Scientists find a way to suck up carbon pollution, turn it into baking soda and store it in the oceans | CNN
By: Laura Paddison (CNN)
Very early in the process but a seemingly doable idea is nonetheless encouraging. Given the irrational denial of AGW, a cooperative societal solution has never seemed likely. Hopefully science and technology can come through for us.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Scientists have set out a way to suck planet-heating carbon pollution from the air, turn it into sodium bicarbonate and store it in oceans, according to a new paper.
The technique could be up to three times more efficient than current carbon capture technology, say the authors of the study, published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances.
Tackling the climate crisis means drastically reducing the burning of fossil fuels, which releases planet-heating pollution. But because humans have already pumped so much of this pollution into the atmosphere and are unlikely to sufficiently reduce emissions in the near term, scientists say we also need to remove it from the air.
Nature does this - forests and oceans, for example, are valuable carbon sinks - but not quickly enough to keep pace with the amounts humans are producing. So we have turned to technology.
One method is to capture carbon pollution directly at the source, for example from steel or cement plants.
But another way, which this study focuses on, is "direct air capture." This involves sucking carbon pollution directly out of the atmosphere and then storing it, often by injecting it into the ground.
The problem with direct air capture is that while carbon dioxide may be a very potent planet-heating gas, its concentrations are very small - it makes up about 0.04% of air. This means removing it directly from the air is challenging and expensive.
It's a "significant hurdle," Arup SenGupta, a professor at Lehigh University and a study author, told CNN.
Even the biggest facilities can only remove relatively small amounts and it costs several hundred dollars to remove each ton of carbon.
Climeworks' direct air removal project in Iceland is the largest facility, according to the company, and can capture up to 4,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. That's equivalent to the carbon pollution produced by fewer than 800 cars over a year.
The new technique laid out in the study can help tackle those problems, said SenGupta.
The team have used copper to modify the absorbent material used in direct air capture. The result is an absorbent "which can remove CO2 from the atmosphere at ultra-dilute concentration at a capacity which is two to three times greater than existing absorbents," SenGupta said.
This material can be produced easily and cheaply and would help drive down the costs of direct air capture, he added.
Once the carbon dioxide is captured, it can then be turned into sodium bicarbonate - baking soda - using seawater and released into the ocean at a small concentration.
The oceans "are infinite sinks," SenGupta said. "If you put all the CO2 from the atmosphere, emitted every day - or every year - into the ocean, the increase in concentration would be very, very minor," he said.
SenGupta's idea is that direct air capture plants can be located offshore, giving them access to abundant amounts of seawater for the process.
Stuart Haszeldine, professor of carbon capture and storage at the University of Edinburgh, who wasnot involved in the study, told CNN that the chemistry was "novel and elegant."
The process is a modification of one we already know, he said, "which is easier to understand, scale-up and develop than something totally new."
But there may be regulatory hurdles to surmount. "Disposing of large tonnages of sodium bicarbonate in the ocean could be legally defined as 'dumping,' which is banned by international treaties," Haszeldine said.
Others remain concerned about negative impacts on the oceans, which are already under pressure from climate change, pollution and other human activity.
Peter Styring, professor of chemical engineering and chemistry at the University of Sheffield, told CNN: "Unless you've got a full eco-toxic study, then you don't know what it's going to do, even at small concentrations."
Direct air capture also remains expensive and inefficient, Styring said. "This is a big scale problem. Why would you capture from the atmosphere when you've got so much coming out of power stations and industrial plants? It just makes sense to go for the high concentrations first," he said.
Some scientists have expressed concerns that a focus on technology to remove carbon pollution could distract from policies to reduce fossil fuel burning, or could give polluters license to carry on polluting.
But given the scale of the climate crisis, there is a big push from governments and international bodies to scale up this technology.
More research will be needed to understand how the method works at scale, Haszeldine said. But it's promising, he added, saying "the world needs lots of this type of discovery."
SenGupta said the technology is ready to be taken out of the lab and trialed. "This is the time to go forward and do something in maybe two or three different places around the world. Let other people get involved, find faults, improve on it, and then proceed accordingly," he said.
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
Definitely something to watch.
multiple CO2 extraction process' are a foregone conclusion in the future.
Indeed. It seems both promising and fascinating.
That's a lot of ocean water to go through.
Sounds promising.
Interesting, hopefully we'll hear/see more about this in the near future.
how many BTU's and carbon will a rwnj produce?
... it was a semi serious question...
This could have the potential to also slow the rising acidity in the oceans. Of course, it could also backfire and create the worlds largest science project volcano. Yikes!
I was thinking the same - double the bang for our buck.
Except... Volcano!
Why are you against fun with science?
You're making me giggle
I clean my hummingbird feeders with white vinegar and baking soda....it's fun!
