A 'magic bullet' to capture carbon dioxide?
April 3, 2019 2:48 PM Subscribe
A technology that removes carbon dioxide from the air has received significant backing from major fossil fuel companies. British Columbia-based Carbon Engineering has shown that it can extract CO2 in a cost-effective way.
It has now been boosted by $68m in new investment from Chevron, Occidental and coal giant BHP.
But climate campaigners are worried that the technology will be used to extract even more oil.
If only there was something else we could erect that turned CO2 into fuel, that was cheaper, self maintaining, and maybe even solar powered.
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:59 PM on April 3, 2019 [59 favorites]
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:59 PM on April 3, 2019 [59 favorites]
I hope they can scale up sooner rather than later. Old trees and vegetation are good at sequestering carbon but take space and time to develop that we may not have in the immediate term.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:07 PM on April 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:07 PM on April 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
Has anyone seen any articles about the safety or toxicity of the byproducts of this chemical-heavy process? I’ve looked but haven’t found any. Not a convert until I know what new poisonous problem the “solution” may be bringing with it.
posted by Silvery Fish at 3:20 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Silvery Fish at 3:20 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
The question that immediately comes to mind is where does the energy to drive that fan and to make those hydroxides come from? If the energy source produces CO2, does it produce less than is sequestered?
posted by ckridge at 3:26 PM on April 3, 2019 [20 favorites]
posted by ckridge at 3:26 PM on April 3, 2019 [20 favorites]
It's like they just assume nobody will think, "the components and power to make this work have to come from somewhere." Just tell us how much energy and resources have to go into this. Please. In the first or second paragraph. Always.
posted by amtho at 3:43 PM on April 3, 2019 [21 favorites]
posted by amtho at 3:43 PM on April 3, 2019 [21 favorites]
where does the energy to drive that fan come from
Dyson technology works differently.
posted by belarius at 3:50 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Dyson technology works differently.
posted by belarius at 3:50 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Forests are only carbon sinks when growing. Stable forests, whether natural or farmed, are pretty much net neutral. They lock away a fair bit of carbon, but don't sink a lot more when at climax.
They're also going to be fairly vulnerable to climate change. Various pests, like the emerald ash borer and the pine beetle are highly temperature dependent in their ranges which will only get bigger with increasing net warming. The boreal forests are under increasing threat.
posted by bonehead at 3:54 PM on April 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
They're also going to be fairly vulnerable to climate change. Various pests, like the emerald ash borer and the pine beetle are highly temperature dependent in their ranges which will only get bigger with increasing net warming. The boreal forests are under increasing threat.
posted by bonehead at 3:54 PM on April 3, 2019 [8 favorites]
"The captured CO2 is combined with hydrogen, which is made through the electrolysis of water."
...and then ...when we run out of water??
posted by Lanark at 3:57 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
...and then ...when we run out of water??
posted by Lanark at 3:57 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Assuming that they’re really removing a million tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere per unit per year, you’d need 40,000 of these to capture our current excess emissions (40 gigatonnes / year) - and more, if you wanted to start reducing atmospheric CO2 back to levels at which we might not be locked into catastophe. I’d be interested to see how their technology scales. And also what the resource inputs are, and where they’re getting them from, as others have said.
However, I’m not even sure that removing carbon from the atmosphere is the objective - they’re talking about recycling the captured CO2 into fuel, which would be carbon neutral overall. That’s the kind of technology that would have been helpful maybe 50 years ago. We’re well beyond that now - if this isn’t used for sequestration in some way, it’s as good as useless.
posted by chappell, ambrose at 4:00 PM on April 3, 2019 [16 favorites]
However, I’m not even sure that removing carbon from the atmosphere is the objective - they’re talking about recycling the captured CO2 into fuel, which would be carbon neutral overall. That’s the kind of technology that would have been helpful maybe 50 years ago. We’re well beyond that now - if this isn’t used for sequestration in some way, it’s as good as useless.
posted by chappell, ambrose at 4:00 PM on April 3, 2019 [16 favorites]
This sounds insane.
