Carbon capture from the air
gerh...@aston.ac.uk
carbon cycle implies for policy decisions"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/how-much-co2-emission-is-too-much/#more-368
What I find interesting is the implicit assumption that only nature can
take carbon out of the air, apparently even over hundreds or thousands
of years, once humanity has stopped emitting carbon.
Clearly, that is not so. We can take carbon from biomass for example
and bury it.
In fact, given sufficient energy, we can take carbon directly from air
and bury it.
I think this should feature in scenarios for future carbon levels, as
should in some form the possibility of less energy intensive ways of
taking out carbon (primarily I am thinking of techniques to enhance the
weathering of rocks).
Alastair McDonald
> take carbon out of the air, apparently even over hundreds or thousands
> of years, once humanity has stopped emitting carbon.
Only nature will take CO2 out of the air if we do not act.
> Clearly, that is not so. We can take carbon from biomass for example
> and bury it.
Buried biomass turns into methane which escapes to the surface as an even
more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
What we can do is sink wooden logs in water - sea or lakes, and so begin its
metamorphism into coal.
> In fact, given sufficient energy, we can take carbon directly from air
> and bury it.
We would have to burn more carbon in the fossil fuels used to provide the
energy than we could remove from the air. Nature's methos of photosynthesis
is far more practical. However, plans have already been made to trap the
high concentrations of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning power
stations, which is effective, but if the CO2 buried under pressure were to
escape it would suffocate those living near the burial site.
> I think this should feature in scenarios for future carbon levels, as
> should in some form the possibility of less energy intensive ways of
> taking out carbon (primarily I am thinking of techniques to enhance the
> weathering of rocks).
How do you propose to do speed up a geological process that acts on a
timescale of millions of years?
I am sure that all practical solutions to the problem will be discussed in
the Mitigation section of the latests IPCC report due out early next year.
Cheers, Alastair.
John McCormick
[plans have already been made to trap the high concentrations of carbon
dioxide from fossil fuel burning power stations, which is effective,
but if the CO2 buried under pressure were to escape it would suffocate
those iving
near the burial site.]
A not insignificant fact is that the volume of CO2 emissions from US
electric generation stations in 2005 exceeded 268 cubic miles. Then,
add the CO2 emissions from the proposed 154 coal fired plants with a
combined 93 GW of net generating capacity. And, finally pump that
volume into the earth every year.
Is sequestration in deep geologic formations a remedy for sea level
rise?
John L. McCormick
Hoggle
resorting to either burning fossil fuels or complicated sequestration
methodologies.
The simplest is to promote the growth of seaborne organisms that turn
CO2 into carbonate shells and then fall to the seabed to form -
eventually - limestone and chalk layers (perhaps even future oil
deposits). Any method that does this can use wave, tide, solar and wind
power easily enough.
My own idea, derived from the work of an Australian scientist, is to
mass-produce free-floating wave-powered pumps to pump nutrient-rich
cold seawater from the depths of the oceans, allowing oases of life to
form around them and capture carbon on a growing and continuous scale.
More info here
http://climatechangepolitics.blogspot.com/2006/08/floating-oases-of-sinking-carbon.html
gerh...@aston.ac.uk
I live (West Bromwich) and work (Birmingham).
Interesting points, and yes, it is striking that most of the world's
oceans are less fertile than the Sahara or the Antarctis.
Michael Tobis
profit versus coal.
It's not enough to show that it is possible to remove CO2 from the
atmosphere and sequester it effectively in enormous amounts over very
long time scales, though that is difficult enough. It is necessary to
show that the energy in doing so is much less than the energy obtained
from the least carbon-efficient source.
Failing this, the owners of that resource will continue to want put
carbon into the environment at a profit and force the rest of us to
pay for it at a loss.
If we try to tax them out of business they will do exactly what they
are doing, which is to confuse the public and prevent a sensible
solution from emerging.
I would rather not reward them for this behavior, but I would put
saving us from catastrophe ahead of that. We will be saved if there is
a way to burn coal and sequester carbon in a way that releases almost
as much net energy and costs hardly more than the conventional coal
cycle without sequestration.
Carbon sequestration proposals need to make more sense,
environmentally, energetically and economically, than leaving the coal
in the ground. I am not optimistic about such a solution but I am very
strongly in favor of it, if it might actually exist.
Absent that happy but unlikely outcome, every sensible policy I have
heard of is a direct economic threat to coal interests.
I have never heard anyone propose a way to pay the owners of coal
resources to keep the coal in the ground. I'm wondering if that should
be considered.
mt
Alastair McDonald
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com>
To: <global...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 7:02 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 916] Re: Carbon capture from the air
>
> Any carbon sequestration approach must operate at a substantial energy
> profit versus coal.
The problem is that the cheapest (most economic) way is to change
nothing! But to solve the problem of a future catastrophy will involve
a major expense, and a reduction in everyone's energy consumpton.
Everything else is just hand-waving.
Cheers, alastair.
Hoggle
> Any carbon sequestration approach must operate at a substantial energy
> profit versus coal.
I have no idea what your logic is to justify this. The goal of carbon
capture from the air is to remove CO2 and reduce concentrations. This
is not an energy-producing activity. It is a geo-engineering activity,
which must be paid for but has no important product other than a
reduction of global CO2 levels. Discussing energy profits does not seem
even relevant.
As it happens, there is a mechanism for (theoretically) forcing coal
burners to reduce their net CO2 emissions. The EU ETS cap and trade
mechanism would allow people burning coal to compare the costs of dirty
coal with clean coal. It appears to be working because Centrica is
developing a full scale clean coal plant.
What is more, we can all help. If everyone on this list were to buy ETS
certificates and have them deleted from the system - perhaps as
Christmas presents - that would represent a few hundred tonnes of
carbon that would have to be not emitted, sequestered or paid for. If
everyone in the world bought one certificate per year (they currently
cost around 12 euros) then the capped industries of Europe would have
to emit zero carbon or pay a fine for every tonne they emit.
What would happen in practice is that the price would go up until it
exceeded the cost of the fine, although the company's cap would be
reduced in the following year as well.
So, as soon as I find a broker who is actually selling certificates -
rather than just promising to - I will be urging everyone I know to buy
them as Christmas presents for me, and buying them for them in return.
I would suggest you all do likewise.
Hoggle
> I notice that you are from Redditch, just around the corner from where
> I live (West Bromwich) and work (Birmingham).
Hi - are you aware of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateChangeWM ?
I'm a lurking member as I have other comittments, but they sent a coach
to London the other day and appear fairly active.
Hoggle
something completely different, the concept is already advanced in
development using fixed coastal installations such as the NELHA
pipeline. I've updated my blog accordingly with a new entry.
Coby Beck
"Hoggle" <ad...@co2emissions.org.uk> wrote in message
news:<1163165830....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
For a very similar idea with a different purpose, see this sci.environment
thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_frm/thread/45c9403e278
3d608/
The author of the paper joined the discussion, and I could send you a copy
of the paper if you're interested.
Coby
gerh...@aston.ac.uk
stopped emitting CO2, say in 2080 or 2150 or whenever. Do we then wait
passively for CO2 concentrations to fall, as the CO2 is absorbed by
natural sinks, while Antarctica melts and sea levels rise by 10m per
century, or do we do something about it, like say take CO2 out of the
air ourselves?
(ok, as a technophile myself, I might want to take the benefits of the
high CO2 and do something else about the rising sea levels, like say
space based mirrors ;-)