Think, "Theme Park."...?
Actually, when Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCO3) "foams", it is releasing the carbon molecule in the form of CO2, so they don't want that at all. What they must be looking for is more of a buffering action, or perhaps conversion into some type of carbonate mineral like calcite (CaCo3) or dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2. Warm water increases the deposition of carbonates , cold water will slow or reverse the process.
I wonder which would be optimal for the release? It seems that the cold water would allow for the maximum CO2 storage in water, but if the CO2 in solution is to be reliably sequestered, would it not be better to have it in a mineral form?
Experimentation time.
"But because humans have already pumped so much of this pollution into the atmosphere and are unlikely to sufficiently reduce emissions in the near term, scientists say we also need to remove it from the air. The problem with direct air capture is that while carbon dioxide may be a very potent planet-heating gas, its concentrations are very small - it makes up about 0.04% of air. This means removing it directly from the air is challenging and expensive."
Yet another dumb idea. The atmosphere will likely warm until another glacial era is upon us. Humankind's efforts to cut back on carbon emissions can only go so far. Otherwise, we go back to living in the Dark Ages. And continuing to spend billions upon billions of bucks upon this not immediate problem is a terrible of waste of taxpayer dollars.
It makes more sense to adapt and prepare for whatever is to come....than by futile efforts to limit the use of fossil fuels. Too many cars, busses, trucks, farm and other heavy equipment, trucks, trains, ships, and planes currently in the world to ever to go back to the good old days. Continued research into practical uses of hydrogen and nuclear options would be prudent.
What scientific facts do you offer to demonstrate that this is a "dumb idea"? You claim that this is futile. Enlighten us all as to why this is "futile" in scientific terms based on scientific facts. Mere claims have no value.
Greg's position seems to be that we shouldn't even try. Make no effort whatsoever. Laziness.
No....use common sense and find real solutions.
But that would require that climate change true believers have a tad of intelligence and critical thinking skills, and come up with some practical and doable solutions.
What is your scientific basis for deeming the approach of this seed to not be a potential "real" solution?
Your comments suggest that you will dismiss anything that does not come from your source of talking points. You deem this impractical yet do not offer the science behind your declaration.
How are you going to bring water back to the southwest? Since people like me don't have a tad of intelligence or anything, what is your world changing solution?
Come on Greg, where is that solution because we are all idiots. The southwest, about 50 million people, need water, you have solutions.....
I'm not sure I'd go so far as "dumb idea", but the math in the article isn't very promising and the scientific critics in the article raise valid points.
The whole "why not capture carbon at the point of emission" seems a perfectly legitimate question, along with "how do we know we're not fucking up the ocean worse than we already have"?
You also have to wonder if it would ever be cost-effective. It's currently "several hundred dollars per ton". These machines are supposedly 3x as efficient, so we're down to $100/ton(ish). I just don't think we get to viability without some additional major breakthroughs.
I'm not saying the research should not go forward, but reforestation just seems simpler, cheaper, easier, more effective, and ready to go.
Reforestation alone can at best make a dent. We need to explore innovations like this to see if we can scale them up into practical additional solutions.
I agree on both of those points.
But it's a helluva dent, it lasts a very long time, it also takes a very long time, it's easy, cheap, and nobody has a political objection to more trees.
I am absolutely in favor of reforestation but it is woefully inadequate in a 20 year horizon. Much better when we consider longer periods of time.
None of this matters if we do not control our emissions. We unfortunately actually have the means to ruin our environment and too many people dismiss the problem thereby hindered large scale, shorter term efforts such as a practical and consistent move towards renewables and capture of CO2 at its source and in the atmosphere.
Fair enough. But we need to start it now for it to be working in 20 years. Just like we need to be conducting research on capture now for it to be viable in 20 years.
Also fair enough. We're going to need to revisit nuclear, as well.
Nuclear fusion now looks promising since we recently achieved net energy gain in the labs. Many practical problems remain such as improving the efficiency of the lasers which create the containment/pressure field which triggers the reaction, but at least we have the confidence that nuclear fusion is doable.
They shouldn't anyway. But trees aren't always reliable. Wind storms, lightning strikes and tornadoes are a tree's worst nightmare
We don't need to wait on fusion. Fission works well enough to power the US Navy and the country of France.
Not suggesting we wait. Fusion, however, is far better in that it does not produce radioactive byproducts. A practical fusion generator technology will have a game-changing impact.
It becomes a large numbers thing.
One fully grown tree eats about 48lbs of carbon/yr, so we're going to need to plant millions of them, if not tens of millions of them. You need about 80 trees to match one of these absorption plants. Even if a tornado takes out a few, the rest will carry on. If a tornado hits the carbon plant, you have to start over completely.
