Sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere.......

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
This is the type of technology that we should be looking into. All the other green initiatives reduce or try to get to carbon neutral. But they do not take CO2 out of the atmosphere. We should keep pushing forward with other green initiatives. But we also need to realize people will support these green deals until their lives are altered. This type of technology acknowledges we wont put the genie back in the bottle. And instead will mitigate the damage by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it.

Ultimately yes. We must find ways of extracting the CO2 we have already put out. Its just that the technology needs to be way more developed and refined.

Any solution that requires massive amounts of energy is not really a solution at all for now. The energy that would power these things would come from CO2 emitting processes. Nuclear would be nice, but, there is too much pushback on it right now sadly.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
This could revitalize the coal industry!

Indeed.

In every project I have ever been involved in, was educated on or read about, it was always easier, more effective and cheaper to prevent or mitigate full blown disaster than allow it.

There is no system of sequestration which can come close to removal of the amount of carbon dioxide being released. Likely survival can only come from a combination of the cessation of humanly induced CO2 and extreme removal.

We're very close, less than a lifetime of a point of no return, assuming we have not crossed that point. Naturally sequestered CO2 is being freed by what we have already done and I'd like to see ANY plan for restoring the permafrost which everyone understands would be catastrophic if lost, right?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,518
15,557
146
Not even going to be close to enough.
While I hate to agree with Slow he’s not exactly off the mark.

From another post I did awhile ago:

Let's say we wanted to reduce CO2 levels by 50PPM. One possible solution is just to simply grow more rainforest.
50PPM of CO2 = 0.005% of the mass of of the atmosphere
  • CO2 has an atomic mass of 44
  • Carbon has an atomic mass of 12 so it makes up 27.3% of the mass of one molecule of CO2 and .0014% of the atmosphere
  • The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.148x10^18kg
  • Total mass of carbon to remove = .0014%x5.148x10^18kg = 7.02x10^10 metric tons of Carbon.
So to remove 50 PPM of CO2 we have to sequester 70.2billion metric tons of Carbon.

According to this
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-165
554811main_earth20110531-946-710.jpg

dense rainforest stores 175 metric tons of carbon per hectare.

Dividing our 7.02x10^10 tons of carbon by 175 tons/hectare we would need:

401 million hectares of new rainforest
  • which equals 4.01million km^2
  • or increasing the area of the Amazon by 73% spread through the equatorial regions of the world.
A study I was able to find said a significant portion of the rainforest can repopulate in 65 years. So if we got started in the next 20 years we could probably shave 50PPM off our totals by the end of the century.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,402
9,598
136
At the very least, I would like to know much more about the benefits, if any, there may be to deal for this technology to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels.

I say we adopt this tech, and subsidize the loss in profit. I mean, they are selling the CO2 they just aren't making a profit yet. We can help develop it until it does, or even bridge the gap if it does not. No reason this couldn't be part of our fight, our funding to "save" the planet.

OTOH, we'd need a way to effectively stop this project, entirely, if we reach pre-industrial levels. Any less CO2 and we'd directly cause an Extinction Level Event. So this process would need to be halted, if successful.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,445
6,684
126
I say we adopt this tech, and subsidize the loss in profit. I mean, they are selling the CO2 they just aren't making a profit yet. We can help develop it until it does, or even bridge the gap if it does not. No reason this couldn't be part of our fight, our funding to "save" the planet.

OTOH, we'd need a way to effectively stop this project, entirely, if we reach pre-industrial levels. Any less CO2 and we'd directly cause an Extinction Level Event. So this process would need to be halted, if successful.
Once you reach preindustrial levels you don’t need to sequester CO2. You can use all you want for fuel. Making hydrocarbons to burn is carbon neutral.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
While I hate to agree with Slow he’s not exactly off the mark.

From another post I did awhile ago:

That is not going to get us where we need to be alone. Destroying the eco system is not a good idea, but, it can't be our only tool at this point.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,518
15,557
146
That is not going to get us where we need to be alone. Destroying the eco system is not a good idea, but, it can't be our only tool at this point.

No it wouldn’t. The idea was to use increasing renewables, increases in efficiency and the use of carbon neutral fuels to drive poverty reduction to lower global birth rates to minimize additional emissions while sequestration in the form of increasing dense rainforest coverage drags down the PPM of CO2 back towards something reasonable.

The slowly shrinking world population coupled with govt incentives to avoid dense forest allows for the extra land area for reforestation.

Add in the technology in the op and couple it with cheaper renewables and even more sequestered CO2 is possible.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
No it wouldn’t. The idea was to use increasing renewables, increases in efficiency and the use of carbon neutral fuels to drive poverty reduction to lower global birth rates to minimize additional emissions while sequestration in the form of increasing dense rainforest coverage drags down the PPM of CO2 back towards something reasonable.

