12 ms·
Efficient method to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
- cyphertruck 10mo agoEconomics rules everything. How much does this cost vs simply planting trees, when the value of harvesting the trees is included? Since tree farms are generally profitable, and wood is expensive, it seems this method is likely to be economically less efficient.
- roflmaostc 10mo agoThe problem is you cannot plant enough trees around the globe to offset our CO2 emissions. Also, a forest only absorbs CO2 while alive. Once it dies, it emits CO2 too. You would need to permanently store the wood somewhere (submerging in water, etc). Recent article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/28/africa-forests-transformed-carbon-sink-carbon-source-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/28/africa-f...
- adregan 10mo agoOne little appreciated fact is that trees also respirate CO2 when they are cracking their stored sugars produced via photosynthesis. So they don’t sequester all of the CO2 that they consume.
- OsrsNeedsf2P 10mo agoIt's little appreciated since tree growth still consumes CO2
- adregan 10mo agoI suppose I’m pointing it out to highlight the trade offs with any of these solutions. What is unsaid is that we need to sequester CO2 for hundreds of years—often far beyond the lifespan of the trees. Trees are short term storage, and sometimes the storage is a lot shorter than popular imagination purports.
- thinkcontext 10mo agoIndividual trees are short term storage which is why its important to create healthy ecosystems for them to live in. Turning denuded farmland back into a forest buffers carbon from the atmosphere for as long as the forest stands. It could stay there for centuries or return to the atmosphere if it gets bulldozed for a subdivision.
- xnx 10mo agoBiochar seems like a good option
- gs17 10mo agoIt's a hugely underappreciated option. I'm not sure how accurate it is (or how legitimate the companies doing biochar carbon removal are), but cdr.fyi shows biochar as the top carbon sequestration method that's actually happening.
- cogman10 10mo agoIt's possible to permanently capture the carbon if you turn the wood into charcoal and ultimately bury or store that. But left out to rot and yeah, the fungus and bacteria will ultimately consume the wood and release CO2 as a byproduct.
- Y-bar 10mo agoYou don’t need to convert it to coal. Use it to build houses, furniture, and other things. I am currently building a wooden house this way. Wooden frame, wooden exterior, wooden floors, even wood-based insulation (https://huntonfiber.co.uk/ https://huntonfiber.co.uk/). The isolation has the shortest life span and it is expected to last at least 60 years.
- dylan604 10mo agoIf these forests are planted by humans, why do we think the dead trees would just be left to rot like you suggest vs being harvested for wood? The logic does not compute other than trying to make a ridiculous point.
- arkensaw 10mo agousing the wood for heating also releases the CO2. I do think planting trees is a good idea, but it's worth pointing out they can be a carbon source even after harvesting, depending on the usage. On the other hand if the wood is used for construction or furniture it will not emit.
- thinkcontext 10mo agoI think this loses the forest for the trees. That is, a single tree rotting isn't what matters its how long the ecosystem the tree is part of lasts. Consider a square kilometer of denuded land turned back into a forest. You can think of the forest as a temporary storage for carbon, its stored in the trees, soil, animals, insects, etc in that square kilometer. Individual trees may die but on average if the forest remains in good health there will be a number of tons of carbon kept out of the atmosphere.
- loeg 10mo agoWhat do you think happens to harvested wood?
- nephihaha 10mo agoTrees have advantages that go beyond bureaucratic aspects of environmentalism.
- fsckboy 10mo agoI think that I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree. -- Joyce Kilmer
- manoDev 10mo agoPlanting trees solves both the carbon capture and the emissions issue from different angles. Some examples are: - With more wood available it’s more economical to use it as a building/manufacturing material over other emissive sources (concrete, steel, plastic) - We can replant the same area multiple times - Even if we plant crops for biofuels, it’s closer to carbon neutral than burning fossil anyway Every move we can make towards planting (and managing) more of the surface of the Earth is an improvement, without waiting for miraculous new technology.
- gus_massa 10mo agoI agree. Plants are not very efficient (1% or 2%) but they include packaging the CO2 in a stable form. You can store the grain or wood for long periods of times. In this case, it looks like they get CO2 as a gas. It's cheaper because you don't have to use energy to undo the burning, but it's difficult to store for a long time. (I'm not sure if someone tried to make a fake underground bog in abandoned mine. Just fill with wood and water to keep the oxygen low and make the wood decompose slowly.)