We’re going to use (presumably solar) power to crack water to generate hydrogen gas, so we can sequester carbon, so we can then burn fossil fuels that generate less CO2?
Hell, why don’t we just use either the initial solar power OR the thence-generated hydrogen gas for our energy directly, so we can reduce the overall amount of fossil fuels burned?
I am skeptical this makes any sense except in a “how do we get to keep burning coal and oil” kind of calculus.
posted by darkstar at 4:04 PM on April 3, 2019 [23 favorites]
We’re going to use (presumably solar) power to crack water to generate hydrogen gas, so we can sequester carbon, so we can then burn fossil fuels that generate less CO2?
Hell, why don’t we just use either the initial solar power OR the thence-generated hydrogen gas for our energy directly, so we can reduce the overall amount of fossil fuels burned?
I am skeptical this makes any sense except in a “how do we get to keep burning coal and oil” kind of calculus.
posted by darkstar at 4:04 PM on April 3, 2019 [23 favorites]
omg, what a terrible article.
The quest for technology for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the air received significant scientific endorsement last year with the publication of the IPCC report
If by endorsement you mean "We find literally no way to stay below 1.5C just by reducing CO2, so we are adding to our models the ability to remove CO2 as well, even though that technology doesn't exist outside of the lab and even if it did, would need to start buildings out at a global scale immediately."
"We can then put it underground as in sequestration, or we can combine it with hydrogen to form hydrocarbons or methanol. There's a number of things you can do."
*facepalm* You're funded by fossil fuel companies, what do you think you're going to do? Oh right, just what you say a few grafs later
CO2 can also be used to flush out the last remaining deposits of oil in wells that are past their prime
Listen, I'm a Big Tent climate guy-- we need to DO ALL THE THINGS, but we are far past the time when we can capture CO2 just to burn it and put it back in the atmosphere or use it to extract more oil!
Yeesh.
posted by gwint at 4:10 PM on April 3, 2019 [25 favorites]
The quest for technology for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the air received significant scientific endorsement last year with the publication of the IPCC report
If by endorsement you mean "We find literally no way to stay below 1.5C just by reducing CO2, so we are adding to our models the ability to remove CO2 as well, even though that technology doesn't exist outside of the lab and even if it did, would need to start buildings out at a global scale immediately."
"We can then put it underground as in sequestration, or we can combine it with hydrogen to form hydrocarbons or methanol. There's a number of things you can do."
*facepalm* You're funded by fossil fuel companies, what do you think you're going to do? Oh right, just what you say a few grafs later
CO2 can also be used to flush out the last remaining deposits of oil in wells that are past their prime
Listen, I'm a Big Tent climate guy-- we need to DO ALL THE THINGS, but we are far past the time when we can capture CO2 just to burn it and put it back in the atmosphere or use it to extract more oil!
Yeesh.
posted by gwint at 4:10 PM on April 3, 2019 [25 favorites]
Enter Shikari - Arguing With Thermometers, Lyrics
posted by glonous keming at 4:13 PM on April 3, 2019
posted by glonous keming at 4:13 PM on April 3, 2019
*deep breath*
All I'm saying is, yes, let's do CDR/CCS, but the emphasis has to be on the R and the S.
posted by gwint at 4:14 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
All I'm saying is, yes, let's do CDR/CCS, but the emphasis has to be on the R and the S.
posted by gwint at 4:14 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Well the good news is that it's just in time to stop the cancer-causing noises of wind energy.
posted by dobbs at 4:16 PM on April 3, 2019 [18 favorites]
posted by dobbs at 4:16 PM on April 3, 2019 [18 favorites]
JFC these articles and this discussion.
Cradle to grave analysis of EROEI for this process MUST result in less CO2 emission than is captured, or it's a fancy way to greenwash ourselves more quickly into an early grave as a planet.