The slowly shrinking world population coupled with govt incentives to avoid dense forest allows for the extra land area for reforestation.

Add in the technology in the op and couple it with cheaper renewables and even more sequestered CO2 is possible.

We are going to have to throw so many things at this problem. Future technology is also likely needed.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
30,672
45,750
136
Cool article, thanks moonie.

Not a magic bullet, but def something we should be doing as let's face it, trees take awhile to grow and the oceans are less and less able to help as we acidify them. During a time of science denying trumptards tainting almost every day's news with their fail, it's nice to hear of people taking the issue seriously and gettin shit done. I look forward to the kinds of applied solutions we can implement once certain dogmatic and self-serving interests are removed from positions of power. We need evidence based decision making, not wishlists and legislation handed to us by private industry.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
30,672
45,750
136
Ultimately yes. We must find ways of extracting the CO2 we have already put out. Its just that the technology needs to be way more developed and refined.

Any solution that requires massive amounts of energy is not really a solution at all for now. The energy that would power these things would come from CO2 emitting processes. Nuclear would be nice, but, there is too much pushback on it right now sadly.


I think that pushback will go away once the numbers are repeated enough. I tell people to compare whatever number they can find of nuclear related deaths to the millions who die from carbon related pollution and accidents. This planet loses more than 9 million people a year from pollution. Last time I searched total mortality rate for nuclear power production, ever, I think it was 90 people. That may have been pre Fukushima Daiichi though, I can't remember. Regardless of what the final number is I seriously doubt it will affect the drastic ratio by much. Air pollution alone kills over 4 million annually.

Smaller, safer, more efficient reactor designs are where it's at, like what France did, and it's why they have the cheapest electricity in Europe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fanatical Meat

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,402
9,598
136
Once you reach preindustrial levels you don’t need to sequester CO2. You can use all you want for fuel. Making hydrocarbons to burn is carbon neutral.

I see your point. We'd manage to regulate enough of our output to try and ensure we don't drop CO2 levels too far.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I think that pushback will go away once the numbers are repeated enough. I tell people to compare whatever number they can find of nuclear related deaths to the millions who die from carbon related pollution and accidents. This planet loses more than 9 million people a year from pollution. Last time I searched total mortality rate for nuclear power production, ever, is 90 people.

Smaller, safer, more efficient reactor designs are where it's at, like what France did, and it's why they have the cheapest electricity in Europe.

Nuclear is scary and its hated by the Left. That means that the side that pushes for solutions is also the side that pushes against one of the best tools we have right now.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
30,672
45,750
136
Nuclear is scary and its hated by the Left. That means that the side that pushes for solutions is also the side that pushes against one of the best tools we have right now.


The Left isn't monolithic so I try to avoid referring to it as such. I'm not sure how you can peg the political identity on the producers of reactors, but FWIW those nuclear engineers that General Electric and others hire aren't coming from Liberty University. France's Areva (a country considered left wing I think) leads the world in reactor roll out by a substantial margin.

Having said that, American Left leaning baby boomers do think it's scary and they hate it, I agree. It's a generational thing. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl left an indelible mark in how they view nuclear power, and it paired nicely with their fright over the arms race during the Cold War.

Younger generations who appreciate the math involved have different ideas, and correctly see smaller, safer, more numerous reactors as the cheapest and cleanest way to power America. There really isn't any way to argue the disparity in mortality rates IMO. If we want cheap and safe, the choices are nuclear and wind. I say we do both.
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,688
12,634
136
@Moonbeam

I'm glad P&N has another good tech issue on its hands. Too bad that Swiss firm is a bit behind the times:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/bill-gates-to-strip-c02-from-air-for-clean-fuel/

Now you mix in a bit of this technology here:

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion.html

(slated to come online in prototype form this year, but I'd guess 2020 since they've been forced to make some compromises to make the thing work:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/...-or-more-times-worse-than-initial-claims.html

the main thing to remember here is that it's too big, but otherwise presumably functional)

Aaaanyway, instead of burning all those lovely hydrocarbons, you use them as feed stock for:

https://www.cheaptubes.com/carbon-nanotubes-history-and-production-methods-2/

CNTs, graphene, carbyn, diamond nanorods, whatever.

End result?

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-03

Yay! No more global warming.

We all saw this coming about thirteen years ago, right? Didn't we?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
25,639
15,147
136
@Moonbeam

I'm glad P&N has another good tech issue on its hands. Too bad that Swiss firm is a bit behind the times:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/bill-gates-to-strip-c02-from-air-for-clean-fuel/

Now you mix in a bit of this technology here:

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion.html

(slated to come online in prototype form this year, but I'd guess 2020 since they've been forced to make some compromises to make the thing work:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/...-or-more-times-worse-than-initial-claims.html

the main thing to remember here is that it's too big, but otherwise presumably functional)

Aaaanyway, instead of burning all those lovely hydrocarbons, you use them as feed stock for:

https://www.cheaptubes.com/carbon-nanotubes-history-and-production-methods-2/

CNTs, graphene, carbyn, diamond nanorods, whatever.

