it right the first time around and have the right stakeholders involved
before it is deployed. To make sure it is done properly, we want to run the
experimental design by as many relevant parties as possible so that when the
data comes back we have an accepted consensus that is irrefutable in terms of
the weathering rate and safety data, so we can move forward with deployment.

If you want to join our scientific advisory board or just help give input on
our experimental design, please reach out on our Get Involved [5] page ->
[https://projectvesta.org/get-involved/](https://projectvesta.org/get-
involved/)

We are also looking for additional donors/family offices/etc and partners who
want to sidestep the climate change debate and move forward on taking direct
action to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. While we are proponents
of cutting emissions and agree it needs to be done, we want to get started
removing as much CO2 from the atmosphere as we can until we are back down to
Pre-Industrial CO2 levels. We believe that by making extremely effective,
permanent, and cheap CO2 removal available, we can dramatically change the
conversation and force action. Please reach out if you would like to help.

Thank you,

Eric

p.s. If you want to learn a bit more about the process and our organization,
check out this interview with me on the Nori podcast [6] ->
[https://nori.com/podcasts/carbon-removal-newsroom/project-
ve...](https://nori.com/podcasts/carbon-removal-newsroom/project-vesta-for-
olivine-drawdown-leaves-stealth-mode)

We are just launching our social profiles, but feel free to follow us for
updates: Twitter ->
[https://twitter.com/Project_Vesta](https://twitter.com/Project_Vesta)
Instagram ->
[https://instagram.com/projectvesta](https://instagram.com/projectvesta) FB
page ->
[https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVestaCO2Removal/](https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVestaCO2Removal/)

[1] [http://carbon.ycombinator.com/](http://carbon.ycombinator.com/) [2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285606](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285606)
[3] [https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-
df_77/1/](https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_77/1/) [4]
[https://www.deltares.nl/en/](https://www.deltares.nl/en/) [5]
[https://projectvesta.org/get-involved/](https://projectvesta.org/get-
involved/) [6] [https://nori.com/podcasts/carbon-removal-newsroom/project-
ve...](https://nori.com/podcasts/carbon-removal-newsroom/project-vesta-for-
olivine-drawdown-leaves-stealth-mode)

~~~
tigerlily
Could the olivine found on the moon be suitable for use in this application?

~~~
jccooper
Mineralogically? Sure. Economically? Not even close.

------
credit_guy
“To carry out this plan, it will take a volume of 7 cubic miles of olivine
rock placed on 2% of the world high-energy, tropical shelf-seas each year.”

To put this in perspective, the global annual oil production is about 1 cubic
mile [1], and concrete production is about half a cubic mile [2], [3] (4.4 BN
tons at 2.4 t/m3 = 1.83 cubic km = 0.44 cubic miles)

[1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil)

[2][https://archpaper.com/2019/01/concrete-production-eight-
perc...](https://archpaper.com/2019/01/concrete-production-eight-percent-
co2-emissions/)

[3][https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml](https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml)

~~~
baron816
That’s to counteract for 100% of emissions, right? A more reasonable goal
would be to go for 10%. Still very ambitious, but could be done and would have
a pretty huge impact. Combine that carbon pricing, technological advancements,
and other sequestration schemes, and targets for avoiding environmental
catastrophe seem achievable.

~~~
ForHackernews
Sorry, can you explain why you think counteracting 10% of emissions would have
"a pretty huge impact"?

The best science from the IPCC suggests we have to cut net carbon emissions by
50% by 2030 in order to have a moderate chance of avoiding the most
catastrophic effects of the climate disaster.

I'm not saying 10% isn't ambitious, but it's entirely insufficient to the
scope of the problem.

~~~
tom_mellior
We need to eliminate actul emissions. As in, actual exhaust gases coming out
of cars and planes and snokestacks, not just mathematically offset "net"
emissions. There is no way around that. Then, on top of that, an additional
10% through this scheme looks pretty useful.

~~~
lmm
> We need to eliminate actul emissions. As in, actual exhaust gases coming out
> of cars and planes and snokestacks, not just mathematically offset "net"
> emissions. There is no way around that.

How so? What difference is there between emitting zero and emitting x
kilograms and sequestering x kilograms?

~~~
tom_mellior
Extra work. Exactly the problem of having to mine and dump a lot more minerals
or plant a lot more trees or whatever if we keep emitting too much.

~~~
lmm
Market pricing can take care of that though. If the thing that creates carbon
emissions is valuable enough that it's cheaper to offset those emissions than
stop doing the thing (or find a non-emitting way to do the thing), it makes
sense to do the thing and the offsetting.

~~~
tom_mellior
Again, nobody is saying that emissions need to go to absolute zero, but they
_do_ need to be cut. The less "valuable" part of them, if you will.

~~~
tom_mellior
Oh, I see now that my "eliminate emissions" above could be read as "eliminate
_all_ emissions". That's not what I meant, but it's my fault for not putting
it clearly (and the typos as well, I was typing only half-awake). Anyway,
let's eliminate a _lot_ of emissions, including pretty much all from land
vehicles, as soon as possible. And also sequester carbon.

------
nkoren
I would be significantly less skeptical about this if it were significantly
less ambitious.

I'm sure there are low-hanging opportunities where this makes a good amount of
sense. Places where there are olivine-rich mine tailings -- somehow
uncontaminated by heavy metals -- adjacent to a tropical shoreline. In those
instances, then yeah, I'm sure it makes good sense to just shove them over to
the beach and let decomposition do its thing.

However, pitching this as THE solution to carbon sequestration is much more
problematic. At gigaton scale, you're going to run out of mine tailings quite
quickly. After that, you're talking about mining fresh olivine, from locations
that are increasingly distant to tropical shorelines.

This would incur tremendous energy costs, and I'm skeptical that its balance
would work in favour of olivine. How much does energy is required to mine a
1,000kg of olivine? How much energy is required to move it (say) 100km to the
shore? If that net energy were applied to other forms of carbon capture, would
it sequester more than 1,250kg of Co2? If so, then in that instance at least,
olivine sequestration would be a bad idea.

Even if the energy balance works out favourably, I'm still not sure it's a
good idea. Mining doesn't just have energy impacts, it has tremendous _land_
impacts. 7 cubic miles per year of olivine is a very large amount of material.
If you don't like the local impacts of mining gold and copper and coal and
shale and sand and gravel, then this would have an environmental impact
similar to all of those put together. Which is too much impact. It is probably
preferable to pursue a less-efficient sequestration strategy than to engage in
something with this kind of side-effects.