Making high energy hydroxides takes energy, cooling air takes energy, heating shit to 900degC takes energy; much less cracking water or syngas to make stuff to react with CO2. All of these are immensely thermodynamically inefficient processes; in inescapable, fundamental ways. At the scale suggested......we can't just wave these problems away with our hands.
Where does all this energy come from? If it's not from renewable resources: we are dead quicker.
Also: How will it scale to plants the size of Arizona?. Because to do this at a scale that will push the needle on atmospheric gigatons of CO2 (read that unit again!), we will need to do this with,ooooh, ballpark estimate 10-20% of the world's gdp. 10-20c of every man woman and child's dollar for decades will need to go into these systems in order for them to make a fucking dent.
as a society we're still arguing about whether AGW is real thanks to oil companies and their ecocidal enabler useful idiots, not whether the world's economy need to be on a mandatory coerced WWII-like-footing for decades.
posted by lalochezia at 4:42 PM on April 3, 2019 [16 favorites]
Cradle to grave analysis of EROEI for this process MUST result in less CO2 emission than is captured, or it's a fancy way to greenwash ourselves more quickly into an early grave as a planet.
Making high energy hydroxides takes energy, cooling air takes energy, heating shit to 900degC takes energy; much less cracking water or syngas to make stuff to react with CO2. All of these are immensely thermodynamically inefficient processes; in inescapable, fundamental ways. At the scale suggested......we can't just wave these problems away with our hands.
Where does all this energy come from? If it's not from renewable resources: we are dead quicker.
Also: How will it scale to plants the size of Arizona?. Because to do this at a scale that will push the needle on atmospheric gigatons of CO2 (read that unit again!), we will need to do this with,ooooh, ballpark estimate 10-20% of the world's gdp. 10-20c of every man woman and child's dollar for decades will need to go into these systems in order for them to make a fucking dent.
as a society we're still arguing about whether AGW is real thanks to oil companies and their ecocidal enabler useful idiots, not whether the world's economy need to be on a mandatory coerced WWII-like-footing for decades.
posted by lalochezia at 4:42 PM on April 3, 2019 [16 favorites]
Maaaaaybe it's only mildly negative at scale or in the right place and can take up excess wind/solar and serve as energy storage or mayyyyyyybe be an offset, but that's not unicorn-investment magic.
posted by clew at 4:44 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by clew at 4:44 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Tree Farms Will Not Save Us from Global Warming
posted by MrVisible at 4:50 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by MrVisible at 4:50 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Since the researchers are in British Columbia, it looks like the energy is coming (95%!) from renewables, primarily hydro power. I haven't looked at technical specs, but I could see it be an interesting way to do solar/wind batteries- the researcher mentioned that the plants could be built to the size of a water treatment plant, so if you could connect a renewable source to provide the energy, then localities could run them- but my inclination is to keep it as a solid carbonate, instead of reconverting it back to fuel.
This technology is moot anyway until there is a multi-national price or regulatory control on carbon. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) does provide a small market for pure streams of carbon, but right now companies do everything they can to get it back out because they don't want to pay for more- it's not quite storing CO2.
posted by Hermeowne Grangepurr at 4:51 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
This technology is moot anyway until there is a multi-national price or regulatory control on carbon. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) does provide a small market for pure streams of carbon, but right now companies do everything they can to get it back out because they don't want to pay for more- it's not quite storing CO2.
posted by Hermeowne Grangepurr at 4:51 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Why are we making high energy hydroxides when bubbling co2 through basic liquids generates bicarbonate, a dissolvable solid? And at room temp, iirc.
Just in biotech there's uncountable thousands of liters of 0.5M to 1M sodium hydroxide used per plant, I believe. And this cannot possibly be the only industry with vast quantities of YourFavoriteBaseWaste.
So uh, obviously I'm missing something pretty basic as it would appear to neutralize base waste, save on acids used for neutralization, and sequester carbon.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:31 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Just in biotech there's uncountable thousands of liters of 0.5M to 1M sodium hydroxide used per plant, I believe. And this cannot possibly be the only industry with vast quantities of YourFavoriteBaseWaste.