- cjbenedikt 10mo agoTake a look at "wood vault". 'Wood vaulting': A simple climate solution you’ve probably never heard of | Grist https://share.google/lS8xnMGEd1pMzlNg2 https://share.google/lS8xnMGEd1pMzlNg2 Economically not attractive but apparently very efficient in locking up CO2.
- adrianN 10mo agoThe problem with any scheme to capture and store carbon from the atmosphere is the incredible amount of carbon we've blown into the air in the last 150 years. Just look at the size of the machines we use to harvest coal. Essentially you'd need to have machines of similar size working for many decades to re-bury the carbon we extracted and burned. Who's gonna pay for that?
- mr_toad 10mo agoThere’s no getting around it. If we reduce CO2 emissions to zero it’s either plants or carbon capture, and one way or another the planet will have to do something with all that carbon. Last time it took plants millions of years, and that was before things started eating wood. I’m pretty sure that we’ll have to have a hand in the process if we want to reduce CO2 levels in timespans shorter than geological.
- adrianN 10mo agoI agree that we’ll actively have to do something if we want to reduce carbon levels. I’m not convinced that we’ll want to reduce carbon levels badly enough to spent all that money. It’s very hard to convince voters that they’ll have to spent lots of taxes for a project that sees payoff in two or three generations at the earliest.
- S3verin 10mo agoPlanting trees is not effective since it takes decades to capture the carbon, but the next years are crucial for determining long term climate developments.
- adammarples 10mo agoThere is no carbon capture technology on earth that can be rolled out at a scale over the next few years that can compete with planting trees. Especially not one that has just been invented in one university. Ash grows 90cm per year, that's all carbon. Scale that to millions and billions.
- dcollect 10mo ago[flagged]
- yodon 10mo ago>Economics rules everything Physics rules everything, once you start trying to run at scale. The density of carbon per unit volume in solid materials of interest doesn't vary that much, whether you sink it in trees or in exotic materials like diamonds. That means you can calculate the volume of material required so sink a desired amount of atmospheric carbon. If you want to have a measurable impact on the atmosphere, say dialing it back to 1980 CO2 levels, you're talking not about making a pile of stuff but about making a mountain range that's a mile high and hundreds of miles long. Now figure out how many trucks you're going to need to move that much material from where your sequestering machine is to where your pile of stuff is. Or if you want to dump that material in the ocean (which someone else will certainly object to), extend your calculation to figure out how many container trucks worth of material you need to dump into the ocean every hour to accomplish your atmospheric cleanup in whatever amount of time you choose (a decade? If it takes a century, that's not fast enough). And finally think about surface to volume ratios. You're trying to sink it into a volume, but you can only get the gas into the volume through its surface, so the speed of your process is limited by surface area. If you want to do it with trees, my personal spitball estimates are that you probably need to plant somewhere between the entire state of Connecticut and the entire state of Colorado to have the kind of impact one would want (there's more subtlety to tree calculations than one generally likes to admit, so feel free to come in with way higher numbers than I did). Which brings us back to economics. If you have a well-managed forest of that size and scale, someone is eventually going to come along, maybe in 100 years, maybe in 500 years, and say "hey if we cut this down, we could burn the wood to heat our homes" and all that carbon goes back into the atmosphere, so you actually need to sink it into something that is energetically unfavorable for recovery, which means you also need to expand a huge amount of energy to sink the carbon into that energetically unfavorable state.
- marcosdumay 10mo ago> you're talking not about making a pile of stuff but about making a mountain range that's a mile high and hundreds of miles long. Just to put it into numbers, wikipedia has the total amount of CO2 on the global warming page, if we assume it's in a 2 kg/l substance it totals to around 180 km^3.
- Yizahi 10mo agoIn the order of importance: 1. Even if we do magic and emit nothing, we still need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or it will cook us over time, just longer. 2. We would need an enormous area for forests (which i great), which would mean a lot of intervention, like resettling people, demolishing and constructing new buildings, a lot of machinery time to move people to and from the new forests, a lot of planting and forest maintenance involved. And add he work to cut and bury resulting wood. If you would sum all the incidental emissions from this process it would rapidly become much less efficient (if at all). Without either CO2 capture or a sun shade of some sort, the CO2 levels and temperature will only ever increase, just like now.
- jacquesm 10mo ago> it will cook us over time, just longer. The largest sous-vide cooking pot ever...
