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

Trees

[Futurepower(R)]

There are these things called "trees". They take carbon from the air.

How Do Trees Turn Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen? (April 5, 2018 )

Re:Trees

[Camembert]

And yes, scientists are aware that planting trees will help, but you need an incredible surface of forest to now make a little difference - twice the size of India is what I read a while ago.
Likely multiple techniques will need to be used to be successful. And also a serious effort in reducing new co2 of course.

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.

Re:Trees

[Crashmarik]

So when a tree is mature you are saying you have to chop it down before it dies and decomposes.
Then you should make use of the tree in some fashion that lasts a long time while you plant another tree in its place ?

Hmmmm If only there were ways to do that.

Re:Trees

[MountainSamadi]

Carbon sequestration starts with soil biology. We have already figured out the solution to this problem. The issue is: not many people hear the answer. If we converted big agriculture to a polyculture based system along the lines of permaculture, we could sequester just about all the carbon released in the atmosphere within about a decade. Permaculture systems create soil, sequester carbon and reverse desertification at an incredible rate. We can build soil at a rate of 1-3 inches per year whereas nature normally takes 1,000 years to create 1 inch of soil. Farmers make more money, have more stable and diversified crops and animal products, soil biology is repaired, carbon is sequestered at an incredible rate, water is held in the soil - regulating stream flows, mitigating floods... Come on people. Don't make this harder than it needs to be. We have the answer. I'm actively doing it myself. Hope in a Changing World - Reforesting the Yellow River Basin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:CO2 is not a pollutant

[religionofpeas]

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.

Re:Replace mineral Hydro-Carbon fuel

[mentil]

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.

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 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's not going to work, for many reasons. It took 33 years for the world population to grow from two to three billion people. It took 14 years from three to four billion people, and 13 for the next billion, and we've added a billion per 12 years since then. In the 50 years since 1974, the world population will have doubled. Asia's population growth has not slowed down. Africa's population has grown past one billion and it's growing at an increasing rate. Whatever you save in energy consumption by changing your lifestyle will be more than eaten up by the rapidly increasing world population. Just to give you a glimpse of what kind of lifestyle changes we're talking about here: People in the US use approximately twice as much energy as Europeans on average. Standards of living are mostly the same, so an energy reduction by half should be doable in the US. On your mark, get set, GO! Do you think you can reduce your energy consumption by half within a decade? And everybody else's in the US? But we know that's not nearly enough. To really make up for the consumption of a world population that doubles within 50 years and wants to live as well as westerners do, the global lifestyle would have to make do with a tiny fraction of today's average energy consumption in the western world. Forcing that kind of change onto people will lead to wars, plain and simple. Ironically, the death toll from these wars would be a big step towards solving the problem, but only the most cynical would choose that path for that reason.

Carbon sequestration is a shitty idea that will take too long to scale up, if it can be scaled up sufficiently at all, but it's still better than telling people to "change their lifestyle", because that has absolutely no chance of working. The solution must involve getting population growth under control globally and reducing the world population to sustainable levels. People don't like to think about that because it incites images of genocide and fascism, but it's necessary, so we better find a way to achieve it that does not involve totalitarianism and war.

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....

Grasslands, not trees

[Pollux]

I know everyone is joking about trees, but a much more effective way, according to many researchers including this guy, are by restoring grasslands.