So uh, obviously I'm missing something pretty basic as it would appear to neutralize base waste, save on acids used for neutralization, and sequester carbon.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:31 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Just in biotech there's uncountable thousands of liters of 0.5M to 1M sodium hydroxide used per plant, I believe.
I bet it's not "uncountable".
But let's do some counting.
1L of this 1M solution at ballpark max if all the NaOH reacted could absorb ~40g of CO2. Let's round up to 100g. 1 Tonne = 10000 Liters of NaOH.
To absorb 1Gt of CO2, you need 1,0000 * 1,000,000,000 L . = ten trillion liters of NaOH. How do you make this amount of NaOH solution? It sure aint surplus for any industry we think of! What do you do with that carbonated water?
We emit ~40 Gt of CO2 per year and rising.
posted by lalochezia at 5:41 PM on April 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
I have to say, I'm pretty surprised by the negativity here.
New, absolutely bleeding-edge technology is developed: "It doesn't pencil out!!!"
The current CO2 crisis is being driven by two things: emerging economies and cheap shale. "Cheap shale" was "impossible to extract shale" until very recently, when it suddenly became profitable to produce and suddenly the US fucking A has become the world's largest oil producer. Don't underestimate emerging technology.
All climate models state that we are already fucked unless we figure out carbon capture, on a scale far greater than "plant a forest". So let's SERIOUSLY invest in carbon capture. We will literally die without it.
This is a breakthrough, hopefully one of many to come. We need these breakthroughs. This technology will take a while to get to a good EROEI. It will be iteratively developed, with small breakthroughs here and there, until hopefully by 2030 we have actual carbon capture plants pulling CO2 out of our atmosphere.
The alternative: stop cheap energy usage (for all humans! including places like mongolia!) which ain't possible. Not going to happen. Hoping otherwise is like wishing Hogwarts exists.
posted by weed donkey at 6:02 PM on April 3, 2019 [11 favorites]
New, absolutely bleeding-edge technology is developed: "It doesn't pencil out!!!"
The current CO2 crisis is being driven by two things: emerging economies and cheap shale. "Cheap shale" was "impossible to extract shale" until very recently, when it suddenly became profitable to produce and suddenly the US fucking A has become the world's largest oil producer. Don't underestimate emerging technology.
All climate models state that we are already fucked unless we figure out carbon capture, on a scale far greater than "plant a forest". So let's SERIOUSLY invest in carbon capture. We will literally die without it.
This is a breakthrough, hopefully one of many to come. We need these breakthroughs. This technology will take a while to get to a good EROEI. It will be iteratively developed, with small breakthroughs here and there, until hopefully by 2030 we have actual carbon capture plants pulling CO2 out of our atmosphere.
The alternative: stop cheap energy usage (for all humans! including places like mongolia!) which ain't possible. Not going to happen. Hoping otherwise is like wishing Hogwarts exists.
posted by weed donkey at 6:02 PM on April 3, 2019 [11 favorites]
I think "all the negativity here" is a direct consequence of reality having a liberal bias.
There is no way for "breakthroughs" to get around pesky details like the conservation of energy. (Unless we're talking about Hogwarts and magic of course.)
posted by phliar at 6:20 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
There is no way for "breakthroughs" to get around pesky details like the conservation of energy. (Unless we're talking about Hogwarts and magic of course.)
posted by phliar at 6:20 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Again:
Carbon captured and turned into limestone, sent into a salt mine, or turned into jewelry: good
Carbon captured then sent back to the atmosphere via tailpipes or used to bring up more fracked carbon: bad
posted by gwint at 6:21 PM on April 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
Carbon captured and turned into limestone, sent into a salt mine, or turned into jewelry: good
Carbon captured then sent back to the atmosphere via tailpipes or used to bring up more fracked carbon: bad
posted by gwint at 6:21 PM on April 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I thought they did this already, for the purposes of re-pressurizing old oil fields, and get more oil out of them
Could we take the carbon and make oyster reefs?
posted by eustatic at 6:34 PM on April 3, 2019
Could we take the carbon and make oyster reefs?
posted by eustatic at 6:34 PM on April 3, 2019
I think "all the negativity here" is a direct consequence of reality having a liberal bias. There is no way for "breakthroughs" to get around pesky details like the conservation of energy.