End result?

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-03

Yay! No more global warming.

We all saw this coming about thirteen years ago, right? Didn't we?

Quality post. Specially the dilbert.
One thing. Are you guys trying to suggest that "we" have cracked fusion????
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
51,924
44,781
136
Nuclear is scary and its hated by the Left. That means that the side that pushes for solutions is also the side that pushes against one of the best tools we have right now.

"The Left" is basically irrelevant at this point since commercial nuclear power in the US is on the verge of failure due to sheer economics. The attempts to build new reactors have been beset by astronomical cost overruns (bankrupting the contractors) that will scare off any utility from trying the same for a generation. The best case is to keep the existing reactor fleet safely operational for the next 20 or so years, even if that means some subsidy for its operation. If somebody can demonstrate a safe and cost effective next generation reactor then that should be looked at but so far not much doing on that front besides research.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
51,924
44,781
136
Having said that, American Left leaning baby boomers do think it's scary and they hate it, I agree. It's a generational thing. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl left an indelible mark in how they view nuclear power, and it paired nicely with their fright over the arms race during the Cold War.

Uh Japan had a triple simultaneous meltdowns less than a decade ago. That some people even of a younger generation could be apprehensive of nuclear power isn't impossible.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
"The Left" is basically irrelevant at this point since commercial nuclear power in the US is on the verge of failure due to sheer economics. The attempts to build new reactors have been beset by astronomical cost overruns (bankrupting the contractors) that will scare off any utility from trying the same for a generation. The best case is to keep the existing reactor fleet safely operational for the next 20 or so years, even if that means some subsidy for its operation. If somebody can demonstrate a safe and cost effective next generation reactor then that should be looked at but so far not much doing on that front besides research.

When you say to sheer economics, you really mean regulation and restrictions. Nuclear is very efficient economically when you do it in other countries. I'm not even talking about 3rd world either. Its not as cheep as coal when coal does not have to incorporate the cost of the environmental impact. But, Nuclear can be extremely cheep in the long run.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,041
32,357
136
Indeed.

In every project I have ever been involved in, was educated on or read about, it was always easier, more effective and cheaper to prevent or mitigate full blown disaster than allow it.

There is no system of sequestration which can come close to removal of the amount of carbon dioxide being released. Likely survival can only come from a combination of the cessation of humanly induced CO2 and extreme removal.

We're very close, less than a lifetime of a point of no return, assuming we have not crossed that point. Naturally sequestered CO2 is being freed by what we have already done and I'd like to see ANY plan for restoring the permafrost which everyone understands would be catastrophic if lost, right?
I don't, I think it will be great.
#rollcoal4lifebitch
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,445
6,684
126
@Moonbeam

I'm glad P&N has another good tech issue on its hands. Too bad that Swiss firm is a bit behind the times:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/bill-gates-to-strip-c02-from-air-for-clean-fuel/

Now you mix in a bit of this technology here:

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion.html

(slated to come online in prototype form this year, but I'd guess 2020 since they've been forced to make some compromises to make the thing work:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/...-or-more-times-worse-than-initial-claims.html

the main thing to remember here is that it's too big, but otherwise presumably functional)

Aaaanyway, instead of burning all those lovely hydrocarbons, you use them as feed stock for:

https://www.cheaptubes.com/carbon-nanotubes-history-and-production-methods-2/

CNTs, graphene, carbyn, diamond nanorods, whatever.

End result?

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-03

Yay! No more global warming.

We all saw this coming about thirteen years ago, right? Didn't we?
I’ll bite. What did we see in 2006? Not sure about the applicability of the links you gave or the late to the game comment, to reduction of atmospheric levels of CO2 because they have little relation to sequestration. I did especially like the ‘many different approaches need exploration’ point made in the Bill Gates related link.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
51,924
44,781
136
When you say to sheer economics, you really mean regulation and restrictions. Nuclear is very efficient economically when you do it in other countries. I'm not even talking about 3rd world either. Its not as cheep as coal when coal does not have to incorporate the cost of the environmental impact. But, Nuclear can be extremely cheep in the long run.

The Canadians, Brits, and increasingly Europe are all looking at similarly high costs for new unit construction. That is a prime reason why Canada, for example, abandoned building new units and instead decided to refurbish Darlington for the still impressive price of more than $3B per unit. The economics of new plants compared to alternatives (gas or renewables) is very poor at present.
 
Last edited: