Lets Fix??? Mans Carbon Contribution Problem, On The Cheap

[Ozoned]

We have enough carbon based fossil fuels left to last a few hundred years, at most.



~Carbon comes from the earth, it gets cycled into the atmosphere, and gets returned to the earth. The cycle that this occurs naturally has been impacted by humans, and that can't be disputed. What it will do to the earth as we know it, is theory. The theory points towards a very high probability that it will alter the earths climate significantly, as we know it.

~Global warming is the Governments new Boogeyman. They want to force the private sector to spend trillions of dollars to stop and reverse our impact on the climate. Knowing full well that we can only control what goes on in our country.

~I think I have covered both sides of the basic argument. Personally, I know that global warming will not likely affect me in my lifetime, but I do have children. The probability of major climate change impacting them is to high for me to do nothing.

~I propose we look for methods to speed up what the earth does naturally, and on the cheap. I have contributed a method below. The impact of this fix would not be limited by our borders, and gives a true element of control. If you know of others, please contribute.

~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is one such method, on the cheap. If I could find a private company that sells carbon credits based on this technology, I would invest heavily in it.
Imagine if you will, growing the equivalent of a few million fully grown redwood trees in a matter of weeks, and how much carbon they could suck out of the atmosphere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Earth's carbon cycle is dominated by the ocean, which absorbs 50% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere by human activity. Carbon settling to the ocean bottom can eventually be stored for millions of years.
From Introduction to Climate Change United Nations Environmental Program's UNEP Global Resources Information Database (GRID) office in Arendal Norway.

The Oceanic Part of the Carbon Cycle

To understand the fate of CO2 in the atmosphere, we must understand earth's carbon cycle because atmospheric CO2 is only one part of the cycle. Several important oceanic processes influence the cycle. The figure above indicates that:

The ocean stores 50 times more carbon dioxide than does the atmosphere;
Much more carbon flows through the ocean than the amount produced by burning fossil fuels;
An amount of carbon equal to to the total amount stored in the atmosphere cycles through the ocean in about eight years [(750 GT) / (92 GT per year) = 8.3 years]; and
The flux in and out of the ocean is larger than the flux in and out of the land.
The carbon cycle in the ocean has two main parts, a physical part due to CO2 dissolving into sea water, and a biological part due to phytoplankton converting CO2 into carbohydrates.

Carbon dioxide dissolves into the ocean at high latitudes. CO2 is carried to the deep ocean by sinking currents, where it stays for hundreds of years. Eventually mixing brings the water back to the surface. The ocean emit carbon dioxide into the tropical atmosphere. This system of deep ocean currents is the marine physical pump for carbon. It help pumps carbon from the atmosphere into the sea for storage.


Global map of the average annual exchange CO2 flux (mol-C m-2 a-1) across the sea surface.
From Ocean Biogeochemistry and Global Change published by the International Geosphere Biosphere Program.


Phytoplankton in the ocean use CO2, sunlight, water, and nutrients and produce carbohydrates and oxygen. Animals eat the phytoplankton contributing to the oceanic food web leading to fish. Organic material sinks when phytoplankton and animals die, carrying some reduced carbon to the sea floor (Reduced carbon is carbon that can be oxidized to yield energy, water, and CO2.) A small fraction of the reduced carbon (0.4%) is eventually buried and stored in sediments for millions of years (Middelburg et al, 2007). But most of the reduced carbon in and below the sea floor is used by animals and bacteria, and returned to the ocean part of the carbon cycle. This is the marine biological pump for carbon. It too pumps carbon from the atmosphere into the sea for storage. To learn more about the biological pump, read the latest results of the International Geosphere Biosphere Program's Joint Global Ocean Flux Study of the carbon cycle in the ocean.


Global map of the primary productivity by oceanic phytoplankton.
From the International Geosphere Biosphere Program.


The storage of reduced carbon in oceanic sediments in sediments maintains the oxygen content of the atmosphere. If no reduced carbon were stored in sediments, atmospheric oxygen would be used up in about 15 million years.