How is conservation of energy a liberal bias? Seriously wtf.
I'm talking about a future technology. Technological innovation is iterative. It always is. Iterative meaning things change over time. The current iteration of this technology has a negative EROEI. Possibly future iterations will have positive EROEI with a negative carbon footprint. That would make this make sense. Let's hope for that.
The subtext being "WE NEED NEGATIVE CARBON OR WE ALL START TO DIE" but I don't want to shout, despite the fact that this is the single worst threat in human history, including and comparable to nuclear winter
posted by weed donkey at 6:47 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
How is conservation of energy a liberal bias? Seriously wtf.
I'm talking about a future technology. Technological innovation is iterative. It always is. Iterative meaning things change over time. The current iteration of this technology has a negative EROEI. Possibly future iterations will have positive EROEI with a negative carbon footprint. That would make this make sense. Let's hope for that.
The subtext being "WE NEED NEGATIVE CARBON OR WE ALL START TO DIE" but I don't want to shout, despite the fact that this is the single worst threat in human history, including and comparable to nuclear winter
posted by weed donkey at 6:47 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" is a well-known quote generally attributed to Stephen Colbert.
I think people are skeptical of this because there's insufficient information given on whether it's really net-negative in terms of carbon, or merely economical to operate, presumably by using it to enhance the extraction of oil from otherwise-marginal wells and fields. Which is to say, it could be intensely bad.
And the fact that it's funded by the companies who are currently immolating the planet and everything on it, and have a history of doing whatever they can to stop anything that would slow down the process of selling our descendants' future for a paycheck today, doesn't help that sense of skepticism.
I'd like it to be true. But I am skeptical; I fully expect that the petroleum companies and those with a vested interest in fossil fuels will use every dirty trick in the book to keep their party going, including outright lies and deception. They've long since passed the point where they can say with a straight face that they care about the future. They're playing "fuck you [literally, all of you, and also all the people not yet born, while we're at it], got mine, want more".
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:15 PM on April 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
I think people are skeptical of this because there's insufficient information given on whether it's really net-negative in terms of carbon, or merely economical to operate, presumably by using it to enhance the extraction of oil from otherwise-marginal wells and fields. Which is to say, it could be intensely bad.
And the fact that it's funded by the companies who are currently immolating the planet and everything on it, and have a history of doing whatever they can to stop anything that would slow down the process of selling our descendants' future for a paycheck today, doesn't help that sense of skepticism.
I'd like it to be true. But I am skeptical; I fully expect that the petroleum companies and those with a vested interest in fossil fuels will use every dirty trick in the book to keep their party going, including outright lies and deception. They've long since passed the point where they can say with a straight face that they care about the future. They're playing "fuck you [literally, all of you, and also all the people not yet born, while we're at it], got mine, want more".
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:15 PM on April 3, 2019 [7 favorites]
The BBC article claims $100 a tonne, but it cites only an earlier BBC article from last June, where the company claimed $100 a tonne theoretically, based on a study. No indication they've actually done it; the "big step" being trumpeted here seems to consist of oil company funding.
(This was earlier discussed on the blue BTW.)
posted by joeyh at 7:21 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
(This was earlier discussed on the blue BTW.)
posted by joeyh at 7:21 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
To absorb 1Gt of CO2, you need 1,0000 * 1,000,000,000 L . = ten trillion liters of NaOH. How do you make this amount of NaOH solution? It sure aint surplus for any industry we think of! What do you do with that carbonated water?