Apparently, the best ones to plant are live oaks because they live so long. They're also particularly storm resistant. That's even more convenient because they grow naturally and easily in places where we have vast amounts of space to plant them, like Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, etc.
But that really illustrates the main problem with this carbon capture plant. What does it cost to build one of these carbon plants? Now what does it cost to plant 80 trees? (you can buy 50 saplings for less than $100 retail) What does it cost to operate the carbon plant? How about maintaining the trees? It's not close.
I'm all for trees. The only problem is, saplings can take years or even decades to become fully grown trees. A carbon plant can be a solution in the interim and even supplement the effects of current grown and growing trees.
we've been using genetically altered yellow pine in construction for quite a while. it grows a lot faster, but it's not as strong in structural situations.
funny how the opposition to green solutions is mostly the conservative demographic that will be the least affected by any remedies in the not too distant future.
Starting to feel pretty fucking immediate here in the southwest with water reductions being put in place. It will start feeling pretty goddamn immediate to you too when agriculture starts to suffer (we grow A TON of the shit you eat out here). We have had a surprisingly good winter, but that is not even remotely close to addressing our water and drought issues and we absolutely cannot assume a monsoon and winter like this will be the norm.
We're talking about a speculative theory that ignores rational scientific research and development, instead of some wacky ideas that wouldn't work.
So far all you have offered is nuh'uh without a shred of supporting scientific facts.
No, you are just using big words in an attempt to confuse people because you really don't have anything to say.
You said climate change isn't an immediate problem, I am telling you that it absofuckinglutely is. I am not talking scientific theory, or predictive models, or speculating about what may happen 50 years off or whatever the fuck. I am telling you that right now our rivers are drying up, our aquifers are drying up, rain and snowfall has been far below historical averages for the last 20 years. Cities and the federal government are imposing water restrictions on people because there just isn't enough to go around. You can go on about global warming/climate change isn't a real thing and is all made up, but we are living it [Deleted]
Frankly, if anything can help I say we try it.
We don't have much choice down here.
I'm sure it does, but he's right, it's not an immediate problem.
If we don't solve the Pacific Garbage Patch and microplastic fish in a hurry, half of Asia will starve and the CO2 issue will solve itself.
At some point, we may actually have to tell the people in Southern California to stop trying to grow crops in a desert.
Are any of us really surprised?
We’re old school when it comes to carbon reduction. We plant trees. We’re more or less carbon negative at this point. Wish all you politicians and city slickers would stop being so carbon positive and screwing up my crib.
Not even remotely sufficient. Cannot remember where I read it but basically we would have to cover more than the surface area of the Earth with trees to offset co2 output. The only solution is a massive reduction in co2 output, full stop.
In the real world, at this stage of human development...a "massive" reduction in CO2 output is not scientifically possible.
But it is. I reject your lazy ass, do nothing position.
[Deleted] If global warming is a fixable problem, why aren't libs doing something about it besides throwing the taxpayers money away. .
What a naive and confused question. Across the planet many people are acting to mitigate AGW through smarter practices (e.g. renewables, reducing carbon emissions, conservation, preserving/expanding extant forests (although Sparty @6 writes as though this is the BIG solution ... it is unfortunately a minor, albeit still important, piece), etc. Science and technology continues to explore ways to fight the damage and provide alternatives for continuing society with net negative emissions.
This progress (by far more than simply 'libs') is hindered by people like you who drag their feet and dismiss efforts by the responsible members of the planet. The public is largely in doubt because of the constant efforts by climate change deniers to thwart efforts to be more responsible with our environment.
Why aren't you doing something about it?
I’ve done my part. How about you?
What do you do other than plant trees?
I spent the last 30 or so years pushing high efficiency HVAC equipment and thermally efficient designs.
How about you?
Trying to keep shit down as best I can.
Recycling, use of high efficiency equipment, conservation, moving from gasoline to electrical tools, building a new home making use of solar panels, insulation, geothermal, etc.
Countering AGW misinformation.
Do you hold that planting trees is not enough to combat AGW?
I've used heat pumps for the last 28 years. Installed a roof ridge vent, replaced windows with double pane and have bought fuel efficient vehicles.
I hold to exactly what I originally said in #6 above. If I held the stance in your question, I would have said so.
One wonders why you seem to error on the side of the confrontation when not given a good reason to. I have my theories as to why but I don’t feel like another BS ticket today. Maybe I will tomorrow.
Me to. Try to stay away from gaseous producing foods. Methane is a wicked bad greenhouse gas.
I asked you a question and you leap to deflection and claim that I was being confrontational.
I will assume, given your evasion, that you do indeed believe that all we need do is plant trees and the problem will be solved.