It's a popular misconception that the concentration of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is controlled by photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is certainly the source of atmospheric oxygen, but the amount it produces is in almost perfect balance with the amount consumed through the respiration of living organisms. It is only when organic matter is buried in ocean sediments, and so ceases to be decomposed, that atmospheric oxygen can accumulate. This burial process also reduces the levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. The exact rate of organic-matter burial is therefore a significant determinant of atmospheric composition, and thus global climate, over geological timescales.
From Masiello (2007).


Animals in the ocean use carbohydrates and oxygen and emit CO2. Plants respire CO2 during the night. As a result, all the oxygen produced by phytoplankton is used to converted to reduced carbon into carbon dioxide except for the small amount of reduced carbon stored in sediments.
Recently, people started burning fossil fuels, which released, in the form of CO2, the carbon produced by plants and stored as reduced carbon (now in the form of coal, oil, and gas) in sediments millions of years ago.
Thus burning of fossil fuels is a source of CO2 and the ocean is a sink of CO2. To learn more about what happens to CO2 released into the atmosphere, read the paper on Sinks for Anthropogenic Carbon in the August 2002 issue of Physics Today. The plot of fluxes is particularly useful.

Look at some images of chlorophyll distribution in the ocean to see where phytoplankton (microscopic floating plants) are common in the ocean. The Ocean Color home page has a nice animation of the seasonal cycle of phytoplankton concentration in the ocean.

Increasing the Oceanic Absorption of CO2

If the carbon cycle in the ocean processes so much more carbon than does the atmospheric part, can the oceanic part be enhanced to cause the ocean to store more carbon? After all, a small change in the storage rate could absorb all the carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels. John Martin proposed a way to do this.

?Give me a half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.??John Martin.

Martin noticed that large areas of the ocean have sufficient nutrients to support the growth of large populations of phytoplankton, yet these areas have small populations of phytoplankton. He called these areas high-nutrient, low-chlorophyll zones (HNLCs). On further investigation, Martin determined the HNLC zones were deficient in iron, a micro-nutrient essential for life. Johnson then proposed that adding small amounts of iron to these regions would greatly increase productivity. This is the iron hypothesis.

Several recent experiments, including the Southern Ocean Iron Release Experimen, show the hypothesis is correct. Small amounts of iron in the right regions lead to larges increases in phytoplankton. One kilogram of iron leads to the production of 5,000 to 20,000 kilograms of phytoplankton.

Read about John Martin and his iron hypothesis, including all the information in links to his work shown on the right side of the web page. For a more controversial look at this solution to the CO2 problem, read the Wired Magazine article on Dumping Iron.

Oceanic Phytoplankton

Most of the primary production in the ocean is by single-celled microscopic organisms. The organisms include:

The Chromista, including Coccolithophorids, and Diatoms,
Dinoflagellates. And,
Photosynthetic bacteria and archaea.
To learn more about the micro-organisms in the ocean, read Marine Food Webs and Microbial Food Webs.

References

Masiello, C. A. (2007). Carbon cycle: Quick burial at sea. Nature 450 (7168): 360-361.


Middelburg, J. J. and F. J. R. Meysman (2007). OCEAN SCIENCE: Burial at Sea. Science 316 (5829): 1294-1295.

 

[bsobel]

Just so you know their are lots of silly planetary-hack type ideas floating around to 'solve' global warming. However if you believe the science behind any of them is ready to be 'tested' you need to re-research the area. Iron dumping in particular (overall) is argued to increase CO2 concentrations by some scientists (you can't just look at absorbption, you have tol look at the entire carbon cycle, does it cost you more carbon to get out there and dump iron than the iron accounts for). This of course doesnt even consider other marine impacts to iron dumping.