- Detrytus 10mo agoThis solves only part of the problem: it captures CO2 and can release it later. But you still need to figure out what to do with this CO2, how to turn it into something useful.
- mnky9800n 10mo agoyou can inject it into peridotites and let it mineralize. there is enough exposed peridotite outcrops in the world that we could inject all the co2 produced and store it there indefinitely. this process also produces elemental hydrogen.
- cjbenedikt 10mo agoDo you have any links on research on that? Serious question.
- gus_massa 10mo agoSomeone proposed to make giant beaches of malachite and let the sea break the rocks. Malachite has two -OH that can be replaced by a CO3= and so capture the CO2. I can't find a good link now, but at least it's the only method I know where it's not obvious that requires a huge amount of energy that makes the whole process net negative.
- mnky9800n 10mo agoYes. For example: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0805794105 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0805794105 Peter Kelemen has written a lot of papers on this topic. Here is a more recent paper that I wrote together with Peter and others currently in review: https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/9651/ https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/9651/ This is more about the mechanics of how the rock breaks to allow fluids to move around. And here is another paper currently in review that we coauthored about how we know there’s gas moving in the system and therefore hydrogen is being produced: https://essopenarchive.org/users/543018/articles/1363688-enigmatic-harmonic-tremors-at-the-oman-drilling-project-multi-borehole-observatory-cultural-noise-or-subsurface-fluids https://essopenarchive.org/users/543018/articles/1363688-eni... Tbh I have no idea why we didn’t submit these to arXiv instead of these other preprint servers.
- net01 10mo agoWhat are the use cases of CO2 appart for making my Coke fizz?
- dcollect 10mo ago[flagged]
- adregan 10mo agoThe main commercial use is enhanced oil recovery—shooting it into old wells to extract more oil (super ironic if captured from the air). One application I think is neat is that it’s a pretty robust refrigerant in a heat pump application.
- cjbenedikt 10mo agoYou can combine it with H2 to produce synthetic fuels. Not ideal but could reduce fossil fuel use and hence new CO2 released.
- quickthrowman 10mo agoOff the top of my head, CO2 can be used as a solvent for dry cleaning, it can extract THC from cannabis, and can also be used as a refrigerant.
- n49o7 10mo agoAs I understand it, the main driver behind current carbon-capture tech is selling carbon credits.
- 10mo ago
- dcollect 10mo ago[flagged]
- dcollect 10mo ago[flagged]
- condensedcrab 10mo agoDirect air capture imo can’t escape the scaling problem - when the feedstock has CO2 at ~400 ppm the economics simply won’t work out despite various oil companies backing one off systems around the globe. Capturing CO2 at the source (power plant, etc) would be simpler to reach economic viability but without incentives it’s dead on arrival. I believe the IRA infra bill had put a price ~$50/ton of CO2 captured.
- jmclnx 10mo agoI agree, plus were would one store the CO2 ? To get back to "1980", I really doubt puling CO2 from the atmosphere will ever work. Another concern, who will pay for maintenance ? See this for why you cannot let CO2 escape from underground storage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster If stored near a populated area, hundreds of thousands could be kill, including all animals and insects, in a matter of minutes if the "vault" has a catastrophic failure. I would rather live near a nuclear waste site than a CO2 Site.
- gonzo41 10mo agoWell as far as storing it goes, if you can capture it, turn it into a solid and stick it in the ground. Imagine you were growing a huge biomass that you harvest, dry out, and then store. We know how the bacteria and processes that stripped co2 from the atmosphere in the past, we just need to do that in a big way. Good thing we have places on earth that are huge and flat and growing algae won't be a problem. And then we complement that with green energy and an attempt at net zero.
- teiferer 10mo agoAs long as leading figures either claim it's a hoax or that it's not necessary to do sth about it, none of this matters anywhere. This is less of a technogical problem than it is a political one, I'm afraid.
- literalAardvark 10mo ago
- elil17 10mo agoA better title would be "More efficient method to capture CO2 from the atmosphere." The method is not objectively efficient, but may be more efficient than other methods (solvents/sorbents) used for DAC.
- HPsquared 10mo agoYes it's important to distinguish "efficiency getting closer to theoretical maximum" from "actually cheap and economically feasible".
