3 ms·

Yes. We can realistically capture and store permanently many Gigatonnes of CO2 per year. It involves capture of CO2 from concentrated point sources (power plant

Yes. We can realistically capture and store permanently many Gigatonnes of CO2 per year. It involves capture of CO2 from concentrated point sources (power plants, chemical plants, metal and cement factories etc) and transport to permanent geological storage. We have all the tech and know how to scale up. The only problem is that it's pure cost, no short-term benefit, so no company will do it voluntarily.

graeme 8y ago
This would slow the rate of emissions, but not eliminate them or suck any extant CO2 from the atmosphere, correct?
- lisper 8y ago
  Right. But it's a start.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    How much sequestration would we need to do to actually reverse the effect, and why can't we? I know why we won't, at least...
    - lisper 8y ago
      To actually reverse climate change (as opposed to simply slowing or stopping its further progress), we'd need to go back to pre-industrial CO2 levels. That's not physically impossible, but it is (almost certainly) politically and economically impossible, at least with current technology and politics. Cheap solar and coming to our senses about nuclear power (i.e. promoting it) could make a big dent. So it's not hopeless. But it's sure not going to be easy.
      - StavrosK 8y ago
        Ah, wow, pre-industrial? So there's no leeway at all? You mean we'd have to go back to pre-industrial emissions levels, or actually sequester all the carbon we emitted all these decades? Luckily, cheap solar seems to be coming, and electric cars are hopefully becoming more widespread as well. Nuclear is a different story, unfortunately that one doesn't seem to be very palatable to the average person, even though it sounds like a silver bullet.
        graeme 8y ago
        Pretty much. It's a matter of degree. The more CO2, the warmer. So, if we could wave a wand and get to 310 ppm, that would be great! But 280 would be even better. Realistically we've got some warming baked in from feedback effects (less snow, etc) so lowering to industrial levels wouldn't get us back to preindustrial temperatures immediately. If we magically stopped emitting immediately, we'd still see warming because of lag in the effects, feedback, etc, and we'd find it uncomfortable. With more emissions it will be worse. So, sequestering emissions is a very worthy goal, and why stopped remains important even though we're past a point where damage begins. Damage can still get worse and we should try to avoid that. Figuring out some way to actually reverse them is the holy grail though. We would need nuclear or solar for that, most likely. A bit of nuclear waste in the ground is better than carbon waste in the air.
maxxxxx 8y ago
Do you have any references for how to do this? How do you transport and store gigatons of anything?
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  You capture and sequester on site underground. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2016/november/storing-carbon-dioxide-underground-by-turning-it-into-rock.html https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/20...

graeme 8y ago

This would slow the rate of emissions, but not eliminate them or suck any extant CO2 from the atmosphere, correct?

lisper 8y ago
Right. But it's a start.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  How much sequestration would we need to do to actually reverse the effect, and why can't we? I know why we won't, at least...
  - lisper 8y ago
    To actually reverse climate change (as opposed to simply slowing or stopping its further progress), we'd need to go back to pre-industrial CO2 levels. That's not physically impossible, but it is (almost certainly) politically and economically impossible, at least with current technology and politics. Cheap solar and coming to our senses about nuclear power (i.e. promoting it) could make a big dent. So it's not hopeless. But it's sure not going to be easy.
    - StavrosK 8y ago
      Ah, wow, pre-industrial? So there's no leeway at all? You mean we'd have to go back to pre-industrial emissions levels, or actually sequester all the carbon we emitted all these decades? Luckily, cheap solar seems to be coming, and electric cars are hopefully becoming more widespread as well. Nuclear is a different story, unfortunately that one doesn't seem to be very palatable to the average person, even though it sounds like a silver bullet.
      - graeme 8y ago
        Pretty much. It's a matter of degree. The more CO2, the warmer. So, if we could wave a wand and get to 310 ppm, that would be great! But 280 would be even better. Realistically we've got some warming baked in from feedback effects (less snow, etc) so lowering to industrial levels wouldn't get us back to preindustrial temperatures immediately. If we magically stopped emitting immediately, we'd still see warming because of lag in the effects, feedback, etc, and we'd find it uncomfortable. With more emissions it will be worse. So, sequestering emissions is a very worthy goal, and why stopped remains important even though we're past a point where damage begins. Damage can still get worse and we should try to avoid that. Figuring out some way to actually reverse them is the holy grail though. We would need nuclear or solar for that, most likely. A bit of nuclear waste in the ground is better than carbon waste in the air.

maxxxxx 8y ago

Do you have any references for how to do this? How do you transport and store gigatons of anything?

toomuchtodo 8y ago
You capture and sequester on site underground. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2016/november/storing-carbon-dioxide-underground-by-turning-it-into-rock.html https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/20...