Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
There are these things called "trees". They take carbon from the air.
How Do Trees Turn Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen? (April 5, 2018 )
Just because CO2 helps plants grow does not mean it's not a pollutant. It is possible for things to have multiple properties, sometimes even conflicting ones.
Water also helps plants grow. That doesn't mean we should welcome flooding.
Carbon capture of the hot air coming from Washington's mouth-breathers would be even more efficient. Some of them definitely need scrubbers attached to their mouths.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
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".
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Just because CO2 helps plants grow does not mean it's not a pollutant. It is possible for things to have multiple properties, sometimes even conflicting ones.
Water also helps plants grow. That doesn't mean we should welcome flooding.
Right, because going from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is equivalent to flooding. Natural variation is far greater than this. Photosynthesis requires CO2 concentrations above about 150 ppm, so right now plants are starved of CO2 and going so high as double what we have now would be beneficial to plant life. There is a point of diminishing returns. There is a point of CO2 becoming a hazrd to animal life and that would be about 5000 ppm, or more than ten times current levels.
We are very far from "flooding" the air with CO2.
I know everyone is joking about trees, but a much more effective way, according to many researchers including this guy, are by restoring grasslands.
Maybe it's more effective, isn't it?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Renewable energy, such as off peak wind & solar could be used to to make hydrocarbon fuel from water and carbon dioxide. It would be carbon neutral and replace our dependency on mineral hydrocarbon fuel. Longer term we could remove atmospheric CO2.
Research plants for this are emerging now.
This is, no lie, the dumbest idea in liquid fuels today. It's dumb because it's grossly inefficient. There are literally only three biofuels which make any sense. All of them can be made from algae, although it only really makes sense for two of them.
Sensible biofuel number one is diesel fuel. It comes in two subsets, green diesel and biodiesel. Green diesel is made by cracking lipids in a fractional distillation column just as you would crude oil. Biodiesel is made through transesterification of fatty acids. The latter takes less energy to produce, but is only suitable in warm climates due to its high gel temperature.
Number two is butanol. It's made by bacteria in a process that also produces acetone and ethanol, which can also both be used as motor fuels. We would have been able to buy it by now in at least small quantities if not for BP and DuPont's company Butamax suing Gevo to prevent them from producing it. It's a 1:1 replacement for gasoline, and you can get the octane pretty high by blending it with acetone (which also makes it burn very cleanly.)
Fuel number three is methane. Tons of methane are permitted to simply escape into the atmosphere from numerous processes, notably the decomposition of poop. Feed lots typically sluice collected crap into a pond where it sits for an inadequate period of time "cooking" before it is pushed into a waterway which we use downstream for drinking water. If you instead put it into a big bag (or the equivalent, like AIWPS) then you can capture that methane, and either burn it at the point of production and put the energy onto the grid and/or into storage batteries, or use it in the same way you'd use natural gas. The remainder becomes valuable fertilizer that it is safe to apply directly to food crops, because putting it into an enclosure raises the temperature of decomposition.
The first two fuels make sense because you can produce them cheaply from algae, and you can produce algae anywhere that's not freezing and where you've got access to almost any water. The third fuel makes sense because it is currently being emitted from numerous substantial sources from which it is easy and cost-effective to capture it.
There is actually one time when it might make sense to make fuel from air, and that's for war — insomuch as it makes sense to make war. And it might even make more sense to make diesel fuel than to make hydrogen, not just because our war vehicles run on it already, but also because it's less volatile. But it makes zero sense for civilian purposes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"