So I'm afraid that the way this is being presented will trigger a lot of
skepticism / opposition. This is a shame, because in certain edge-cases I
suspect it's quite a good idea. Even if this only addresses a small percentage
of the total problem, every little bit helps. I'd hate to see the baby get
tossed out with the bathwater.

~~~
matznerd
We are not pitching this as "THE" solution, but as "a" solution that can scale
up to and beyond the global level of yearly CO2 emissions. Even after the
"low-hanging opportunities" it makes a good amount of sense, as mining olivine
is not difficult and there are large reserves on every continent.

You are incorrect that olivine mining at a large scale would incur tremendous
energy costs, it will not. I would suggest you check out this model of a 5,000
tonne per day open pit mining for porphyritic rock. (This model also includes
5,000 tonnes per day of "waste" rock which will likely not be wasted in our
use case)
[http://costs.infomine.com/costdatacenter/miningcostmodel.asp...](http://costs.infomine.com/costdatacenter/miningcostmodel.aspx)

In this model, which is not in any way optimized for environmental efficiency,
it requires a diesel fuel quantity of around 4,751 liters/day to mine the
5,000 tonnes. At 2.68 kg of CO2 per 1 liter of diesel, that generates
12,732.68 kg of CO2 per day. That 12,732.68 kg = 12.73268 tonnes of CO2. The
5,000 tonnes of olivine mined will eventually weather and sequester 6,250
tonnes of CO2 (1 tonne of olivine sequesters 1.25 tonnes of CO2), for a net
capture of 6,237 tons at the mine.

We have life cycle assessment that calculates the CO2 penalty and loss on
efficiency, including milling and transport to locations less than 300 km (186
mi) at around a 4% loss [1].

Just for your information and for others, from a financial perspective the
mining in that model costs $7.32 per ton, and then the transport and
milling/crushing only costs about $3 per ton, so olivine could be transported
to a beach at around $10/ton, with the price per ton of CO2 sequestered at
less than $10.

You are also incorrect regarding the mining impact. The mining of things like
shale requires fracking and the injection of sand and chemicals, our mining is
simply open pit. Essentially, you open a pit on the surface and simply dig it
up. As mentioned above, it is not all that energy intensive either.

For global CO2 level removal in terms of mining, it would likely require 30-50
mines in the wet tropics, preferably at a level of greater than 100 million
tons/year (due to economies of scale).[2] There are large reserves on every
continent and plenty near coastlines[3]. If you wanted to open fewer mines,
you could theoretically find a few large reserves. For example, there is an
open pit mine in Bingham Canyon that has an excavated volume of over 25 km^3,
which would be the equivalent of 2-3 years worth of the volume of material
needed.

Don't worry about this idea getting "tossed out with the bathwater," if
anything we will actually be removing CO2 from the bathwater and de-acidifying
it at the same time ;)

[1] Environmental Life Cycle Assement of CO2 Sequestration Through Enhanced
Weathering of Olivine [https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-
df_978/1/](https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_978/1/) [2]
[https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-
df_77/9/](https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_77/9/) [3]
[https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-
df_90/25/](https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_90/25/)

~~~
nkoren
Thanks for responding to my criticism and taking it seriously! The energy
costs for this are indeed a lot less than I had imagined. I've seen plenty of
appealing sequestration concepts where the numbers definitely don't work out,
so I appreciate you doing the math on this!

I would push back, however, on the land impacts of mining. Open-pit mining is
exactly what I was referring to, and it doesn't have a good reputation with
me. I have encountered many open-pit mining projects which were extremely
destructive with regards to habitat, watersheds, groundwater, etc. (Arguably
much moreso than things like fracking, TBH.) A massive increase in open-pit
mining therefore sets off significant alarm bells for me.

Now, it's possible that I'm suffering from selection bias here: I only hear
about open-pit mines when they're _bad_ , and when they're benign they sail
right under my radar. Maybe, on average, they're fine.

But that's not the kind of thing I'd take on faith. What would convince me is
a site-specific Environmental Impact Report which illustrates how a 100MT/year
olivine mine could operate without causing severe regional damage.

~~~
willyt
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glensanda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glensanda)
This super quarry is in a very scenic area of the west coast of Scotland and
supplies 6M tons of granite aggregate yearly and apart from the quay you would
not know it is there, so it can be done reasonably sensitively.

~~~
nkoren
That's a really interesting and well-done mine -- thanks for introducing it to
me!

This project proposes mining at a scale that is cumulatively about 8,000 times
greater than Glensanda. But if they could all be done so sensitively, then
indeed, perhaps it could work.

I've still got a lot of cognitive intertia about the impact of open-pit
mining, and would definitely need more convincing about this. But I'd be open
to being convinced.

~~~
willyt
Interesting so land area of world / 8000 gives 1 Glensanda per 18600km2. Area
of UK is 242000km2 so we would need about 13 Glensanda sizes quarries in the
UK. Of course it would be fairer if were weighted by amount of harm done to
the climate per country, so we should have more per km2 than an undeveloped
country, but even so doesn't seem like that large an impact.

~~~
nkoren
I don't think land area is the metric to use here. Quaries need to be located
close to the coast, in order to minimise shipping costs. There's a lot of land
in the interior of continents which would not be suitable for this kind of
operation.

So probably a better metric is total length of coastline. The UK has 12,429km
of coastline, out of a world total of 356,000. So that would imply 279
Glensanda-sized quaries in the UK.

Good news for the UK (and bad news for everyone else): weighting by amount of
harm done to the climate wouldn't work. In addition to being located near
coastlines, the quarries need to be located in tropical and subtropical
regions. So in fact there wouldn't be any quarries in the UK.

Looking at this source:
[http://chartsbin.com/view/ofv](http://chartsbin.com/view/ofv), it appears
that there's about 275,000km of suitable coastline. The top 3 countries would
be: Indonesia (1,592 Glessandas), Phillipines (1,056 Glessandas), and
Australia (749 Glessandas). I'm not sure whether or not that's feasible. But
at a smaller scale, as a partial solution to sequestration, it seems within
reach.

------
pfdietz
Dissolving olivine on beaches means releasing nickel into the environment.
What is the effect of the release of many megatons of this element?

~~~
matznerd
We are aware of potential issues with nickel contamination in olivine and will
be testing/monitoring for it. Nickel is found in formations of olivine where
nickel replaces some of the magnesium ions in their crystal lattices, however,
if we do have a large reserve with high content of nickel, we have a technique
available to plant nickel hyperaccumulating plants above the crushed olivine
to phytomine the nickel content. It is then possible to put the plants in a
furnace and get 10% ore back, which we would then sell and use to further fund
operations...

"In simple laboratory tests small nickel ingots were produced from the plant
ashes. Sowing these plants on appropriate soils and harvesting them at the end
of the growing season makes for an environmentally friendly way of recovering
nickel. Because these plants extract nickel from the olivine lattice, for
every ton of nickel in the plants 330 tons of olivine must weather, equivalent
to a capture of 400 tons of CO 2 . Weathering proceeds faster under
vegetation. The introduction of this method could revolutionize the nickel
mining industry."

See page 8-9 of the Green Cookery Book here for more in-depth information on
the technique: [https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-
df_103/9/](https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_103/9/) Or see this
paper specifically on the topic: Schuiling, R.D. (2013) Farming nickel from
non-ore deposits, combined with CO2 sequestration.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
I'm a little confused by this, though I see your link picks it out as still
speculative.

You're planning to put the olivine on the beaches, the nickel accumulating
plants will be planted above. So presumably they'll be as exposed to the
action of the sea as the olivine. The document talks of use in poor soils, but
no mention of coastal or beach. You've identified species suitable for that
level of salt water exposure? If the plants are beyond the high tide mark,
won't most of it get into the ocean first?

~~~
fastball
I read it as the olivine would be mined, plants would be used to extract
nickel, and then the olivine would be moved to beaches.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Ah right, so a first pass before it gets to the beach, that makes much more
sense now! Though no doubt introduces its own challenges related to how long
it needs to sit under foliage before it's beach ready. :)

------
mveety
This is cool. I’ve thought about carbon sequestration a lot using big nuke
plants/solar plants+air liquidification+some plant to distill off and turn the
CO2 into like methane or some hydrocarbon. My thought here was put half back
in the ground and sell the other half to fund the installation/make sure we
don’t run out of hydrocarbons. The olivine process, though, is probably easier
because it takes much less infrastructure and is more fire and forget. We need
some method for sequestration running at scale now (probably multiple). With
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere already, the amount continuing to go in,
and the amount of inaction we’re pretty fucked. The current solution (getting
the whole damn world to reduce emissions) is unrealistic. Even if we stop
putting more in, it’s already there and we’re already fucked. It’s a day late
and a dollar short. The countries willing to face this need some way to save
us without the cooperation of the countries with their heads in the sand.
Sequestration is a good answer for that.

~~~
dllthomas
I'd say this project also has their heads in the sand.

------
petra
It costs about $1 to transport an oil barrel 1000 miles.

35 billion oil barrels are transported each year.

So transporting that olivine rock will cost an order of $250B.

This will compensate for the yearly co2 emissions , ~38B tons.

With carbon offsets priced at $15-$40 per ton - so there's potential for
profitability .