- comicjk 10mo agoI gave my engineering students a CO2 removal design problem once, and at the end, asked why the theoretical efficiency had increased in the time since the textbook was written. The answer was that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was higher.
- sfn42 10mo agoThe thing people don't think about with regards to CO2 capture is that you have to get the atmosphere in order to capture CO2 from it. You essentially have to suck the entire atmosphere into these carbon capture facilities. Using something like this to capture carbon from an exhaust pipe might be viable, but scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere is not even remotely viable. There's just too much air out there.
- cjbenedikt 10mo agoYou can actually capture CO2 from sea water thereby reducing ocean acidification and improving its capability to continue as our planets biggest CO2 sink.
- roflmaostc 10mo agothere's also lots of water to wash then. The problem is the same, the relative concentration of oxygen in air is less than 0.05% (~450pars per million). In water much less.
- sfn42 10mo agoWell here's the thing - there's quite a lot of water out there too. How long and how many terawatts of power do you think it'll take to suck a significant fraction of the earth's seawater through a capture facility?
- nilamo 10mo agoYou're right, it's expensive and hard, so it's better to not do anything and... migrate all humanity onto space stations so we don't die with the earth, I guess is the alternative you're suggesting?
- umeshunni 10mo agoThe earth doesn't die because CO2 levels increase. There have been multiple epoch with higher CO2 concentrations than we have now.
- bobse 10mo ago[dead]
- condiment 10mo agoAt current rates of emissions, we’re only about 20 years away from people needing to install CO2 scrubbers in their homes. Soda lime, or calcium hydroxide, is the current state of the art. We use that in an anesthesia and in saltwater aquariums and in scuba rebreathers. An idealized system can capture 500 mg per gram, but in practice you only capture around 250mg/g. This outperforms the method in the article but it’s one-shot. There are interesting proposals to use this for direct capture at industrial facilities and to turn the waste material into bricks for building. The key advantage of this new material appears to be that it can be heated and reused. That would be very valuable in an interior direct air capture use case. Think about filtering the CO2 from an office or a home to get us back to pre-industrial levels indoors.
- yodon 10mo agoDo you have a citation for that 20 years estimate?
- netcraft 10mo agoI was also a bit skeptical, but chatgpt gave a pretty good answer I think: https://chatgpt.com/share/69553e26-ea28-8011-bc17-8658fbea4e04 https://chatgpt.com/share/69553e26-ea28-8011-bc17-8658fbea4e... Buildings with higher people/sqft could already take advantage of indoor co2 scrubbers today.
- idiotsecant 10mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphe... Just extrapolate.
- marcosdumay 10mo agohttps://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ Extending the current exponential for 20 years, we get into the 500ppm region. I don't think that's enough to need scrubbers.
- keepamovin 10mo agoI have an efficient method. It's called plants. Amazon is re-greening
- breakingrules3 10mo ago[dead]
- breakingrules3 10mo ago[dead]
- PeterHolzwarth 10mo agoWell, instead of repeating myself manually, I'll paste in a comment of mine here from a past discussion on carbon capture: It's easy to forget why there is a bit of a challenge to getting C02 out of the air: there's so little of it, comparatively. In order, air is, broadly, made up of the following: Nitrogen: %78.084 Oxygen: %20.946 Argon: %00.934 CO2: %00.042 The stuff is essentially beyond a rounding error - it really gives one an appreciation of the "either don't release it, or capture it at the point of release" sentiment, and for the difficulties in making carbon capture outside of these scenarios be even slightly cost-effective.
- saubeidl 10mo agoWhat if one started emitting Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon in the right proportions instead to get the mix right again?
- dotancohen 10mo agoThese gases are refined from air to begin with.
- saubeidl 10mo agoDo they need to be?
- avianlyric 10mo agoWhere else are they going to come from? They’re all basic elements, either you separate them from air, or you have to go through an energy intensive process to liberate them from various chemicals they’ve been compounded into. But guess what, all of those chemicals are extremely valuable, such as nitrates for fertiliser, water, and Argon does really react with anything (it’s a noble gas), which is why we use it as a shield gas in processes like welding. So producing enough of those gases to somehow offset CO2 production would first require ludicrously large amounts of energy, and if we had access to that amount of clean energy we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Plus it requires breaking down really valuable chemicals that we spend quite a lot of energy trying to produce or preserve anyway.
- rwke 10mo agoWithout knowing much about the details of it, this might be interesting to evaluate as a potentially economically more attractive alternative to DAC in the supply chain of e-fuel production?