 

[Rainsford]

Ozoned, I think you identified the major problem with (as bsobel describes them) "planetary-hack type ideas". Even if global warming is a complete myth, even if the effects of increased pollution take a long time to cause problems or even if the eventual impact is pretty minimal, or if we're able to offset it in some way, the problem of non-renewable fuels remains. We are better off moving to sustainable fuels for reasons that have nothing to do with our effect on the environment. Our very best case scenarios involve us running out of even the most abundant fossil fuels within 100 or 200 years. We'll all be dead by then, of course, but it takes a long time to entirely transform the way our society uses energy...if we let this be a problem for our kids or grandkids, it might be too late for them. The problem isn't technology development, the problem is implementing it on a huge scale. And that takes time, even in this age of seemingly instant technological progress.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ozoned, I think you identified the major problem with (as bsobel describes them) "planetary-hack type ideas". Even if global warming is a complete myth, even if the effects of increased pollution take a long time to cause problems or even if the eventual impact is pretty minimal, or if we're able to offset it in some way, the problem of non-renewable fuels remains. We are better off moving to sustainable fuels for reasons that have nothing to do with our effect on the environment. Our very best case scenarios involve us running out of even the most abundant fossil fuels within 100 or 200 years. We'll all be dead by then, of course, but it takes a long time to entirely transform the way our society uses energy...if we let this be a problem for our kids or grandkids, it might be too late for them. The problem isn't technology development, the problem is implementing it on a huge scale. And that takes time, even in this age of seemingly instant technological progress.

I actually attend working groups on some of this stuff. The math behind some of these ideas are so silly once you work it out. Three of my favorites, large floating styrofoam islands to reflect sunlight back. Now think CALIFORNIA sized pieces of styrofoam. The second was using Navy guns to blast shells high in the atmosphere that would spread a reflective material. Turns out we'd need 10k battleships firing 1 rounds every second (per gun) pretty much forever to maintain the effect (and of course, what goes up in some form comes down). Balloons where just as fun, think of launching TRILLIONS of reflective baloons. Enough so that every man woman and child in existance could spend the next 60 years launching a baloon every morning to deal with it (you know, you get up, get your coffee, launch your huge baloon, go to work). And again, presume 10% of those fail per year you have a trillion balloons fallling from the sky (which need to be replaced).

And all this effort makes us neutral to current produciton, none deals with the fact that production will go up before down. We need to move to truely new forms of energy creation and distribution and (IMHO) we have about a century to do it.

Bill

P.s. Money where mouth is.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ozoned, I think you identified the major problem with (as bsobel describes them) "planetary-hack type ideas". Even if global warming is a complete myth, even if the effects of increased pollution take a long time to cause problems or even if the eventual impact is pretty minimal, or if we're able to offset it in some way, the problem of non-renewable fuels remains. We are better off moving to sustainable fuels for reasons that have nothing to do with our effect on the environment. Our very best case scenarios involve us running out of even the most abundant fossil fuels within 100 or 200 years. We'll all be dead by then, of course, but it takes a long time to entirely transform the way our society uses energy...if we let this be a problem for our kids or grandkids, it might be too late for them. The problem isn't technology development, the problem is implementing it on a huge scale. And that takes time, even in this age of seemingly instant technological progress.

I actually attend working groups on some of this stuff. The math behind some of these ideas are so silly once you work it out. Three of my favorites, large floating styrofoam islands to reflect sunlight back. Now think CALIFORNIA sized pieces of styrofoam. The second was using Navy guns to blast shells high in the atmosphere that would spread a reflective material. Turns out we'd need 10k battleships firing 1 rounds every second (per gun) pretty much forever to maintain the effect (and of course, what goes up in some form comes down). Balloons where just as fun, think of launching TRILLIONS of reflective baloons. Enough so that every man woman and child in existance could spend the next 60 years launching a baloon every morning to deal with it (you know, you get up, get your coffee, launch your huge baloon, go to work). And again, presume 10% of those fail per year you have a trillion balloons fallling from the sky (which need to be replaced).

And all this effort makes us neutral to current produciton, none deals with the fact that production will go up before down. We need to move to truely new forms of energy creation and distribution and (IMHO) we have about a century to do it.

Bill

P.s. Money where mouth is.

Just want to complient your post. It said what needed to be sais on the analysis of the ideas' impracticality, and had the bonus of your having taken a large step on your principles.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Just so you know their are lots of silly planetary-hack type ideas floating around to 'solve' global warming. However if you believe the science behind any of them is ready to be 'tested' you need to re-research the area. Iron dumping in particular (overall) is argued to increase CO2 concentrations by some scientists (you can't just look at absorbption, you have tol look at the entire carbon cycle, does it cost you more carbon to get out there and dump iron than the iron accounts for). This of course doesnt even consider other marine impacts to iron dumping.