~~~
cardamomo
Profitability? Put that idea away for a moment. We need to look at this
through other lenses as well. Our very lives on Earth depend on our ability to
remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. In that light, profitability is
a rather weak criterion by which to judge projects like this.

~~~
petra
There are more important values than profit.

But in reality, profit makes things happen. So it's good to know about it.

~~~
cardamomo
It's good to know about it, for sure. But, at the end of the day, profit makes
profit-driven things happen. It's important to know about and advocate for
more important values than profit.

~~~
rayiner
Profit is not a “value.” It’s a way of measuring costs versus benefits
independent of value system. What measuring profit does, which many people
hate, is reveal what people actually value. It’s hard to manipulate which
leads many to call to “put it aside.”

~~~
petra
>> What measuring profit does, which many people hate, is reveal what people
actually value.

IDK. there are non-profits helping women and children who suffered domestic
violence, and some of those activities are state supported.

People don't really donate and cover those expenses out of their free will.

Still, helping those women and children is objectively a very valuable thing.

So maybe, people shouldn't be the only ones determining what's valuable ? And
hence, maybe profit shouldn't be the only thing determining what's valuable ?

------
cupofjoakim
I'm sceptical. Are there calculations on shipping for the olivine? If it's
primarily mined in certain parts of the world it's going to have a big cost in
shipping - there's a reason why regular sand is sourced as locally as
possible. It weighs a lot, which means that it's expensive for both the wallet
and the environment to ship.

~~~
matznerd
Hi, co-founder of Project Vesta here. Based on a CO2 life cycle assessment, to
minimize CO2 created during transport, the idea is to utilize mines within 300
km (186 mi) of the destination beach. Including mining, milling, and
transport, we can hopefully maintain only a 4% efficiency loss in terms of
CO2.[1]

This paper has a few examples of models where it is 93% efficient for mines
within 1,000 km. [2]

Fortunately, there are olivine reserves found all over the planet in a
formation called dunite (contains 90% forsterite olivine).

Further, for many of the first beaches, we will be looking to use tailings
piles (waste rock) from previously dug and developed mines, as well as the
infrastructure from those mines, such as rail for transport. Since olivine is
found in volcanic rock formations close to the surface, in the process of
mining other minerals that are found in volcanic formations such as diamonds,
many tons of olivine rock have already been dug up and deposited in large
piles on the surface. By utilizing this rock we would not produce any
additional CO2 from mining, and only from crushing/transport.

We are definitely taking the CO2 penalty into account in our calculations and
strategy for deployment.

[1] [https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-
df_978/1/](https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_978/1/) [2]
[https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-
df_93/2/](https://projectvesta.org/science/#dflip-df_93/2/)

~~~
nine_k
Will olivine-covered beaches be still good for recreation? Will olivine sand
produce fine dust that would muddy the water?

I bet the first few green beaches would just look cool enough to increase he
stream of tourists — as long as walking over an olivine beach feels safe and
not unpleasant.

Also, is dumping olivine on rocky but flat enough shores an option? That is,
may it not replace existing sandy beaches but form new olivine-only beaches?

~~~
matznerd
Hi, yes the beaches would still be good for recreation and there should not be
a noticeable muddying of the water. The existing beaches of olivine (such as
Papakolea Beach in Hawaii that is pictured on our website) are safe and have
no observed negative effects on wildlife or humans.

If you look at the tabletop shaker experiments on the website, the water is
cloudy because it is not being refreshed. In an open-system such as on a beach
with water constantly refreshing, that would not be an issue.

The olivine can be placed on any shoreline or coastal area. The "tropical
shelf-sea beach" set up we constantly refer to is simply the optimal and
preferential solution. The main effects we are utilizing the beach for are
that (1) the tumbling motion of the waves causes a constant abrasion that
breaks up a silica coating that rapidly forms on exposed olivine and (2) the
collision of grains on the shoreline causes smaller slivers to chip off, that
themselves rapidly weather.

We want shelf-seas because the grains will be pulled off the beach and will
continue to be weathered through underwater shear stress forces on the sea
bed. Other locations work as well, but the olivine may take longer to weather
if there is less motion, colder water, etc.

~~~
tom_mellior
Would the olivine actually need to be (rough) sand or would pebbles or, say,
fist-sized rocks work almost as well?

------
TimJRobinson
With the ability to reduce pH levels in the surrounding water this seems like
something the Australian Government would be very interested in investing in
to save the Great Barrier Reef.

That could be a good pilot site as the government has said they're going to
spend $500MM on saving the reef so money is already available if the
technology works.

~~~
psandersen
Whats the chance that $500M is actually to help the reef and not just used for
corruption or forgotten about until the next election? I have zero faith in
the current Australian gov doing anything to mitigate climate change...

Otherwise this is a great idea!

~~~
willyt
I thought one of the big problems with Australian politicians doing anything
about climate change was that the ruling conservatives are in hock to the big
open cast mining companies. Seems like this could be a great opportunity to
get these companies on side, especially if there is $500M to be made from it.
Much easier to give out the money to them in the open for a good reason than
to somehow launder it through some complicated corrupt process.

~~~
psandersen
Great point, the incentives and mutual interests are definitely there. I think
it comes down to how ideological the opposition to climate change is in Aus...
I.e. are they completely committed to not doing anything effective to mitigate
it that might break their narrative around climate change. I'm pretty jaded
after the NBN...

------
fiblye
So we need to mine and strip the earth of materials at rates far beyond
anything we’ve ever done before, then load it up on a fleet of ships larger
than anything we have today, all burning the filthiest bunker fuel there is at
unprecedented rates to manage the largest shipping operation ever, and dump it
all on isolated, natural beaches far from human eyes. Plus we need to check
the purity of all of this to ensure no nickel wipes out life as we know it,
since inspecting a quantity of stone greater than our entire global fuel
harvest operations is a reasonable expectation.

I’m sure no cost cutting or harm would come about from this. These companies
would definitely be ethical with their operations from start to finish, and
they’d be held to high environmental scrutiny.

Alternatively, we plant trees, reduce meat consumption, and buy local so that
we’re not shipping shit back and forth from across the planet.

~~~
adrianN
No, alternatively we radically change how we produce energy, how we transport
goods and people and how we heat homes. Don't make it sound easy. Reducing
consumption only buys time. We need an absolutely massive effort.

------
24gttghh
At first I read this and was like "okay, you want to dump 30 Gigatons of
Olivine per year for 'a number of years' on tropical beaches"

That sounds crazy, considering we pump out +10Gigatons of CO2 per year as it
is. But, does the science actually make sense in that if we actually did that,
we'd end up with less CO2 in the atmosphere, and subsequently the oceans? That
would seem to make this a great tool (possibly among many) to clean up our
mess once/if/when we stop putting so much CO2 out there in the first place.

