Scientists Find Way To Make Mineral Which Can Remove CO2 From Atmosphere (phys.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Scientists have found a rapid way of producing magnesite, a mineral which stores carbon dioxide. If this can be developed to an industrial scale, it opens the door to removing CO2 from the atmosphere for long-term storage, thus countering the global warming effect of atmospheric CO2. This work is presented at the Goldschmidt conference in Boston. Now, for the first time, researchers have explained how magnesite forms at low temperature, and offered a route to dramatically accelerating its crystallization. A tonne of naturally-occurring magnesite can remove around half a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere, but the rate of formation is very slow. The researchers were able to show that by using polystyrene microspheres as a catalyst, magnesite would form within 72 days. The microspheres themselves are unchanged by the production process, so they can ideally be reused. Project leader, Professor Ian Power from Trent University in Ontario added: "Using microspheres means that we were able to speed up magnesite formation by orders of magnitude. This process takes place at room temperature, meaning that magnesite production is extremely energy efficient. For now, we recognize that this is an experimental process, and will need to be scaled up before we can be sure that magnesite can be used in carbon sequestration (taking CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently storing it as magnesite). This depends on several variables, including the price of carbon and the refinement of the sequestration technology, but we now know that the science makes it do-able."

Comments

Techno Salvation

[js290]

...is a faith based proposition. Nature already has a way to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere for long term storage: trees. Start planting trees on the monocrop, annual farmlands.

Re:Techno Salvation

[GameboyRMH]

The trouble is that trees store carbon far, far slower than we dig it up. You cannot stabilize CO2 levels on human-relevant timescales with trees alone, artificial CO2 sequestration is absolutely necessary.

Re:Techno Salvation

[Oswald McWeany]

The trouble is that trees store carbon far, far slower than we dig it up. You cannot stabilize CO2 levels on human-relevant timescales with trees alone, artificial CO2 sequestration is absolutely necessary.

They would be part of a good long term strategy even if they're not a good short term strategy and not the answer by itself.

Like most complex problems- the best answer is probably a multi-directional approach.

Re:Techno Salvation

[pr0t0]

I can't tell if this is humor, sarcasm, or trolling.

But since trees can and will both decay and burn, they are not a long-term solution. Plus it would take so many trees that you would have to destroy most natural ecosystems and farmland for us to plant our way out of the 2-degree rise by 2100 even with really productive plants like poplar trees and switchgrass.

Tree planting can help some though, particularly in equatorial regions. Like most things, rarely are the solutions simple to very complex problems. A multi-pronged attack with rapid reduction in fossil fuels, in combination with various CO2 sequestration efforts (like biomass) appears to be the quickest, most effective approach at the moment.

Re:Techno Salvation

[Zocalo]

Of course, it would be really nice if you could use the magnesite for useful stuff as well, and ideally supplanting something else that actually emits CO2 like concrete for a win-win. According to Wikipedia Magnesite is mostly used for kiln linings, underfloor layers (screed), the production of some forms of rubber, and (after colouring and polishing) jewelery, so hardly a massive volume product at present. If we're going to produce a few gigatons of the stuff we might want to find something more useful to do with it in bulk, but even sticking it in/on the ground by breaking it up into smaller chunks and using it for road or rail beds, or even decorative garden/driveway gravel would be a start.

Re:Techno Salvation

[GameboyRMH]

Sequestering atmosphere to trap a trace gas that's mixed in at ~400ppm seems very wasteful by volume, 99.9996% of the gas you'd be trapping would be stuff you don't need to trap. You'd be doing far more atmospheric thinning than CO2 sequestering.

Cue the real anti-science masochists flagellation

[raymorris]

And now it's once again time for those who scream "you're anti-science!" to rail against scientific solutions to the sins they religiously flagellate themselves for, when they aren't feeling smugly superior for bringing a bag to grocery store.

Include magnesium in the energy balance

[shayd2]

Just where do they propose to get the magnesium? At what energy cost?

Re:Might take a while

[The Grim Reefer]

So one tonne of this mineral will remove 5 tonnes of atmospheric CO2 per year.

I'm assuming that you missed the decimal point. One tonne of it will remove 1/2 or .5 tonnes of CO2. Which is still impressive.

I didn't RTFA, but I'm wondering if the mineral can be used for some sort of construction. As you stated, it's going to take an awful of it to be effective, and it would seem to be silly if we're just going to have to pile it up somewhere. I'm wondering if it could be used as a building material, or insulation. If not perhaps we can build a gigantic statue of Bender,Or a mount Everest sized pyramid.

Don't be a dick all your life

[Viol8]

FFS, 80% of the earths surface is covered in water which is constantly evaporating as part of the water cycle.

"hundreds of tons per day of water vapor from the atmosphere"

Wow, that much! Newsflash - More than 1 million tons PER SECOND evaporates into the atmosphere. Google it. Thousands of tons of water is probably already taken out of the atmosphere each day just due to air conditioner condensation you moron.

You're an idiot, go get yourself an education.

Re:Might take a while

[burtosis]

I'm worried that process would release .5 tons CO2 per ton of mineral produced. I'd like to see a feasibility study on the footprint of the process.

Fallacy of Excluded Middle

[luis_a_espinal]

By the time they'd have an effect, severe permanent damage would have already been done.

This (quite possible) scenario doesn't preclude us from planting more trees, does it?

I mean, we should be planting more trees as a matter of course in conjunction with other measures to reduce CO emissions (at best) - or regardless of how much we fuck up on that front (at worst.)

Planting a damned tree actually cost little, specially if one were to pick moderate fast growing hardy species (like Moringa or Gumbo Limbo, depending on the climate.).

Doesn't even need to be trees, but hedges that can provide either wind barriers or foliage to cattle.

We don't even need to guarantee that a tree reaches adulthood, we just need green bodies to consume CO2. We could implement a "minnow spawn" approach and throw fast growing tree seeds already prepped to germinate by the millions on rows. Large numbers of disposable seeds would guarantee trees would grow.