3 ms·

Slightly off topic: Is it possible to create technology that can suck out the CO2 from the atmosphere? If so, what would the back of the envelope costs for thi

Slightly off topic: Is it possible to create technology that can suck out the CO2 from the atmosphere? If so, what would the back of the envelope costs for this be like? If this is a viable option, why continuously try to have these large scale agreements instead of building and selling technology to counter the CO2 emissions?

rzzzt 10y ago
Trees do it all the time. The more technical solutions (along with risks) are outlined in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
DennisP 10y ago
People are working on that. One option is biochar: burn biomass in a low-oxygen environment, grind up the charcoal and work it into soil. Generally improves fertility and stays in place over a thousand years. A Nature study found that we could absorb about a gigaton carbon (or CO2, I forget) per year before we start doing serious harm to biodiversity. Our annual emissions are 10 GT carbon, or 30 GT CO2. There are others involving mineral erosion, or machines that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. There's a scheme for fertilizing oceans with iron particles, creating algae blooms that absorb CO2 then die and sink; that one may or may not work. The problem is, generally this stuff either has large environmental side effects, doesn't scale enough to absorb all emissions, is much more expensive than just reducing emissions, and/or uses a lot of energy, which would have to be produced by carbon-free sources that could have just replaced emissions in the first place. None of it is really available yet, and we're rapidly running out of time. We're starting to see positive feedbacks where, with higher temperatures, the planet emits CO2 and methane by itself, taking the temperature even higher without further help from us. So our best strategy is to reduce emissions as quickly as possible now. Given how far along things are, we will probably also need to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels after we've finally stopped increasing them. Of course, to whatever extent the negative-emissions techniques become available, safe, and affordable in the short term, they could definitely help. Biochar might be the closest to implementation, with no real downside except at very large scale.
mikeyouse 10y ago
As pointed out, there are a few 'low cost' options; biochar, plants, algae, etc but they are still extremely expensive since the opportunity cost is essentially 0. The ability to fix nitrogen from the air and convert it into liquid or solid form on an industrial scale was one of the most important breakthroughs in human history. We can do the same with CO2 but it's cheaper to dig it out if the ground and there is a lot less of it in the air. N makes up 78% of air by volume. CO2 is only 0.04%. You need to handle a lot more air to get the equivalent amount of carbon as you do nitrogen.
spodek 10y ago
Besides costs, how long it would take to develop, to implement, and what resources it would need are critical. If the polar ice caps and enough glaciers melt before we implement it at scale, we will lose a lot of the potential benefit. While trees do it, they only restore the CO2 they released when we cut them down. They won't restore what was released from oil brought up from underground. We could in principle plant more trees than we cut down, but people are living and farming in many of those places. As of now, there is nothing in action and little if anything on the horizon. In general, since CO2 is released when we get energy, you'd need to put that energy in to get CO2 out, which would take away energy from the economy. So a process that took energy would need us to create all the energy our economies needed plus the energy to remove the CO2 without releasing more CO2. Your question is basically saying, "why don't we just undo the problem?" Sure, sounds great, why don't we just solve all problems by undoing them? Why don't we just end wars by having the combatants sign peace treaties? Well, creating the agreements to sign is the challenge.
agumonkey 10y ago
I'm often thinking of solar powered drones that would process atmosphere. But the volume to be traversed is .. well.
endswapper 10y ago
From their website: "AirCarbon™ | Made from carbon capture AirCarbon™ is a material made by sequestering carbon emissions that would otherwise become part of the air." https://newlight.com/aircarbon/ https://newlight.com/aircarbon/ This, competing and similar technologies, are relatively new, but they are scalable and affordable. They will likely be a critical component to Industry 4.0 and circular economies. Agreements like Paris are important because they provide a roadmap, urgency and awareness.
barney54 10y ago
The short answer is: 1. It is possible. 2. It is really expensive. 3. You have to put the co2 somewhere after you capture it and that is a question mark.
pjc50 10y ago
To a first approximation, at least twice the value derived from burning the fossil fuels in the first place. It's always cheaper to not burn it in the first place. There is no natural market for "building and selling technology to counter the CO2 emissions" unless one is created by .. treaties.