Edit: I do wonder if this process would raise the alkalinity of the ocean too
much in the other direction. I can't find the info on this on their site,
there is so much to read!

~~~
Taniwha
At the moment the oceans are being acidified by dissolving more CO2 in them -
I assume that if you dump enough olivine into them to negate that (or rather
return them to preindustrialization ph) then long term you'll also soak up
about the right amount of CO2

~~~
24gttghh
What I mean is, let's say this process is able to sequester sufficient CO2 in
the form of bicarbonate to lower us to a conservative 300ppm CO2. At what
point, if any, would we be turning the ph of the ocean to be _too alkaline_?

~~~
Taniwha
Well part of this process is supposed to precipitate out the carbon in forms
that can eventually be subducted (as the current natural carbon cycle does).

I assume that the rate at which the carbon is sequestered by this method is
also driven by the level of ocean acidity, as more CO2 is pulled out of the
ocean the acidity will drop and so will the reaction rate will also drop ...
this means that there's a natural negative feedback here - whether it's enough
to "do the right thing" is probably still a question for science

------
tgirod
Hey, we are fucking up the environment by altering such a complex system way
too fast for it to keep balance. Maybe if we alter it on a whole new scale
with our limited understanding of the consequences, we can fix things up?

To be more constructive, this is exactly the kind of hubris that gets me very
wary of technoscience.

Let's assume Project Vesta is run by well intentionned folks and has the
potential to offer a net positive in a distant future. Even in those
conditions, such a project serves the toxic political agenda of not facing the
elephant in the room: our growth based economic model is _not_ sustainable and
we need to transition away from it.

~~~
alikim
Agreed, but climate change is a monumental issue and even if we assume the
government can act in a timely manner to shift the economic model to one that
is more environmentally friendly, that won't be enough to fix the problem. I
don't think this should be viewed as a cop out, or an alternative to economic
change, but rather as something that augments it and moves us in the right
direction.

~~~
tgirod
IMO the problem here is the leap of faith you are making by believing an
untested technology, operating on a planet scale, will help.

We only have one planet here, so instead of betting on a massive terraforming
technology to suck the CO2 out of the air, I'd rather use a more conservative
approach such as massive reforestation - something that is low-tech, can be
done by anyone, anywhere, and improve the resilience of the ecosystem rather
than kicking its balance again.

------
asauce
Hey, heads up to anyone associated with Project Vesta... currently your
webshop shows an empty store[0].

Also, if executed right then this project could market itself. Travel
"influencers" love to show off unique beaches and destinations, and uniquely
coloured beaches are always a huge hit. By marketing these beaches
appropriately it will generate a lot of attention and (hopefully) a lot of
funding for the project.

Good luck! I'll definitely support the project once there are more items in
the store.

[0] [https://projectvesta.org/shop/](https://projectvesta.org/shop/)

~~~
matznerd
Hi, if you'd like to donate at this point please check out
[https://projectvesta.org/donate](https://projectvesta.org/donate) where we
currently have our "Grain of Hope" necklace available. It is a single grain of
olivine, suspended in a sand timer vial, to symbolize that although time is
ticking, it is not too late to stop (and reverse) the damage.

Since we do not have a beach yet where we can place olivine, we were
originally not planning to offer the additional jewelry yet. That said, we are
seeing demand for additional pieces at this point, so as long as people are
clear that we don't have our $25 spent -> 1 ton of olivine on the beach
process going yet, and that the donation is going to fund operations and to
get our pilot project onto the beach, we will be happy to put them up. For
now, I have removed the Cart from the menu, which I am guessing allowed you to
work your way to the empty shop :)

And also you are right on target about the beaches and influencers. While we
will be working on a top-down policy level with government and other groups to
deploy the beaches, the plan is to simultaneously work from the bottom up to
create a global movement of people who want to take action on climate change
through influencers and ambassadors visiting the beach and also wearing the
jewelry to spread the message.

~~~
DenisM
Setup recurring donations as soon as you get around to it. It's a lot more
money, and a lot easier to plan your budget since attrition is perfectly
predictable.

~~~
matznerd
Thank you for the feedback, you are right on the mark, as this is our plan
once we have our first Impact Beach in operation. The plan is to sell a piece
of jewelry for $XX-$XXX and then charge $25 per month, which is about the cost
of 1 tonne of olivine. That 1 tonne of olivine placed in the person's name,
will remove 1.25 tonnes of CO2 from the atmopshere/ocean, which is
approximately equivalent to a US person's monthly CO2 footprint (1.245 t /
month or 14.95 t /year)[1]

[1] [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/chart-of-the-day-
thes...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/chart-of-the-day-these-
countries-have-the-largest-carbon-footprints/)

~~~
DenisM
How about a signup-for-updates page/widget? I'd like to donate on a recurring
basis, but I may forget to come back whenever you have that sorted out.

------
numakerg
I didn't see the cost breakdown [1] mention how much they expect to pay
countries for dumping olivine in their beaches/waters. Would a country,
especially those near the equator, willingly agree to take part in an
experiment like this for free? The referenced papers have explained how the
project is safe, but I don't think communities or their representatives will
see it that way.

1\. [https://projectvesta.org/#phaseIV](https://projectvesta.org/#phaseIV)

~~~
tom_mellior
Many tropical countries already buy sand to replenish their beaches which are
carried away by currents. Would a country accept sand for free instead of
paying for it, especially in a color and with an environmental impact that
would make the beach a popular tourist attraction? I don't see why not.

~~~
dllthomas
Moreover a lot of these countries are most directly threatened by sea level
rise and ocean acidification.

------
krisrm
This actually seems to have some promise - I'd be worried about other side
effects (another article I was reading mentioned possible effects on marine
life due to dissolved iron and nickel), but it seems like a technology that
merits further exploration and rollout on at least a small scale.

~~~
supergauntlet
I think I get the worry and skepticism about geo-engineering but to be
completely frank we've been (inadvertently) geo-engineering the planet at
least since the industrial revolution, so I don't really think we have much of
a choice, especially since we need to go carbon negative, not just neutral.

This olivine solution doesn't really look any less viable than CO2 scrubbers,
if I'm being honest.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I would rather we strengthen our forests than add more pollution. I guess if
forestry is considered geo-engineering then I support it. But I don't think
"we're already adding pollution, so we might as well add more pollution to try
to net out carbon" is a sound argument.

~~~
philipkglass
Reducing forest clearance and engaging in afforestation could be enough had
anthropogenic CO2 emissions started dropping significantly in the 1990s. But
they have continued to rise. Forestry changes aren't nearly enough to offset
anthropogenic emissions from other sectors. They may be part of the solution
but additional measures are needed.

Geoengineering is on the table now not because it is an easy shortcut, but
because the world has failed to do enough in other ways. It's better for
patients with prediabetes to change diet than develop full blown type 2
diabetes, but if diet _doesn 't_ change fast enough it's better to prescribe
insulin than just let them die. Industrial civilization has discounted decades
of warnings about changing its energy "diet" and will soon need more drastic
measures.

I'm a little optimistic because renewable energy has become cheaper faster
than I expected. I'm pessimistic because the world still isn't reducing fossil
use fast enough (or at all, really -- so far the best news is "the percentage
growth rate is slowing.") Even when the economics start to favor non-
combustion energy sources, legacy fossil industries have often delayed the
transition by obtaining government support to resist the economic pressures.
So I believe that the world can transition to low-emissions energy but I also
believe that it's not happening fast enough.

Even worse, the climate perturbation from anthropogenic emissions can trigger
a dangerous positive feedback loop that will release even larger quantities of
GHGs from natural stores as forests burn more frequently and permafrost thaws.
I think that if people get the problem under control (as opposed to just
suffering the effects, with no softening of the blow), it's going to involve 3
major prongs:

\- Transition to non-fossil energy sources

\- Geoengineering via solar radiation management, as a temporary bandaid to
prevent runaway warming feedback

\- Geoengineering via enhanced silicate weathering, as a thermodynamically
stable fix for the excess CO2 added to the environment

Solar radiation management can be phased out as atmospheric CO2 levels drop.
But with silicate weathering alone, I fear that thawing permafrost will
outpace even the most ambitious CO2 drawdown efforts.

The second two prongs are still highly controversial and advocating for them
tends to get one lumped in with climate denialists. I think that most people
concerned about climate are going to come around eventually, though. The IPCC
already has. We clearly aren't going to avert feedback loops by 2030 via
emissions-reductions alone.