For perspective:
Good lord, my original comment was clear and concise and didn’t even begin to allude that I thought planted trees would completely solve AGW. That is entirely your ridiculous creation so stop trying to put words in my mouth.
That said our family has personally planted about 30,000 trees to date. The carbon negative part of my comment was tongue in cheek but few others here can boast such high personally created carbon sequestration numbers.
And if they can, Bravo Zulu to them.
And that, Sparty, is why I asked the question. I asked my question so as to not presume. You get upset with a mere question, refuse to clarify, and then when I proceed based on your non-answer, you claim I am putting words in your mouth.
... common rwnj MO here.
Bullshit.
You got called out for your nonsense and like usual you try to wordsmith your way out of it. [Deleted]
And thx for responding dev, I had missed her latest bullshit spin.
[Deleted]
we'll never be able to clean the filth from our air and water until we clean the filth from the GOP...
Is there a website feeding you this crap?
Here is what you call 'my' nonsense:
Here ⇡ you state that you plant trees to reduce carbon in the atmosphere; you call it "old school".
The obvious question given @6.
The only measure you mention in @6 is planting trees. So given your refusal to answer and simply redirect to Sparty@6, that implies you do indeed believe that planting trees is sufficient to combat AGW.
Thus ...
Followed by your denial of Sparty@6:
A stupid game you play. You make a statement, dance around to avoid specifics and then deny logical inferences.
Why not simply answer my original question with: "No, I do not believe that planting trees alone is sufficient". That would continue an actual adult conversation and my reply would have been to ask you what other measures you consider important to combat AGW.
So now we have gone through the long, wasteful, snarky protocol to get to the obvious next question:
Other than planting trees, what do you believe are the most important measures we can take to combat AGW?
[deleted]
I clearly stated “carbon reduction” in the first sentence. Not “carbon elimination” in which case one might logically infer I believe planting trees will eliminate global warming. But that is not what I said. I said “Carbon Reduction.”
It’s unbelievably nonsensical to allude that I made that statement with the purpose of claiming it completely solved AGW. So yeah, your claims to otherwise are complete nonsense as my first comment was extremely descriptive if not nitpicked in a hostile and unwarranted manner.
[deleted]
[Deleted]
Other than planting trees, what do you believe are the most important measures we can take to combat AGW?
[Deleted]
"to combat AGW". Maybe we should know for certain that it is AGW and not just GW. If it is the latter, then there is no winnable way to "combat" it.
From what I see in history is, it is the latter, all our "combatting" will be in vain as the next Ice Age approaches.
As for pollution, here in Michigan we went through a "nuclear winter" in the summer and fall of 2020 (or was it 2021, it was when we were in lockdown and all the fires out west were burning), that year we had constant smoke in the atmosphere and the days were cooler, but get this, the nights were warmer, we didn't have our first frost until November 1st and a killing freeze the next day, the normal first frosts usually between the middle and last of September and a for sure killing freeze by October 1st. My garden that year over produced because with the rains came the "pollution" from out west which fertilized the crops.
Science is about as certain about this as it is about anything else. It is known based on well founded and overwhelming evidence that our excess CO 2 levels are a result of our choices.
FYI - it's always been a good idea for the least educated to remain quiet and do more listening.
[deleted]
Is there a way to super impose the CO2 rises with Ice Ages? It looks like we were already heading for a peak prior to the added amounts of CO2 cause by human activity, which to me suggests that CO2 isn't the cause of the problem, it is just the symptom.
As an Ice Age approaches the added snow and ice coverage of the permafrost causes the permafrost to thaw and release more CO2 and methane and an Ice Age is caused by excessive amounts of warmer water in the higher seas as the on land ice sheets and glaciers recede.
Just checked, on average an Ice Age occurs every 100,000 years, so we are now due for one and the historic CO2 rises in NASA's graph corresponds with Ice Ages.
Why bend over backwards to deny the obvious? Why not just follow the evidence we have in front of us? Look at the spike in the chart I provided. We are seeing this occur in a very brief period of time (decades) and you seek to correlate this with events —such as an ice age— that occur in periods of hundreds of thousands of years.
The chart I provided summarizes substantial evidence of human choices affecting the level of CO2 in our atmosphere. It shows a present spike that defies historical CO2 levels going back 800,000 years.
Because denial is all some can do.
What I see as obvious in that chart, is the rise before man's influence like all other rises that correspond to the Ice Ages. CO2 rises and falls and what you are wanting me to believe is that this current rise, before man's influence, is not normal. The evidence I see is that the sea levels are rising and the icesheets are melting and this is what is needed before the next ice age can begin.
I know the CO2 levels are higher because of our activity, but I don't believe that the scientists are correct in their assumptions.