Ready for testing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planktos

Response to Current Controversies

Planktos would like to respond to the recent controversy surrounding our first pilot project bloom slated to occur later this summer. We are open to constructive dialogue about our work but it is difficult to respond to misinformed critiques without specific points of contention. The nonprofit organizations who have spoken out against our efforts misperceive crucial details about our own work and the scientific and political context it is based in. These groups include: the WWF, ETC Group, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Charles Darwin Society. This experience has been continually upsetting and politically charged ? we hope to resolve this issue with the specific groups or at least create a balanced method for dialogue.

Ocean fertilization is an incredibly important issue to our future ? while the oceanographic community has been researching and discussing iron fertilization for nearly 30 years, the concept is incredibly new to the general public. Emission reduction measures will not be enough in the long term to adapt to climate change and curtail its negative effects. Our efforts will be restorative to declining ocean ecosystems and enhance the natural oceanic sink needed to sequester human-generated carbon dioxide. We ask that before each individual forms an opinion on our work, that they become more informed about the science we are based on and the nature of our efforts. Thank you for taking the time and effort to research this issue and our cause in more detail.



Regarding claims that our pilot project will somehow affect the Galapagos ecosystem
First, we are not working close enough to the Galapagos to affect its lush ecosystem in any way. Our pilot project is over 350 kilometers to the west of the islands where currents will bear any plankton we restore even further away to the west-northwest. Second this is the same area ocean scientists conducted some of the first iron fertilization experiments over a decade ago, all of which were intensely studied and showed no harmful effects at all. Finally, the Galapagos ecosystem is thriving precisely because of the many thousands of tons of iron that annually leach from the volcanic substructure of the isles themselves. It is this profuse iron source that creates the flourishing Galapagos "plume" of plankton life that nourishes the region's great biodiversity. Adding any more iron to this iron saturated area would not harm anything, but it would be pointless in the extreme.


Regarding allegations that Planktos is setting out to "dump" "pollutants" in the sea
Mother Nature's winds have been annually "dumping" tens of millions of tons of this same "pollutant" into the open sea for millions of years, which is why the ocean is the greatest source of oxygen, biomass and biodiversity on the planet today. Human activities have reduced that life-giving wind-borne iron supply by 25% in the last thirty years, taking a tenth of all plankton life with it and making this work necessary. We will be using hematite iron, which is one of the most common elements on/in the earth, and ferrous sulfate, which is the primary ingredient in all our iron deficiency tonics and pills. And we will be adding it to iron starved waters in parts per trillion doses or about a billion times less than children's iron supplements and a hundred million times less than mother's milk. Calling a vital micronutrient like iron in this immeasurably dilute concentration a "pollutant" is clearly unscientific and completely untrue.


Regarding charges that Planktos is using dangerous nanotechnology
Calling natural iron dust and the same pharmaceutical iron we give our kids in vitamin pills "dangerous nanotechnology" is certainly attention-getting and inflammatory, but it is also quite absurd.


Regarding claims that iron replenishment will alter or disturb ocean ecosystems
Planktos chose the ocean regions we will be working in precisely because these areas are already profoundly disturbed and have lost nearly 50% of their plankton life in the last 25 years. Since these tiny plants are the basic food source for every larger creature in these waters, it's as if a two decade drought killed off half of every food crop in a country. In such a famine, adding a little silver iodide to seed clouds and bring some rain would certainly "alter" the starved ecosystem, but what exactly would be "disturbed"?


Regarding statements that restoring iron and plankton constitute "geoengineering"
Restoring creatures or ecosystems gravely harmed by human activity is not "geoengineering." It is usually called planetary healing, environmental stewardship or just merciful common sense. If ocean restoration is now to be labeled geoengineering then so must efforts to halt desertification, replant lost rainforests, and bring our wetlands back to health.