~~~
erikpukinskis
A lot of assertions there. You lost me at “Forestry changes aren't nearly
enough to offset anthropogenic emissions from other sectors”. Can you explain
your math there? Is there a limit to how much carbon we can warehouse in trees
(living and milled)?

~~~
philipkglass
If you keep harvesting trees and store them in a way that they won't rot or
burn, there is no practical limit on the total _amount_ of carbon that can be
sequestered that way. There is still a limit on the _rate_ at which carbon can
be sequestered that way. To stabilize concentrations of atmospheric CO2, the
sequestration rate must match current rates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If
significant feedbacks kick in, the sequestration rate needs to be higher than
current anthropogenic emission rates.

Here's one of the more optimistic studies I have seen about forestry-based
approaches to curbing CO2:

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/co%e2%82%82-benefits...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/co%e2%82%82-benefits-
of-regrowing-forests-nothing-to-shake-a-stick-at/)

The authors estimate that afforestation and other positive land use changes
could provide up to 37% of the CO2 reductions needed through the year 2030 in
order to stay under 2 degrees of warming. The other 63% has to come from
elsewhere.

------
scorchin
For other mitigations to climate change, see Project Drawdown:
[https://www.drawdown.org/](https://www.drawdown.org/)

~~~
TimJRobinson
It doesn't look like olivine is mentioned in that. Is it under some other name
/ concept?

~~~
matznerd
This process is typically referred to in the scientific literature as
"enhanced" weathering but we think that "accelerated" weathering is easier for
lay people to understand.

Drawdown is mostly focused on things we can change in our current activity to
lower emissions and less about methods for Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). Their
top solution for becoming carbon neutral is "Refrigerant Management"...

I like the concept of the project and know some people working in the org, but
in my opinion, they do not give enhanced/accelerated weathering enough credit
as a potential solution, even though it can scale all the way up to global CO2
level emission removal. Many of the other solutions they suggest are limited
in potential, yet featured prominently... I am working to communicate this to
them.

[https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/coming-
attractions/enhanc...](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/coming-
attractions/enhanced-weathering-minerals)

[https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-
rank](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank)

------
pier25
Even if this is actually feasible and does not have negative environmental
impacts, I don't see countries implementing it on their beaches where a lot of
tourism is located.

For example in Mexico Riviera Maya, Cancún, Holbox, etc, the main selling
point are the white beaches and turquoise sea.

~~~
matznerd
Our goal is not to cover up existing tourist beaches. You would be surprised
how much coastline around the world is undeveloped and not even accessible by
roads etc, those beaches are likely to be the places where we go first.

That said, we believe that green sand beaches will become their own tourist
attractions as the naturally occurring ones, such as Papakolea in Hawaii, are
(which is the beach pictured on our site). They are beautiful and we are
considering ways we could create ecotourism hubs for climate change education
etc.

Because most rivers are now damned and sediment flows impeded, many beaches in
developed areas are eroding away with no sources of replenishment. Beach
replenishment/nourishment is a huge industry and there are not only sand
shortages, but even sand mafias who steal sand. So as resorts have to replace
their sand, in the future, they might consider creating olivine sand beaches.

We have had early interest from a few parties who own resorts with rocky
beaches and would consider replacing their beach with green sand, but at this
time, that is not our focus.

We are focused right now on getting a pilot project deployed that can
definitively and irrefutably prove the minimum accelerated olivine weathering
rate on a real-world, high-energy tropical beach.

The questions of ecotourism and specific beaches is what we will be dealing
with as we move to Phase II-III. See an outline of our deployment plan here ->
[https://projectvesta.org/plan/](https://projectvesta.org/plan/)

[1]
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/insid...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/inside-
india-sand-mining-mafia/) [2] [https://smile.amazon.com/World-Grain-Story-
Transformed-Civil...](https://smile.amazon.com/World-Grain-Story-Transformed-
Civilization/dp/0399576428)

~~~
pier25
> _You would be surprised how much coastline around the world is undeveloped
> and not even accessible by roads etc_

True, but does that apply to tropical coastlines too?

I live in Mexico, even lived in Cancún for a couple of years, the majority of
the tropical coastline in the Riviera Maya there is used for touristic
purposes.

I don't know the pacific coastline as much but I've been there a couple of
times and AFAIK most big beaches are accessible from roads and are accessed by
tourists.

~~~
empath75
Try Honduras or Nicaragua or Guatemala.

~~~
pier25
Never been there but how much coastline with beaches do these countries have
compared to Mexico?

I've been to Costa Rica and there is tourism in a large portion of its
beaches. See this map for example on the Pacific Northern coast:
[https://news.co.cr/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/a-detailed-
loo...](https://news.co.cr/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/a-detailed-look-at-the-
best-beaches-in-guanacaste-costa-rica.jpg)

~~~
empath75
A lot of it is completely undeveloped or surrounded by malaria infested jungle
or rocky.

------
rland
I first read about this idea here:

[http://innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivine...](http://innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf)

Estimates in this paper put it at 250bn per year.

It strikes me as imminently doable, and as an additional benefit would
eliminate the issue of ocean acidification as well, which in my view is a much
larger problem than simply temperature change. Like a human extinction scale
problem.

------
mc32
I skimmed through the site. I didn’t see how they convince countries to have
their beeches altered. I can understand the assumption that countries would be
eager to receive something which will benefit them directly, but they also
know that they are serving as a “commons” as well and may want compensation
for that.

~~~
tempestn
If they're altering the beaches for free, the countries would enjoy a portion
of the common benefit without any cost. In fact, the new 'green' (literally
and figuratively) beaches would probably be a greater tourist attraction, so
if anything I'd expect it to be beneficial, plus secondary economic benefits
from the work being done.

~~~
empath75
Possibly but they’re not going to be particularly walkable.

~~~
tempestn
Why not? Sounds like it would be similar to other sand.

------
jsky_goog
The wording of "less than half the volume of construction materials" mined
each year seems hand wavy as a justification that this is possible. If I'm
reading the chart right that would suggest we'd need a roughly 25% increase in
the amount of global mineral extraction.

~~~
matznerd
That is not meant to be "hand wavy," as there is no "hand-wavy" way to gloss
over the fact that humans are putting out massive amounts of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere each year. It is now on the order of over 45,000,000,000
tonnes (45 Gt) yearly, meaning we need at least 36 Gt of olivine to offset it.
That is no small amount of rock and we do not plan to start at that level. The
reason we mention those numbers is to let you know that it is more than
possible to acquire that much material each year, as we are doing it for
multiple other industries each year.

Olivine mining is open-pit near the surface and is neither labor nor energy
intensive. Based on current olivine (dunite) mining in Norway, where they
mined 3.4 million tonnes of dunite with only 141 employees[1], it can be
extrapolated that the 36 GT of olivine needed could be mined by less than 1.5
million people working at the same capacity globally.

To put that in perspective for you, the Chinese coal market employeed 5.29
million people in 2013, and based on a 2017 report, they are trying to remove
2.3 million people from the industry[2]. So there are plenty of people who
could do this, it is about creating the demand for the mineral.

There are many developing countries around the world lacking other valuable
exports, yet that have olivine reserves, and we look at helping them create
"green" jobs as a potential benefit.

[1] Mineral Resources Norway: The Norwegian Mining and Quarrying Industry in
2004 [pdf]
[https://www.ngu.no/FileArchive/227/2005_042.pdf](https://www.ngu.no/FileArchive/227/2005_042.pdf)
[2]
[https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9967-2-...](https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9967-2-3-million-
Chinese-coal-miners-will-need-new-jobs-by-2-2-)

------
wazoox
The question of the impact of mining has been talked about in the thread. But
there's another important: what could be the local ecological impact of
dropping large quantities of artificial olivine sand on beaches where it was
not present, particularly on the local flora and fauna?