What happens before every Ice Age, the sea levels rise. Where does that extra water come from? Since the earth has a finite amount it has to come from the on land ice and since, when it melts, it is no longer ice and is now warmer water, more warmer water the warmer the climate.
What I am encouraging you do is consider the fact that the worldwide climate scientists who deal with the empirical evidence professionally are telling us that this spike is a result of human decisions. If you consider that, then you might be tempted to dig deeper (well beyond a single chart) and see why they have drawn this conclusion. The supporting details are plentiful.
peak prior to the added amounts of CO2 cause by human activity,
is the rise before man's influence
I know the CO2 levels are higher because of our activity,
It seems I was already in agreement. Digging a little deeper into that single chart, unless NASA is thoroughly mistaken, there is a definite rise prior to man's influence. You're looking back 200 years till now and I'm looking back 200 to 800,000 years ago.
and see why they have drawn this conclusion. The supporting details are plentiful.
Are they using the details and the following conclusion without digging deeper and coming up with an assumption and claiming AGW instead of the natural GW?
You seem to be asking if worldwide climate scientists have leaped to AGW because they did not dig deeper into their own data.
Do you have some point to make?
Why yes there is.
Climate scientists have been warning of the coming climate disasters because of the levels of CO2, but years pass and nothing much happens and the temperature rise doesn't match what they claim it should be by now and the sea levels still rise as they have since the last Ice Age. The CO2 chart, that T,G supplied, shows that CO2 rises with GW as a symptom not a cause, the predicted climate calamities don't happen because to much weight has been put on CO2's effect and not enough on the natural progression of global warming and sea level rise into the next Ice Age.
The only way to get the sea level rises prior to the Ice Ages of the past, which were much higher than they are now, is the ice on Greenland needs to melt as well as some from the Antarctic and everyone is hyperventilating about this as it is occurring, which has occurred before many times in the last 800,000 years, its just the natural water cycle of earth, CO2 has nothing to do with it.
LOL
I sincerely hope the best and brightest of us can bail our species out again.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
So, the plan is to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it to sodium bicarbonate. Where does the sodium come from? There isn't a variety of natural sources of sodium. If the plan is to use salt, sodium chloride, then what happens to the waste chlorine? Chorine gas is nasty stuff. So is hydrochloric acid.
The absorbent only extracts CO2 from the air. That's a mass separation process.
Yeah, that's my question. If sodium chloride is chemically converted to sodium bicarbonate then the waste byproduct will be chlorine. What happens to the chlorine produced as a byproduct?
There are many techniques in the industry. Here is one of many:
T,G, with all due respect, can we pull the shit out of the air and make it into something relatively harmless?
It sure seems that we can.
The next step is to do the engineering and attempt to achieve a solution that is practical, effective and not cost / resource prohibitive.
Interesting.
One wonders how the energy required for such a process squares up with the carbon removed. Unless it is all provided by a green energy source, it would generate CO2 to remove CO2.
Yes, that is an important part of the engineering. The solution in total (the entire system) must be net negative in atmospheric carbon.
Offshore solar and wind farms are already a thing. The power supply for offshore capture plants already exists.
While on a Baltic cruise in 2019 I was impressed by the size and number of solar and wind farms visible from the ship. Europe is getting damn serious about this stuff.
Yep, just as long as it’s NIMBY ..... right?
If you read the article, offshore plants were proposed because there would be a ready supply of sea water, which is the proposed sink for the sodium bicarbonate.
My sister and I drove to Boston a few years ago, and there were solar panels for miles along some highways in Connecticut.
Yes, there are many techniques but the seeded article is presenting only one technique. And the information provided indicates the technique is not a modified Solvay process.
The simple stoichiometry in aqueous conditions would be:
NaCl + CO2 + H2O <==> NHCO3 + HCl
Using salt as a feedstock will produce chlorine as a byproduct; either as chlorine gas or hydrochloric acid. Producing a chloride salt as a byproduct would require another feedstock.
It's also possible to produce methyl dichloride from liquified CO2. Methyl dichloride is a precursor for carbon tetrachloride which could be deep injected to sequester the carbon. But then the sodium would be a byproduct.
Here's an idea -- let's create artificial peat bogs and let nature sequester the carbon. Maybe that approach would be too low tech to grab headlines. And it's kinda hard to patent a peat bog.
Thank you, I am not a scientist nor an engineer so when I start seeing the chemical compounds that make up various molecules.... I am lost lol.
all those concrete sound walls along highways in urban areas would be a good place to put solar panels, back side of the big signs too
Agreed.
Nerm, I get the impression that you are trying your hardest to simply dismiss the seed. The article does not go into the chemical engineering of this proposed solution so instead of being intrigued at the possibility you try to dismiss it because there are ways of approaching this that might be undesirable.