Regarding concerns that the scale of our pilot projects may be too large
To put this work in perspective, wind storms from the Sahara blow over 100 million tons of fine mineral dust across the Atlantic each year, which annually "fertilizes" the mid-ocean with nearly 3 million tons of hematite iron. If our critics were correct, this enormous iron "dump" should be causing an unmitigated marine disaster instead of one of the healthiest and most bountiful ecosystems on Earth. Furthermore, the quantity of iron (tens of tons) we will be using in these pilot projects is exactly the amount earlier iron fertilization researchers called for in future tests after their original ten trials (with up to 9 tons of iron) created uniformly healthy blooms and no ill effects.


Regarding statements that bloom-sequestered carbon can not be accurately measured or verified
Recently both Science and Nature published major studies of carbon export that reliably measured the descent of plankton carbon to a thousand meters or more where it is isolated from the atmosphere for many centuries. Such measurements are the basis of carbon offset verification and readily accomplished with available technology and proper scientific review. And to fulfill certified performance standards, Planktos projects will be overseen by independent third party verifiers who can attest to our methods and the results that have been achieved.


Regarding suggestions that this work violates the precautionary principle
Restoring a decimated wildlife population back to its native habitat does not violate the precautionary principle. Trying to artificially push a population beyond its original numbers very well may. Therefore Planktos has always championed a bright line limit on iron replenishment once plankton are returned to the baseline levels NASA and NOAA deemed normal from 1979-81.


Regarding claims this work still requires an environmental impact assessment (EIA)
Various international ocean science agencies spent nearly $100 million conducting the first ten iron fertilization trials which represent the most multifaceted marine EIA ever undertaken. No observations of negative impacts of any kind were ever reported. Our pilot projects themselves are the only practical way to generate the data needed to continue that EIA, since the only meaningful way to tell if a larger bloom will differ from all the earlier harmless trials is by actually creating one and carefully measuring its effects.


Regarding fears our pilot projects may trigger toxic plankton blooms
In the 150+-year history of ocean science, harmful plankton blooms have rarely ever been reported in pelagic (open ocean) regions and never in the areas where we will be conducting our pilot projects. Nor did any of the ten earlier international iron fertilization trials ever report any such effects. Nevertheless we and other independent scientists will be carefully monitoring all the plankton species in our blooms and seeding them far out to sea where they cannot reach land or coastal fisheries anytime during their 4~6 month life cycles.


Regarding warnings that restoring plankton will dangerously increase nitrous oxide and methane.
These speculations are based more upon disputed theories and computer models than empirical evidence. NO2 and methane are naturally emitted in trace amounts from all active ocean ecosystems, but the vast natural blooms around the world would have overwhelmed the planet and climate with these gases millennia ago if these dire claims were true. Nevertheless we and other researchers will be monitoring our work for these emissions and if observed, calculating their impact on our net carbon sequestration effect.


Regarding assertions plankton restoration will not draw down significant amounts of CO2 or have much climatic effect
All scientific evidence indicates that full restoration of plankton populations to known 1980 levels of health could annually remove 3~4 billion tons of atmospheric CO2 or half our global warming surplus today. The original ocean iron trials and more recent carbon export studies suggest this could be accomplished quite safely and efficiently; and that hopeful possibility is what our pilot projects are designed to explore.


Regarding charges that iron replenishment/plankton restoration work is only about money
There are a host of compelling moral, ethical and ecological reasons to start this food chain rescue work and finally practice ocean stewardship quite apart from their climatic or carbon credit benefits. Unfortunately, there was no support anywhere for such an effort until the Kyoto Protocol created opportunities for green investors to undertake it and try to do well and good at the same time.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ozoned, I think you identified the major problem with (as bsobel describes them) "planetary-hack type ideas". Even if global warming is a complete myth, even if the effects of increased pollution take a long time to cause problems or even if the eventual impact is pretty minimal, or if we're able to offset it in some way, the problem of non-renewable fuels remains. We are better off moving to sustainable fuels for reasons that have nothing to do with our effect on the environment. Our very best case scenarios involve us running out of even the most abundant fossil fuels within 100 or 200 years. We'll all be dead by then, of course, but it takes a long time to entirely transform the way our society uses energy...if we let this be a problem for our kids or grandkids, it might be too late for them. The problem isn't technology development, the problem is implementing it on a huge scale. And that takes time, even in this age of seemingly instant technological progress.