------
itissid
Curious question why not also study the naturally occurring green sand beaches
in Hawaii?

~~~
pms
They do that already and they mention it in comments in this thread. The photo
on their website is from there.

------
evan_
Is there an issue with replacing light-colored beaches, which reflect a great
deal of sunlight, with Olivine, which presumably absorbs more of it?

------
jeffdavis
Can this be targeted to areas with lots of erosion that may welcome a bunch of
additional rock/sand as a barrier?

E.g. Florida, New Orleans?

------
lallysingh
We'll ultimately need a bunch of techniques working together. I suspect this
would even be effective with less than 1.

But really, what's the cost? That's the main factor. It may be a reasonable
way to shove money at poorer countries to do manual work to solve the rich
countries' problems.

~~~
secfirstmd
What's the cost of not taking preventative steps now and having to take
reactive steps though?

~~~
adrianN
We have reasonably good estimates for the costs now, but nobody really knows
whether reactive steps later are even possible.

------
nickparker
This is related to one of my 'scary emergency solutions' governments might
adopt if they wake up to the emergency too late: Detonate nukes in shallow
bore holes in silicate heavy regions and launch enormous quantities of the
stuff into the atmosphere that way.

------
itissid
Let's assume the Pilot is a smashing success, let's also say math works out in
some country to do it for 0.2% of their GDP.

How do the logistics of policy adoption work for the first "pilot" country?

1\. You would need environmental clearance and the government's own stud(ies)
on it. How do you get a government to do this assessment?

2\. If you have to get Costa rica(or any listed potentials on the page) to
show interest do you go to the Environment Ministry and do a power point and
ask "So?".

2.1. Do you get them to do this as part of implementing some climate pledge.
And in this case what are you mostly competing with for the fixed size pot of
$$?

~~~
estebarb
At least in Costa Rica beaches are already used for private resort beaches
(illegal in law, but meh), extracting salt and dumping construction debris or
stealing sand. With those antecedents I don't think the government would
oppose to do something actually useful.

------
rwallace
Interesting! I didn't know olivine was that plentiful.

There is said to be a problem with shortage of construction sand leading to
beaches being stripped for sand. So this would solve a secondary problem at
the same time.

~~~
matznerd
Yes, olivine is highly abundant, but due to lack of demand, most of it is
currently staying underground. We seek to change that.

We are looking for synergies like that, such as covering eroding beaches,
breakwaters, etc with olivine.

If you are interested in sand in construction and otherwise, I highly suggest
you check out the book The World in a Grain.

The importance of sand in our everyday life blew my mind. I mean the device
you are using right now to access this website, has a processor made out of
silicon sand, the screen is made of quartz sand. The building you are in is
likely made of aggregate sand, and the road to get to your house etc. But
also, don't forget that sand was used to make the lenses for reading that made
possible for our older academics, extra decades of research and enabled us to
carry out astronomy and to create microscopes...

Sand has shaped the world in such a massive way, and we are hoping it can save
us from our CO2 problems as well.

[https://smile.amazon.com/World-Grain-Story-Transformed-
Civil...](https://smile.amazon.com/World-Grain-Story-Transformed-
Civilization/dp/0399576428)

~~~
kragen
_a processor made out of silicon sand, the screen is made of quartz sand_

The processor is made from silicon, plus trace amounts of aluminum, glass, and
other materials. Silicon is smelted from silica, which is silicon dioxide;
same difference as hydrogen gas and water, iron and rust, or aluminum and
ruby. The common crystalline form of silica is quartz, which is the most
common sand (precisely because olivine sand weathers). Most glass, including
the glass used in lenses today, is a non-crystalline blend of typically about
80% silica with other materials, largely to lower its Tg. Other sands (notably
garnet and aluminum oxide) are important in optics as abrasives. I hope this
clears up some of the confusions you are expressing.

~~~
matznerd
Yes, I was just quickly paraphrasing the major takeaways on the impact of sand
and its importance in our lives from the excellent book I referenced, The
World in a Grain. Here is an excerpt for you and any others interested:

"He rummages through his knapsack, then pulls out a plastic sandwich bag full
of white powder. “I hope we don’t get arrested,” he says. “Someone might get
the wrong idea.” ... But it’s the mineral in Glover’s bag—snowy white grains,
soft as powdered sugar—that is by far the most important these days. It’s
quartz, but not just any quartz. Spruce Pine, it turns out, is the source of
the purest natural quartz—a species of pristine sand—ever found on Earth. This
ultra‑elite deposit of silicon dioxide particles plays a key role in
manufacturing the silicon used to make computer chips. In fact, there’s an
excellent chance the chip that makes your laptop or cell phone work was made
using sand from this obscure Appalachian backwater. “It’s a billion‑dollar
industry here,” Glover says with a hooting laugh. “Can’t tell by driving
through here. You’d never know it.” ... Most of the world’s sand grains are
composed of quartz, which is a form of silicon dioxide, also known as silica.
High‑purity silicon dioxide particles are the essential raw materials from
which we make computer chips, fiber‑optic cables, and other high‑tech
hardware—the physical components on which the virtual world runs. The quantity
of quartz used for these products is minuscule compared to the mountains of it
used for concrete or land reclamation. But its impact is immeasurable."

[https://www.wired.com/story/book-excerpt-science-of-ultra-
pu...](https://www.wired.com/story/book-excerpt-science-of-ultra-pure-
silicon/)

~~~
kragen
Thank you!

------
simonebrunozzi
Mine olivine rock, spread it on a small percentage of tropical marine beaches
with high levels of tide energy, remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

What could possibly go wrong?

Edit: not sure why the downvotes. Perhaps I should have explained my
skepticism more clearly? Any geo-engineering initiative almost always fails to
predict the unintended consequences for the environment - e.g. perhaps one day
we'll discover that too much olivine rock on beaches destroys ecosystems, or
something else.

~~~
Quarrelsome
> What could possibly go wrong?

As the water level rises we're gonna need to lose some of the cynicism around
geo-engineering.

Unless you're convinced that society will somehow value the stability of our
climate over economics? I feel like there's more evidence (given our snail-
like progress over the past few decades) to demonstrate that's a not gonna
work out compared to attempting _some_ form of geo-engineering.

~~~
aphextim
I'm all for Geo-engineering if it is done in the right way to further benefit
all of society and the planet. Sadly as humans we have never all come together
for the benefit of the planet yet, and I am doubtful we will in the near
future.

My fear is that once people figure out how to Geo-engineer things with fine
tuned results that it will eventually be used as a weapon.

Imagine if you could turn up the temperature of an area to create a drought?

Or flood/freeze out an area?

This could be done covertly as it would be hard to identify the exact cause if
done under the 'radar'.

No bomb shells or traces left behind to place blame.

I'll pass on homo-sapiens ego presuming they are smarter than the planet and
can fix any problem using technology and our brains.

Maybe for the first time in History we may be smart enough to mitigate the
potential ill effects of the climate cycle, however this planet was here long
before humans and will probably be here long after.

There was a joke once, about human's being the planets Herpes, which seems to
be a good metaphor for our existence on this rock.

~~~
aphextim
Technically you cannot use weather modification as a weapon but when has the
rule of law stopped crazy people.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Con...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Convention)

To restate I am all for being able to help the planet, mitigate our impact
using new greener technologies and changing our habits, however this needed to
be done a long time ago and trying to fix our current problems with the band-
aide of Geo-engineering I personally believe is a futile effort.

------
plopz
From the pictures it makes the beach look like its covered in algae or
seaweed. I don't think people will be very receptive to the idea if it looks
like that.

