Scientists Push For Government Research Program Focused On Sucking Carbon From Air

In a 369-page report, the nation's leading scientific body (consisting of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine) is urging the federal government to begin a research program focused on developing technologies that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in order to help slow climate change. It is now believed that in order to avoid significant further warming of the planet, big chunks of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may need to be removed. The New York Times reports: The panel's members conceded that the Trump administration may not find the climate change argument all that compelling, since the president has disavowed the Paris Agreement. But, Dr. Pacala said, it's quite likely that other countries will be interested in carbon removal. The United States could take a leading role in developing technologies that could one day be worth many billions of dollars.

Right now, there are plenty of ideas for carbon removal kicking around. Countries could plant more trees that pull carbon dioxide out of the air and lock it in their wood. Farmers could adopt techniques, such as no-till agriculture, that would keep more carbon trapped in the soil. A few companies are building "direct air capture" plants that use chemical agents to scrub trace amounts of carbon dioxide from the air, allowing them to sell the gas to industrial customers or bury it underground. But, the National Academies panel warned, many of these methods are still unproven or face serious limitations. There's only so much land available to plant new trees. Scientists are still unsure how much carbon can realistically be stored in agricultural soils. And direct air capture plants are still too expensive for mass deployment. One solution that the National Academies panel recommended was for the United States to set up programs to start testing and deploying carbon removal methods that look ready to go, such as negative emissions biomass plants, new forest management techniques or carbon farming programs.

"At the same time, federal agencies would need to fund research into early-stage carbon removal techniques, to explore whether they may one day be ready for widespread use," reports the NYT.

Comments

Lifestyle changes, anyone ?

[vikingpower]

Only weeks ago, the most alarming IPCC report ever was published, stating that very drastic measures, at a planetary scale, are necessary in a very short time frame, to keep global warming at less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. In the Neherlands, in the wake of this report, environmental ngos scoffed at corporations advocating exactly this approach, as it would, they fear, give them a blank check to keep polluting and not do anything about the root of the climate change problem: emisison of CO2. And although I would advocate the measure (and developing the technology for sure would be a cool thing), I do indeed see a problem here. Relying on CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) could make entire societies dependent upon it, a bit like taking fentany for a toothache, instead of doing the sensible thing and going to the dentist. Donella Meadows, in her seminal book "Thinking in Systems", names this as one of the classical "system traps".

Re: Lifestyle changes, anyone ?

[MachineShedFred]

Answer: basically all of them in the US, and more around the world. But any new reactors would be so-called generation-4 which have better safety systems. I doubt they are as safe as the nuclear industry is trying to sell, but they are sure as shit safer than the 40+ year old BWRs that are having licenses uprated and extended because we aren't building anything new.

Re:Lifestyle changes, anyone ?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and even Fukushima, were yesterday's nuclear power.

Chernobyl: a deliberate attempt by a government to SIMULATE a meltdown. Turns out the "simulation" was a bit too good. Fewer than 200 direct casualties, mostly the firefighters dealing with the fire caused by the "simulation". Worst nuclear accident in history. Caused approximately 1/30th of the deaths that routine traffic fatalities caused during the same two days....

Fukushima: massive tsunami. First nuclear-related casualty happened a few months ago, as I recall seeing in the news. Total casualties approximately 1/6000000th of the deaths caused by routine traffic accidents from tsunami to first casualty.

Three Mile Island. No casualties. No release of radioactivity.

There is a little known accident involving a test reactor that killed three people in the USA back in the day. The reactor fit into a 55 gallon drum, and one of the three guys doing the routine maintenance didn't follow procedures, and killed himself and two other guys trying to do the routine maintenance.

So, the four (known - there is evidence that the USSR may have had another accident back in the 50's, but it's purely circumstantial, since the USSR wasn't big on admitting failures it could hide back then) worst nuclear accidents in history collectively produced less than 10% of the casualties that routine traffic accidents worldwide will cause TODAY! In fact, fewer traffic fatalities than will happen in the USA today, quite likely.

Somehow, I cannot see nuclear power as all that dangerous, even if you're talking reactors designed 50+ years ago....

Re:Trees

[blindseer]

Efficiency of photosynthesis is low.

I suggest that instead of just pointing out why you think something won't work that you also provide an alternative.

Trees will eventually decompose.

Yes, they do compose. In between the time the trees die and when they decompose they are storing carbon. Dr. Patrick Moore says growing trees is a very good idea on storing carbon. Dr. Moore has degrees in biology and ecology so I'm going to believe him over some random person posting something on the internet.

We don't have sufficient areas with good growing conditions for trees.

Dr. Moore disagrees. Do you have a better idea? I heard from another person with a PhD that suggests mining basalt and using it as fertilizer as a means to sequester CO2, Dr. Darryl Seimer. Basalt contains lime and when exposed to the air it turns to limestone. Farmers use a lot of lime in their fields to control pH but the most common sources involve producing a lot of CO2. There isn't a lot of basalt mined for lime because it is a very hard rock, but if we can make it economic to mine then that can remove a lot of CO2 from the air.

Oh, and both Dr. Moore and Dr. Seimer believe we need to use nuclear power to stop producing so much CO2. I will take the word from these people that are highly knowledgeable on the topic over so many more that believe we can solve this problem without nuclear power. Science is not something decided by a vote so I don't much care if 99.7% of people say otherwise. Science is base on fact, not popularity. A popular vote for something wrong just means a lot of people are wrong. If someone wants to prove these doctors are wrong then all it takes is one person with better facts.