We can talk about the problems until we are blue in the place, and move towards other sources for energy, but we will use fossil fuel reserves until they are no longer economically feasable to use. What we contributed to the current levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the Atmosphere in the last 200 years is likely to multiply significantly because of the short amount of time that it will take to use the reserves we have left.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: bsobel
Just so you know their are lots of silly planetary-hack type ideas floating around to 'solve' global warming. However if you believe the science behind any of them is ready to be 'tested' you need to re-research the area. Iron dumping in particular (overall) is argued to increase CO2 concentrations by some scientists (you can't just look at absorbption, you have tol look at the entire carbon cycle, does it cost you more carbon to get out there and dump iron than the iron accounts for). This of course doesnt even consider other marine impacts to iron dumping.

Ready for testing?

I'm not sure a faq from one of the firms looking to do this is neutral biased For the record iron seeding is one of the more promising ideas, its just we bluntly dont know what the effects will be yet. We don't even have great models of what the effects might be. This is one area where if it works as promised, but we take 5-10 years to figure that ok, that better than it having unintended consequences and we start now.

 

[Ozoned]

Here is an idea for an Algae scrubber. The algae itself could be a self renewing source of energy!

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Just so you know their are lots of silly planetary-hack type ideas floating around to 'solve' global warming. However if you believe the science behind any of them is ready to be 'tested' you need to re-research the area. Iron dumping in particular (overall) is argued to increase CO2 concentrations by some scientists (you can't just look at absorbption, you have tol look at the entire carbon cycle, does it cost you more carbon to get out there and dump iron than the iron accounts for). This of course doesnt even consider other marine impacts to iron dumping.

This man is mostly on the point - which is that climate "science" is a complete bastardization of the term. Climate theory is untested, unproven, and could easily be entirely wrong.

Governments need to stop basing policy on this fad.

That is all.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: bsobel
Just so you know their are lots of silly planetary-hack type ideas floating around to 'solve' global warming. However if you believe the science behind any of them is ready to be 'tested' you need to re-research the area. Iron dumping in particular (overall) is argued to increase CO2 concentrations by some scientists (you can't just look at absorbption, you have tol look at the entire carbon cycle, does it cost you more carbon to get out there and dump iron than the iron accounts for). This of course doesnt even consider other marine impacts to iron dumping.

This man is mostly on the point - which is that climate "science" is a complete bastardization of the term. Climate theory is untested, unproven, and could easily be entirely wrong.

Governments need to stop basing policy on this fad.

That is all.

I am pretty sure he is talking only about the fad theories to fix the fad theory of global warming, not just the fad theory of global warming. Its easy to get confused over this stuff, at least that's my theory.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: bsobel
Just so you know their are lots of silly planetary-hack type ideas floating around to 'solve' global warming. However if you believe the science behind any of them is ready to be 'tested' you need to re-research the area. Iron dumping in particular (overall) is argued to increase CO2 concentrations by some scientists (you can't just look at absorbption, you have tol look at the entire carbon cycle, does it cost you more carbon to get out there and dump iron than the iron accounts for). This of course doesnt even consider other marine impacts to iron dumping.

This man is mostly on the point - which is that climate "science" is a complete bastardization of the term. Climate theory is untested, unproven, and could easily be entirely wrong.

Governments need to stop basing policy on this fad.

That is all.

I am pretty sure he is talking only about the fad theories to fix the fad theory of global warming, not just the fad theory of global warming. Its easy to get confused over this stuff, at least that's my theory.

My statement applies to either.

 

[charrison]

There are quite a few cheap solutions, however they are usually rejected as they are not green enough. It seems the only solution acceptable to most environuts is wind and solar and frankly those are not cheap enough to be practical.

Nuclear power could radically drop carbon emissions, but it is largely shunned.

Combined cycle coal gasification power plants would also radically drop carbon emissions. Combined cycle plants are about 60% efficient compared to about 40% with your typical coal plant. A 30% improvement in efficiently is would greatly drop the amount of coal needed to generate the same amount of power.


Then there was a recent news article about a co2 scrubber that outputs baking soda instead of co2. The cost is supposed to be similar to sox scrubbers which output gypsum(what you make sheetrock with).

There are many solutions that exist and are affordable, but often they are ignored as they are not green enough.