Regardless of your desires, the good solutions will rise to the top. Right now, my interest is in solutions that could be scaled up and work. Thus when discoveries like this (with chemistry) or viable nuclear fusion (with physics) occur, I am encouraged and interested and indeed hopeful that we can apply these at the scale we need.
Yup.
In cities, they could be placed on the rooftops of buildings. Or I've seen solar shingles meant to replace or be placed over asphalt shingles for an entire roof.
Unless I’m missing something, that does nothing to “heat” the process proposed but raises another question.
What would such a massive new influx of CO2 do to the organic chemistry of sea water? The ocean is already a great sink for CO2 sequestration but would increasing the amount of CO2 significantly, via non natural means, cause other issues?
Another good question and a thing that should make us all go hmmmm.....
Asking how the proposed process is going to handle a known and inescapable byproduct is not simply dismissing the seed. Everything that is put into the process must come out of the process. The chlorine won't magically disappear.
Will they? There hasn't been a sterling track record of good solutions. Are we discussing science or politics? Introducing and using political rhetoric to distract from the inadequacies of the science doesn't bode well for good solutions rising the top.
I gave you one approach. There are more out there. If you were truly interested you would do some research.
Those new-fangled, fancy internal combustion engines do not have a sterling track record, they will never replace horses.
Energy supply for the capture plants could easily come from nearby offshore solar or wind farms. The energy source would be green, and close at hand.
As StevieGee mentioned elsewhere, the oceans have been becoming more acidic. Sodium bicarbonate, being alkaline in aqueous solution, may reduce or reverse this problem.
You provided a link to a completely different process. Why not discuss the process described in the seeded article?
What does that have to do with the process presented in the seed article? Such statements sound more like political advocacy for bad science.
The amount of green energy required would be massive to make an appreciable dent in AGW. The energy required just to make the solar and wind systems would be significant as well. Not to mention the natural resources that would be required which take energy to collect as well.
But it sounds like you’ve got it all figured out ......
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
As I said, many are already in place.
Yes, it's very difficult to find salt water at sea.
Not perhaps. For sure.
Not even close to enough and I don’t need to do an engineering study to say that with complete confidence
Nah, what is really easy though is making solar panels from salt .... or wind turbines ... or the structures required to support them .... or ....
You have the number of joules required at hand? Do let us know, and also let us know the shortfall between that and what we can produce.
Oooohh .... joules..... look at you.
Even your average arm chair scientist or engineer realizes that the sheer volume of CO2, which would need to be remove, to actually reduce AGW, would be massive. In turn, the energy required with a process like this would be equally massive. Incalculable really with wild card CO2 emitters like China and India dumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
Yawning now ......
That's a lot of snark to admit you don't.
[deleted]
You'd do well to take your own advice. The snark didn't start with me.
When determining the tonnage of materials required to build a bridge, would it be sufficient if the engineer simply replied that we need a massive amount?
This is indeed a large undertaking. I suspect everyone gets that. But if you are going to dismiss this idea on technical grounds, it is reasonable for one to ask you to be specific on those grounds. You would not dismiss the building of the example bridge with the claim that "it will take a massive amount of structural steel". You would, unless you wish to be fired, produce a sound opinion founded in engineering principles and empirical data.
If all you can offer is "massive" then it is reasonable for your readers to deem your comment to be bullshit.
Nah, I’m not the one who started whining about it so you’d do much better to keep your “advice” to yourself.
Much better .....
A ridiculous analogy.
Comparing building a bridge to removing enough CO2 to stop global warming? The process is nowhere near as complex with many fewer degrees of freedom. How many bridges have been designed, built and are working successfully today? Many. How many global warming stopping CO2 collection systems have been designed, built and are working successfully today? None. Attempting to equate the complexity of the two is a ridiculous comparison.
If you want a real study on this topic, I suggests you seek one out somewhere other that NT. For the purposes of NT. “Massive” illustrates the point I’m making just fine.
That said, opinions from the regular internet experts here are fun to read but useless in practice. Especially when they know theirs opinions mean little to nothing to me.
Yeah, you intentionally missed the point because it illustrated the bullshit behind your comment.
If you are going to dismiss something on engineering grounds then offer the actual engineering factors. Saying "massive" does not offer anything of value and provides no basis for an argument.
So the best you can now offer is to dismiss the analogy and ignore the point. Consider yourself fired.
Is massive like saying the meteor heading to Earth is the size of 18 giraffes?
No but the scientific study to which the seeded article links does indeed go into more detail regarding the stoichiometric process behind this new hybrid sorbent containing polyamine-Cu(II) complex, Polyam-N-Cu 2+
Sounds like it can be applied in both open air levels of C02 concentration (400ppm) as well as in much higher flue gas (say 10,000ppm) concentration applications and still perform 2 to 3 times better than other known DAC processes. The article discusses both the sorption and desorption processes for the proposed method, it's thermodynamic and other energy requirements and the by-products produced compared to other types of DAC. And it certainly looks to demand closer attention and experimentation, including application specific designs and scaling as needed to actually make a difference.