~~~
mosselman
I don't think people will be very receptive to the desolate hellscape that
will be the world if we don't do drastic things to mitigate climate change.

I am not saying that this is the solution though.

~~~
ant6n
So far it appears most ppl are looking forward to that desolate hellscape

------
b_tterc_p
I see a lot of comments about not harming luxury tourist beaches. But I would
(perhaps naively) imagine there’s a lot of garbage beaches along the equator.
Is this reasonable? Perhaps in polluted areas that aren’t especially valuable
anyway?

------
evanhynes
Amazing! When you're team is hiring or looking for volunteers, let me know and
I'll throw you some free job post credits to use on
[https://climate.careers](https://climate.careers) :)

\- Evan

------
jordan801
My personal opinion is that, every time we try to do something that would not
naturally happen, we're making things worse. Especially on a grand scale such
as this.

You can't introduce a massive new variable to an environment, and not expect
there to be some kind of negative effect. You're changing the environment this
ecosystem has adapted to, in a radical way.

I think humans are still coming to terms with the possibility that we can't
live like we do, with the number of individuals we have. And absolutely no one
wants to hear that we either have to take their electricity, or let them die
of cancer, metaphorically speaking.

You can't have seven billion lions, and expect there to be any gazelle.
Exponentially so when the lions have laser guided ballistic missiles.

------
colinmegill
Anyone have a sense of the cost comparison to carbon sequestration via
[https://carbonengineering.com/](https://carbonengineering.com/)

~~~
Aloha
it sounds cheaper, just based on the idea that all you need to do is mine
something, move it and spread it.

------
pstuart
Trees get mentioned a lot for mitigation (as they should), but should we also
be looking at kelp plantations too? A bonus would be addressing ocean
acidification.

------
yellowapple
Now I'm curious where I can buy a ton of olivine. I've got $30 in my pocket
and would love to build me a giant carbon-scrubbing sandbox.

~~~
kragen
Maybe consider places that sell supplies to metal foundries; olivine sand is
used as a refractory in some ferrous casting processes. Or maybe check eBay or
Mercadolibre or whatever your local equivalent is. I don't think there's a
construction or pottery use for olivine sand, so the usual sand suppliers may
not have it.

------
jedberg
What happens if we do this but we also reduce planetary carbon emissions in
other ways? Will we cause another ice age?

~~~
JshWright
We are so massively far away from being able to do that, it's not worth
worrying about. Especially since active carbon capture methods can easily be
switched off long before we approached any "dangerous" level.

~~~
kragen
Olivine beaches cannot be switched off, but you're probably right that the
risks are manageable.

~~~
JshWright
You can stop making new olivine beaches. The scale necessary means it would be
a long, slow process.

~~~
kragen
The beaches will continue absorbing CO₂ long after you stop making them. I
think this is probably a manageable problem but it's important to recognize
that, as with emitting the CO₂ in the first place, the feedback can be a long
time in coming, so there is a risk of the system running out of control.

------
qwerty456127
Whoever cares about climate should also read about the biotic pump theory.

~~~
carapace
Huh. I dunno about that, but I have definitely _seen_ the coastal forests
exhaling clouds up in N. California. FWIW.

------
stefek99
I'm recently in the camp of "Deep Adaptation"

------
atman399429
your entire operation revolves around CO2 and you can't even bother to typeset
the "2" in subscript on your webpage?

------
legym
Where does one buy one ton of olivine in the US?

------
fc_barnes
Well jeez. I know it's not a popular thought on HN, but climate change is a
problem of such scale that it's going to need government-level funding and
oversight to find and validate geoengineering solutions, and global-level
funding and coordination to implement them. This third-way aspiration to a
non-government solution just seems like a pipe dream.

~~~
jordanpg
Could it be the case that contemporary governments and economies are just
simply not structured to be forward thinking in this way?

What if, in analogy to the transition out of feudalism, the next evolution of
government and economies is one that allows for spending on future outcomes in
a way that is impossible now? I have no idea what those institutions would
look like -- I only know that hoping to solve global problems with the caveat
that it needs to be profitable for someone has a whiff of obvious nonsense to
me. And I also know, that at least in the US, the prospect that the government
will implement large-scale change is _patent_ nonsense.

~~~
fao_
> Could it be the case that contemporary governments and economies are just
> simply not structured to be forward thinking in this way?

I'm confused that this is a quesiton that you're asking, as opposed to
something that is blatantly obvious. The United Nations declared as such
recently:

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-
climate-change-end-capitalism)

[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-change-capitalism-
eco...](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-change-capitalism-
economy_n_5b87bf0ce4b0cf7b00326edc)

    
    
        "Trusting that the free market capitalist dynamics will get us
        there, that of course is not going to happen," report co-author
        Paavo Järvensivu, an academic who specializes in economics and
        culture at Bios, says in a phone call with HuffPost. Economies
        that rely on the power of markets, notes the report, don’t even
        recognize the problem as they’re too focused on short-term
        profits to take account of longer-term issues like climate change
        and environmental destruction.

~~~
tom_mellior
That quote is about markets, not governments. It's not great to mix up those
two like the parent did. Governments _are_ moving to mitigate climate change.
Not all of them at the same pace, and none at the optimal pace, but things are
certainly improving on the government front.

~~~
fao_
Most current governmental structures are innately intwined with the economic
system.

~~~
tom_mellior
Yes, which is why the government can fix what the market messed up, because
market participants weren't charged for the costs of the externalities they
are responsible for. Carbon taxes can change that.

~~~
fao_
At this point, carbon taxes are really pretty much ephemeral, something that
is basically too little, too late. You're adding more tax to a pile that the
company already doesn't pay.

------
foobarbecue
It seems these folks think km = miles. They also seem to think that
"porphyritic" and "olivine" are rocks (one is an adjective and the other is a
mineral).

From the FAQ: "We currently put out a significant amount of CO2 per year, so
we need a volume of 7 km^3 of rock.

The equivalent amount of hydrocarbons acquired each year is currently greater
than a volume of 10 km^3."

------
crimsonalucard
What if we accidentally trigger an ice age.

~~~
crimsonalucard
This is a legit worry. The same material we use to stabilize the climate could
be the same material that throws it into a negative feedback loop. This
happened during the ice age, which is exactly stated in the article.

~~~
carapace
Okay, no, it's not. You're being silly. We could always fire the Clathrate
Gun... (^_^)

But you bring up an interesting point: there's no going back. This really is
the Anthropocene Age and we're going to have to _manage_ the planet from now
on, now that we can, now that we know.

~~~
crimsonalucard
How am I being silly? Logically if the same conditions caused an Ice age in
the past and we take steps to replicate those conditions in the present then
this is a genuinely possible outcome. How is this not something to think
about?

~~~
carapace
First, I'm not an expert, maybe you _aren 't_ being silly, I don't really
know.

Second, this is actually _totally_ something to think about, and it seems to
me like matznerd & co. are thinking about this very clearly and
scientifically.

The reasons I think it's kind of silly to worry about olivine weathering
triggering an ice age is that it seems to me (again, NOT an expert) that we
would have enough warning to deal with it, now that we know it's something we
have to deal with.

We could put less olivine out than we had planned, or remove some (make it
into concrete or something), or even just burn off fuel or release methane to
counteract the cooling.

Like I said, you are bringing up an important point: we can no longer pretend
that we're not already "geoengineering" our home world.

"We are as Gods, we might as well get good at it."

------
nosleeptill
Seems like a get rich quick scheme.

------
nostromo
I have this invention that runs on solar power and water, removes carbon from
the atmosphere day and night, lowers the nearby temperature of the Earth
dramatically, is bio-degradable, and best of all, it self replicates.