- jmward01 10mo agoI am not against doing research in this area, please do, it is interesting and likely has many applications but global CO2 removal isn't one of them. Nothing proposed, including this, is within any orders of magnitude of a viable solution. The only solution we have is put less in the air in the first place. This tech looks interesting for transporting CO2 but that doesn't mean it sequesters it and even if sequestration was solved the scales here are massive. If we don't have the political will to reduce the amount going into the air then what makes anyone think we would have the political will to build out some system to capture and sequester? We need to focus more on not putting CO2 into the air and less on trying to take it out.
- nine_k 10mo agoSequestering CO2 where it's highly concentrated, e.g. at power plants or cement factories exhausts, would be one way to emit less.
- LargeWu 10mo agoI've wondered if capturing carbon emissions from industrial-scale compost facilities would be a net positive. It would have the added benefit of the carbon initially being captured by natural organic processes (i.e. growing food), so it avoids the problem of the energy requirements from trying to just pull carbon from the ambient atmosphere. I don't know if this is feasible but I haven't seen any research on it.
- nine_k 10mo agoWhat we need to offset the last 3 centuries of coal use is to reverse the process. Plant large amounts of trees, cut them, burn the hydrogen part of them, producing char and reclaiming some energy, then bury the resulting coal back in the abandoned coal mines.
- LargeWu 10mo agoYeah, that too. There's not going to be one single solution, the problem is just too big for that. The idea with compost is that growing plants for food and dealing with the waste and excess (which is substantial) is something we're already doing, so can we tack carbon sequestration on top of that
- LasEspuelas 10mo agoThis seems like the actual work of the article: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5c13908 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5c13908 And the superbase is 1,5,7-triazabicyclo [4.3.0] non-6-ene It is an anime based technology. Other amines in water-based solutions also get regenerated at about <200C. It is great to find new molecules to do this work but as I usual, these marketing articles sensationalize the actual work.
- lemoncucumber 10mo agoI would’ve expected the research to be coming out of Japan if it’s an anime based technology ;)
- spants 10mo agohow about trees? just a thought.
- paseante 10mo agoThat's the first thing I thought when I read the title. Hey we have already efficient systems for eliminating CO2 from the athmosphere: trees!. The joke tells itself. It seems like we have not yet done the full circle, but we are close.
- ReptileMan 10mo agoJust use lye to baking soda. You could in theory make an efficient roundtrip. Anyway - CO2 in the atmosphere is here to stay. Much more "realistic" approach is to decarbonize the ocean and let the ocean absorb the atmospheric CO2.
- zeristor 10mo agoOne thought I had was to go a very cold place and freeze CO₂ out of the air, about -80°C. There’s the katabatic winds off of the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, which could help things go through. But I soon realised that CO₂ is so potent, that it’s so such a small proportion of the air that not much would be taken out. There’s some renewable storage systems that liquify air, that could remove CO₂ but they don’t mention it;,but air liquification doesn’t seem to be growing fast as an option. The other one from mere A-level chemistry is buffer solutions and using chemical reactions in the Oceans, apart from iron seeding for life, but a chemical that precipitate an insoluble carbonate. Not ideal raining down precipitates, or using the Ocean as a test tube.
- DivingForGold 10mo agoTired of EU "nag screens" ? https://archive.ph/SjcLx https://archive.ph/SjcLx
- moktonar 10mo agoI read somewhere that electrolysis of marine water could emit enough oxygen, while also harvesting hydrogen, to counter CO2 emissions, but I can’t find the source, has anyone heard of it before or am I filling the gaps of my memory with generated garbage?
- cramcgrab 10mo agoTrees!
- m0llusk 10mo agoIt seems like the focus should be on capturing carbon dioxide from the oceans. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is extremely diffuse, but the oceans absorb it in large quantities and as a result it becomes much more dense which makes capture fundamentally more efficient.
- blacksqr 10mo agoThe best carbon capture device is the ocean, and for the last 10 years or so huge amounts of free-floating sargassum seaweed have grown in warm ocean waters around the world. Nobody is certain why the sargassum has appeared in such volume lately, but it's plausible to speculate that increased CO2 in ocean water plays a role. As far as I can see the only remotely efficient way to sequester carbon at scale is to leverage the ocean by gathering the seaweed and dumping it on marginal or desert land, both to trap the carbon and fertilize the soil, thus promoting additional carbon-binding plant growth.