In the meantime, we also need to continue to work the reduction of CO2 production end of the problem. I have seen some promising findings in the development of sustainable fusion energy, and as you know, I am a proponent of nuclear SMR technology which could, if nothing else, provide a bridge that allows us to wean ourselves off fossil fuels in many applications while the demands for electrical power increase and until fusion energy can be effectively harnessed and widely applied.
Lol .... I’ve got decades of successful engineering experience under my belt so don’t really need lectures from people here who likely have none. But thanks for your opinion. My learned opinion is.
My analysis is spot on in scope. No need to go into pre project scope estimation technique because I’m certain it will be lost on most here.
Massively.
Agreed, cold fusion is our greatest, best hope right now IMO. People who are putting their hope in renewables like solar and wind are at best, sticking their finger in a failing dyke.
"I was a professional engineer so whatever I say is correct". What arrogance.
Professional engineers do not dismiss ideas with vague terms like "massive" with no supporting details; engineering is a mathematically precise discipline. A professional engineer would make a quantified case, not engage in Trump-like, vague terms like "massive" or "really big".
Combating AGW is indeed a "massive" project; it is a large-scale operation. Being "massive" does not mean it is infeasible. If you think it is infeasible and want to be convincing as an engineer, you need to provide engineering specifics.
In lieu of that, your opinion (as written) has little merit.
Indeed, the agnorance is appalling (arrogance/ignorance).
Well then, you should understand the preliminary scope concept that is done to insure a given course of action is even appropriate.
It appears that you are not. Which makes one wonder, since such a concept is rudimentary to most design processes.
Your approach to feasibility / preliminary scope is to dismiss this idea merely because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is "massive". That is not engineering, it is coarse grain, simplistic dismissal labeled with elementary school vocabulary ("massive") ... akin to the simplistic labeling we saw from Trump. Yeah, AGW is a "really big" problem and one could cynically dismiss every idea on the grounds that it is a partial solution.
Further, your comments on NT seem to imply you were a civil or mechanical engineer. I have not seen anything where you indicate special expertise in chemistry, chemical engineering or climate engineering.
Once again, all your comments prove here is a tendency to be argumentative for no apparent reason. Nothing more.
My comments haven’t “dismissed” the idea. Feel free to point out where I have said that or stop trying to put words in my mouth. My comments simple point out the massive scope of such a project. Nothing more.
And I don’t need a degree in Chemical or Climate Engineering to make the assessments I’ve made here and your inference that such is required, to make comments you’ve taken issue with, is simply obtuse.
So now you equivocate. Now you claim that all you were doing was to note that combating AGW is a massive project.
Thanks for the brilliant insight.
Does it really matter if the required energy is green or not? The proposed process is attempting to replicate what diatoms are already doing. And they produce their own energy.
If we're going to invest energy in removing atmospheric CO2 then maybe it would be more efficient and effective to expand the capacity of what nature is already doing. Life emerged and evolved in a carbon rich, oxygen depleted atmosphere. That is why the Earth has an oxygen atmosphere, after all. Why do we need mechanical plankton?
No argument to the possibilities. My comments are being trolled by the usuals here. If a process is feasible and will remove “net greenhouse gases” I’m all in.
I’ve made a career out of trying to avoid unintended consequences in design and process. Arm chair experts online and in government are always jumping the gun in this regard without proper knowledge, study and implementation.
No worries though. According to one of those experts, the end of the world is like what. Eight years away?
[✘]
I thought the world ended a decade ago. Wasn't that the projection?
There are all sorts of possibilities. It's possible to break carbon dioxide down to elemental carbon and oxygen. But that would require more energy to achieve than can be supplied by burning carbon.
Using the proposed process to remove one billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would require 1.3 billion tons of salt and produce 1.9 billion tons of sodium bicarbonate. That would account for 14 to 16 pct of the annual emissions of only the United States.
The United States is currently producing 42 million tons of salt. The United States would need to increase salt production by a factor of 45 to remediate less than 20 pct of carbon dioxide emissions. Just because the chemistry is possible doesn't mean deploying the process would be possible.
Current estimates are that the ocean is already absorbing 25 pct of global CO2 emissions. The natural ocean system is already converting atmospheric CO2 to carbonates that are stored in the deep ocean. That system is in place now so the feasibility isn't a question. So, increasing the capacity and efficiency of that existing system would appear to be a better investment than chasing possibilities.
A natural process vs a man made one?