I'm calling it Tree and I'll sell you it for $0.

~~~
oh_sigh
Only problem is you would need 300+ million acres of new forest to offset
human activity. 300 million acres is larger than Texas and California
combined.

And then you need to deal with mature trees which aren't sequestering CO2 at
any appreciable rate.

[http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm](http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm)

~~~
loons2
Planting a trillion trees could be our best strategy to tackle climate change.
Can we do it?

[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/planting-trillion-
tree...](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/planting-trillion-trees-could-
be-our-best-strategy-tackle-climate-change-can-we-do-it/)

------
6d6b73
"The Last 3 Ice Ages Were Caused By Volcanic Rock Weathering Near the Equator
[...] Project Vesta seeks to mimic this natural process but to greatly
accelerate it because we do not have millions of years to wait."

I'm afraid that too many these proposed geoengineering projects will actually
take place, and nobody will really know how much of the CO2 is removed from
the atmosphere. If that happens we will end up with another Ice Age (we're due
for one soon anyway), or something worse.

I know it's easy to make CO2 the villain, but let's not forget that the life
on this planet is not possible without it.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
We have ways of measuring CO2 in the atmosphere in ppm. It's recorded daily.

30 _billion_ tons of rock is needed _per year._ That's non trivial in
logistics and cost. You think if it turns out to work too well they'll just
keep going year on year until no CO2 is left, and not maybe slow down or stop
instead?

~~~
6d6b73
I'm not talking about this one project, but multiple projects going on at the
same time. And yes we can measure it daily but do we know what's the lag? If
we remove 1mln tons of CO2 from the atmosphere today, will it show up in the
results tomorrow? If not, do we know how that's going to affect the climate?

~~~
SwellJoe
We are decades into pumping vastly more carbon into the atmosphere than is
sustainable. We're not going to accidentally flip that problem upside down
without noticing years in advance.

~~~
6d6b73
Like we've reacted when scientists told us about rising co2 levels 30 or 40
years ago?

~~~
SwellJoe
I don't think I understand your position here. Do you believe there is a
profit motive to doing this kind of carbon sequestration? As I understand it,
it's going to be expensive to do, and require significant money/time/effort to
keep doing it. So, what will keep it going in your runaway scenario? Why will
people keep mining and moving these materials into place beyond the point
where it is necessary to counter our current crisis?

~~~
6d6b73
I was talking about possibility of having multiple projects run by different
countries/non-profits at the same time, without any coordination, and messing
up the climate even more. Why is that so controversial?

~~~
SwellJoe
I think it's an unpopular opinion because there's no evidence that states will
"over-do" _any_ climate action. So far, climate action is almost entirely
theoretical. States are doing effectively nothing to counter climate change.
One might even argue they're doing less than nothing, by continuing to allow
externalizing costs of fossil fuels, animal agriculture, etc.

It seems implausible that there would be _too_ much action on climate change,
because there is currently effectively none. Maybe your theory will seem more
believable if any major climate action takes place. But, given the costs and
current inertia in the other direction, I don't think it is a realistic
problem to worry about today.

~~~
6d6b73
true, but maybe we're in the mess simply because we don't worry about long
term effects of our actions.

~~~
SwellJoe
Climate change is the result of (mostly) unregulated profit-seeking. Not
merely a lack of worry about long-term effects of our actions. It isn't
accidental...we knew decades ago that there were consequences, but a few
people with a lot of money bought policies ignoring the problem (from willing
politicians worldwide).

There is a profit motive behind our climate catastrophe, not "oops, I forgot
to turn off the climate change machine when I left the house".

~~~
6d6b73
And you don't think there is no profit motive in the current "global warming
industry"?

~~~
SwellJoe
I thought we were having a serious/sincere conversation.

~~~
6d6b73
We are - I'm not saying that most people want to do the right thing, but there
is also bunch of them that use global warming as a way to make a quick buck. I
hope you don't believe that one side of the debate is all good and another one
is all bad..

~~~
SwellJoe
That doesn't make any sense, and I don't see any evidence that people are (or
could) use global warming to "make a quick buck".

"I hope you don't believe that one side of the debate is all good and another
one is all bad.."

What "sides" do you believe we're talking about here?

------
debt
If you work backwards, climate change is a giant man-made disaster that
literally can only be countered by a just-as-big man-made solution.

Green sand on a beach is like, not as big as millions of cars on roads.

~~~
erikpukinskis
That's not logical. Just because a disaster was made by machines doesn't mean
machines are the solution.

~~~
debt
No, I'm saying the scale of the cause of problem vs this guy's tiny sand
solution seems out of whack.

Sand won't stop millions of carbon emitting cars on the road. We need bigger
solutions.

~~~
24gttghh
I have to ask: do you think 30 _billion_ tons of olivine _annually_ is a "tiny
sand solution"?

------
astazangasta
This seems like it would fail energetically; the amount of energy required to
mine and transport a bunch of rock to a beach would surely exceed the amount
of CO2 sequestered.

~~~
groby_b
It seems like you didn't read the paper, or really anything on this.

But, to make it easy for you:

* 1 ton of Olivine will absorb 1.25 tons of CO2[1]

* Transportation cost is 161.8 _grams_ of CO2 per ton mile[2]

* They are looking at mines within a 300km[1] (or ~190 miles) radius. That's a maximum transportation cost of ~31kg CO2. That's a rounding error.

* Mining cost for a ton of Olivine is ~$30/ton right now. Let's say it's _all_ for hydrocarbon fuels, and they're cheap, so 30 gallons of fuel. Let's make it 50 gallons, because I'm lazy. A gallon of fuel produces 20 pounds of CO2[3], so 1000 pound of CO2. That's half a ton.

* Let's assume for reasons beyond our ken we'll spend another quarter ton of CO2 on this. Likely due to people arguing on the Internet.

That still leaves us with half a ton of CO2/ton of Olivine.

Maybe do at least back-of-napkin calculations before claiming things will
certainly fail.

[1] [https://projectvesta.org/](https://projectvesta.org/) [2]
[http://business.edf.org/blog/2015/03/24/green-freight-
math-h...](http://business.edf.org/blog/2015/03/24/green-freight-math-how-to-
calculate-emissions-for-a-truck-move) [3]
[https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm)

~~~
Accujack
Mines or potential mining sites for extracting Olivine on this scale don't
exist within short distances of these tropical beaches. Many of the beaches
are on islands which are essentially coral heads above the water. Digging down
to any deposits of other rock are going to require either significant effort
in terms of dewatering, caissons, and equipment or else mining underwater.

This is a good idea that's probably not practical. It sounds ok if you accept
that that much rock can be mined, processed, and moved within the constraints
given, but they're probably not even close with these estimates.

On top of that, you're talking about completely changing the composition of
the beaches in much of the tropics, displacing the existing beach materials
and probably causing mass die-offs and disruption in the ecosystems attached
to them.

Plus, you'll have to keep hauling sand. Beaches in active areas like the
tropics aren't static. The sand migrates down them and out into the ocean.
Sometimes islands like the Bahamas even have to dredge sand back out of the
water to rebuild beaches.

Underwater sand isn't going to absorb much atmospheric CO2.

~~~
tom_mellior
> Many of the beaches are on islands which are essentially coral heads above
> the water.

Afaik most Caribbean islands are of volcanic origin. Barbados is a notable
exception, it's a coral island.

~~~
Accujack
Actually, the caribbean is the area I'm most familiar with. Lots of small
islands in the Bahamas chain with sand and coral beaches.

Perhaps islands in deeper water are volcanic, but I still doubt that mining
that much olivine anywhere near the place it would be used is possible.