- conductr 10mo agoAs a layman on this topic, but assuming the gathering requires fossil fuel and probably lots of it given the scale, is it feasible to do the gathering in a net negative carbon way? I feel like anything I hear about that teases net negative sequestration at scale eventually falls apart or is found to be akin to a perpetual energy machine that eventually is debunked.
- ethbr1 10mo agoIf only there were a carbon-free method to move vessels across the water.
- tczMUFlmoNk 10mo agoMaybe we could put a wind turbine on the boat, generate electrical power, and use that to power an onboard motor!
- number6 10mo agoOn good days you could use a solar collector to boil water and generate electricity with it
- zahlman 10mo ago> leverage the ocean by gathering the seaweed and dumping it on marginal or desert land Why would it gather more CO2 over there than it does where it already is?
- constantcrying 10mo agoPeople need to keep in mind how rare CO2 is in the atmosphere. It currently is at around 420 ppm and was at around 100 ppm less in the 60s. CO2 is a miniscule part of the atmosphere, which is why large relative changes are caused by human activity. To remove 10ppm of atmospheric CO2 from the atmosphere (which would do nothing to sustainably lower CO2 in the atmosphere) would require processing 10ppm of the entire atmosphere. That is one in 100.000 parts of the atmosphere. The entire atmosphere is around 5x10^18 kg, so we need to process 5x10^13 kg of air. Which is 50 million million (no typo) kilos of air. The industrial task of doing this unfathomably large and by itself would have no long term Impact. Human fabricated carbon capture from ambient air is a complete fools errand only promoted by the scientific illiterate or those who benefit from scientific illiteracy. You can essentially just look at the first graph on wikipedia and see that it is never going to work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphere_of_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphe...
- tasty_freeze 10mo agoThe article doesn't mention the energy costs directly. The fluid is good for at most 100 cycles, probably less, to release the captured CO2 requires heating the fluid to 70C, and then you still have the problem of disposing the CO2 in some way. All cost energy. A given locale has some metric, based on local generation sources, for grams of CO2 emitted per kWh or whatever. How much CO2 is released to capture 1 gram of CO2? If it is close to a gram or more, this is not worth considering. Maybe one day zero-carbon energy sources become so inexpensive we could contemplate wide-scale CO2 capture, but we aren't anywhere close yet.
- -warren 10mo agoSounds like this would be great on a long haul space mission where carbon capture is small scale, but very important!
- namuol 10mo agoKeep it in the ground.
- WalterBright 10mo agoNever mind the CO2 released in making the ingredients and recycling them. Just plant a tree, harvest it to make lumber. The article's method might be useful in a submarine or spacecraft.
- Jackblack1929 10mo agoStorage vaults for biogenic carbon is likely the most energy and cost efficient way to sequester carbon at this time. Wet vaults for biochar and dry vaults for carbon casting blocks are promising. These methods can help mitigate embodied emissions related to low carbon energy sources such as renewables and batteries. Also, it can buy time for concrete and steel to decarbonization while clean infrastructure scales. These carbon capture methods are modular, deployable across wide geographies, biomass agnostic, and have low energy inputs in comparison to DAC and point source capture. The trick will be avoiding land use diversion while maximizing photosynthesis across all not agricultural lands. This method can also be useful for carbon currency creation which I believe is a precursor for atmospheric GHG stabilization.
- Jackblack1929 10mo agoSubsurface storage vaults for biogenic carbon is likely the most energy and cost efficient way to sequester carbon at this time. Wet vaults for biochar and dry vaults for carbon casting blocks are promising. These methods can help mitigate embodied emissions related to low carbon energy sources such as renewables and batteries. Also, it can buy time for concrete and steel to decarbonization while clean infrastructure scales. These carbon capture methods are modular, deployable across wide geographies, biomass agnostic, and have low energy inputs in comparison to DAC and point source capture. The trick will be avoiding land use diversion while maximizing photosynthesis across all not agricultural lands. This method can also be useful for carbon currency creation which I believe is a precursor for atmospheric GHG stabilization.
- rldjbpin 9mo ago> The CO2 captured by the compound can be released by heating the compound at 70 °C in 30 minutes. the time requirement alone makes it tricky to be used directly at the source of carbon emissions. this might be efficient but unsure about effective.