rzzzt 10y ago

Trees do it all the time. The more technical solutions (along with risks) are outlined in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

DennisP 10y ago

People are working on that. One option is biochar: burn biomass in a low-oxygen environment, grind up the charcoal and work it into soil. Generally improves fertility and stays in place over a thousand years. A Nature study found that we could absorb about a gigaton carbon (or CO2, I forget) per year before we start doing serious harm to biodiversity. Our annual emissions are 10 GT carbon, or 30 GT CO2. There are others involving mineral erosion, or machines that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. There's a scheme for fertilizing oceans with iron particles, creating algae blooms that absorb CO2 then die and sink; that one may or may not work. The problem is, generally this stuff either has large environmental side effects, doesn't scale enough to absorb all emissions, is much more expensive than just reducing emissions, and/or uses a lot of energy, which would have to be produced by carbon-free sources that could have just replaced emissions in the first place. None of it is really available yet, and we're rapidly running out of time. We're starting to see positive feedbacks where, with higher temperatures, the planet emits CO2 and methane by itself, taking the temperature even higher without further help from us. So our best strategy is to reduce emissions as quickly as possible now. Given how far along things are, we will probably also need to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels after we've finally stopped increasing them. Of course, to whatever extent the negative-emissions techniques become available, safe, and affordable in the short term, they could definitely help. Biochar might be the closest to implementation, with no real downside except at very large scale.

mikeyouse 10y ago

As pointed out, there are a few 'low cost' options; biochar, plants, algae, etc but they are still extremely expensive since the opportunity cost is essentially 0. The ability to fix nitrogen from the air and convert it into liquid or solid form on an industrial scale was one of the most important breakthroughs in human history. We can do the same with CO2 but it's cheaper to dig it out if the ground and there is a lot less of it in the air. N makes up 78% of air by volume. CO2 is only 0.04%. You need to handle a lot more air to get the equivalent amount of carbon as you do nitrogen.

spodek 10y ago

Besides costs, how long it would take to develop, to implement, and what resources it would need are critical. If the polar ice caps and enough glaciers melt before we implement it at scale, we will lose a lot of the potential benefit. While trees do it, they only restore the CO2 they released when we cut them down. They won't restore what was released from oil brought up from underground. We could in principle plant more trees than we cut down, but people are living and farming in many of those places. As of now, there is nothing in action and little if anything on the horizon. In general, since CO2 is released when we get energy, you'd need to put that energy in to get CO2 out, which would take away energy from the economy. So a process that took energy would need us to create all the energy our economies needed plus the energy to remove the CO2 without releasing more CO2. Your question is basically saying, "why don't we just undo the problem?" Sure, sounds great, why don't we just solve all problems by undoing them? Why don't we just end wars by having the combatants sign peace treaties? Well, creating the agreements to sign is the challenge.

agumonkey 10y ago

I'm often thinking of solar powered drones that would process atmosphere. But the volume to be traversed is .. well.

endswapper 10y ago

From their website: "AirCarbon™ | Made from carbon capture AirCarbon™ is a material made by sequestering carbon emissions that would otherwise become part of the air." https://newlight.com/aircarbon/ https://newlight.com/aircarbon/ This, competing and similar technologies, are relatively new, but they are scalable and affordable. They will likely be a critical component to Industry 4.0 and circular economies. Agreements like Paris are important because they provide a roadmap, urgency and awareness.

barney54 10y ago

The short answer is: 1. It is possible. 2. It is really expensive. 3. You have to put the co2 somewhere after you capture it and that is a question mark.

pjc50 10y ago

To a first approximation, at least twice the value derived from burning the fossil fuels in the first place. It's always cheaper to not burn it in the first place. There is no natural market for "building and selling technology to counter the CO2 emissions" unless one is created by .. treaties.