I mean really, what could go wrong?
[✘]
LOL
So, instead of scaling up the process, why not scale it down? Consider that an ICE engine produces heat as a byproduct, is capable of generating electricity, and has the ability to generate either higher pressure or a vacuum. The radiator needed for an ICE engine is similar to a reactor vessel.
While it's true that an ICE engine produces CO2 by combustion, the engine also draws air from the atmosphere (which includes CO2) and moves it through the engine. Increasing the capacity of the process to remove both combustion CO2 and atmospheric CO2 achieves the desired result.
We could deploy millions of small scale units to remove CO2 from the atmosphere by applying a little engineering to what we are already using.
Do you have a source where a scientific proof-of-concept for this has been executed?
The seed article describes a process that separates CO2 from gas and then chemically processes the captured CO2 to produce sodium bicarbonate. The article indicates the process needs an external source of energy to both extract CO2 and operate the chemical process.
An ICE engine can supply mechanical, heat, and electrical energy. An ICE engine must draw in atmospheric air and move the gas through the engine. An ICE engine is designed to move water through the engine to extract heat and dissipate that heat in a self contained vessel.
Supposedly the process described in the seed has demonstrated proof-of-concept. Selection of scale and sources of energy for application of the process is a matter of engineering. If the process requires movement of air, an ICE engine already does that. If the process requires mechanical energy for pumping or mixing, an ICE engine already does that. If the process requires electricity, an ICE engine already generates electricity. If the process requires a pressure vessel, an ICE engine already has a pressure vessel.
If, if and if ... concepts are fine, Nerm, but all concepts (all ideas) need to be validated with at least a proof-of-concept.
Well, if someone does prove the concept, that would be beneficial.
Anybody got any money to loan me? I will get started on that...
As I have said many times, the root cause of climate change is overpopulation. This could slow climate change down or just reduce things while overpopulation gets worse. The root cause must be addressed, this could be good but not enough to handle the load
While sensible, a significant and humane reduction in population will take many generations. We have to take other actions ... even if we actually could somehow turn planetary population growth negative.
Depends on how one looks at it I suppose. Increasing population demands more resources and more production which in turn raises our collective carbon footprint, IF we don't do something to correct it on our own. Ironically, left unchecked this problem could result in the very depopulation that you feel is at the root of climate change. Our planet could correct our overpopulation in its own effort to survive, but that will most certainly be the most painful way of correcting the problem, with the most human suffering.
If I may, perhaps human overpopulation is not the true root cause of climate change, but rather our failure to properly manage such growth with the least impact to the environment is the real culprit. Taking this view leads us to use our brains and figure out ways to mitigate the impact of our growing populations on the environment and help the earth heal before it depopulates itself catastrophically from a human standpoint.
The scientific consensus is that the world population growth is slowing and could top out by the 2080s , which is also a good sign considering ALL of the issues caused by continued significant population growth, the environmental impact key among them.
Given that data, I think it makes more sense to focus on reducing our collective carbon footprint rather than curtailing population growth which is already on that path. That takes two forms; keep working diligently on clean energy alternatives that also minimize impacts on the environment (SMR nuclear and fusion power in my mind), and keep working on technologies that can help us clean up the damage already done (like the idea presented in this article). Humans are in a unique position among the world's animals to think our way out of the very problems we cause and perhaps even some we don't cause. What we lack at this point is the scientific cooperation, investment, and political cooperation to focus on and solve those problems. To me every idea backed by at least some level of scientific scrutiny/analysis is worth considering. Like Bryan Cranston says in the movie Argo, " This is the best bad idea we have sir, by far ." Science, by definition, is the quest for solutions to problems by testing ideas, to find the idea that best solves the problem.
This bicarb approach would require a massive "world wide" effort to even make it worth the investment.
Meanwhile, we can blame climate change on yet another culprit...MOOSE!
Back up your claim.
It's not a claim. just common sense. Do you think moose nibbling on the tender new growth contributes to global warming?
[[deleted]]
It is a claim , Greg. You stating that this approach would require a massive "world wide" effort to even make it worth the investment is a claim .
Claim : " a statement that something is true although it has not been proved and other people may not agree with or believe it "
Many of the comments on this seed address the energy requirements of massive carbon sequestration using off shore wind turbines.
The feasibility of using off shore wind turbines is a proven source of green power that few people would find objectionable.
Butt there is one "expert" on wind turbines who will probably object:
trump's next hat design needs to feature a small wind turbine suspended in front of his mouth...
I like think outside the box solutions to problems. what would be the near future effect to our climate if all the climate change deniers suddenly stopped breathing? /s
... all solutions should be considered and those with the most benefits should be developed first.
as soon as somebody figures out how to turn a buck on it, we'll all be saved...