The nice part being it could be any sufficiently strong basic waste from literally any industry (or mine) and just takes sparging in of compressed CO2? Also, it won't be carbonated water (that would just be dissolved CO2, I think), it would be bicarbonate dissolved in water.
And now I get real hazy. I think you can crash it out as a solid by adding small amounts of calcium or other spectator ions stronger than sodium? Which if you're sparging into high pH mine waste, would just happen by itself.
Like, I'm not saying this is a magic silver bullet for 40gt of carbon. But if it even reached to 0.1gt yearly (net, allowing for CO2 compression, transit, etc), that seems like it'd be worth it, especially because we're mixing the great taste of Waste with the original flavor of Waste and getting a decent result out of it.
posted by Slackermagee at 7:24 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
The nice part being it could be any sufficiently strong basic waste from literally any industry (or mine) and just takes sparging in of compressed CO2? Also, it won't be carbonated water (that would just be dissolved CO2, I think), it would be bicarbonate dissolved in water.
And now I get real hazy. I think you can crash it out as a solid by adding small amounts of calcium or other spectator ions stronger than sodium? Which if you're sparging into high pH mine waste, would just happen by itself.
Like, I'm not saying this is a magic silver bullet for 40gt of carbon. But if it even reached to 0.1gt yearly (net, allowing for CO2 compression, transit, etc), that seems like it'd be worth it, especially because we're mixing the great taste of Waste with the original flavor of Waste and getting a decent result out of it.
posted by Slackermagee at 7:24 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
Assuming that they’re really removing a million tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere per unit per yearThey're not. The Carbon Engineering pilot plant captures 1 ton per day.
posted by joeyh at 7:32 PM on April 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
The "turn it into fuel" part of this is because that is how carbon sequestration companies can make money on the market. They need a business plan and that's private company research always includes that even though it sounds bonkers. Obviously the government could step in and buy it and sequester it if they so desired.
I have to say, I'm pretty surprised by the negativity here.
"Yet another technology that the world hasn't shown it's willing to implement because the political economy of making oil field owners give up profit is really tough" isn't really that exciting. As a pure science story whatever, but this is literally being called a "magic bullet" and it's not. (Exhibit 8913 in why BBC science reporting is not worth your time.)
The IPCC reports that posit sequestration strategies include them because we can't switch our energy infrastructure to negligible carbon overnight. Aggressive switching combined with carbon sequestration could make the difference between 1.5 C and 2 C. Carbon sequestration absent aggressive switching--which we aren't doing--is useless.
posted by mark k at 7:58 PM on April 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
I have to say, I'm pretty surprised by the negativity here.
"Yet another technology that the world hasn't shown it's willing to implement because the political economy of making oil field owners give up profit is really tough" isn't really that exciting. As a pure science story whatever, but this is literally being called a "magic bullet" and it's not. (Exhibit 8913 in why BBC science reporting is not worth your time.)
The IPCC reports that posit sequestration strategies include them because we can't switch our energy infrastructure to negligible carbon overnight. Aggressive switching combined with carbon sequestration could make the difference between 1.5 C and 2 C. Carbon sequestration absent aggressive switching--which we aren't doing--is useless.
posted by mark k at 7:58 PM on April 3, 2019 [6 favorites]
Since none of us have actually seen a heat and material balance or project economics for the facility, none of us are in a position to judge whether we think it is economical or not.
The technology holds a particular niche - if the physical location of your best renewable energy is different from your market. You could locate one of these "air to fuel" plants in buttfuck nowhere and convert highly variable renewable energy generation into a steady truck convoy (maybe even a pipeline) of carbon neutral fuel that can be used in any vehicle anywhere to displace fossil fuel use.
It addresses a couple of well-known challenges with renewable energy generation which are "what do we do when the wind isn't blowing" and "how do we distribute and fin a market for all the energy that we do make". It is a highly (renewable!) energy intensive process because it costs you energy to take CO2 from 410ppm up to pure CO2 AND get hydrogen AND reform them into syngas AND go through a Fischer-Tropsch process.
But if you want the huge advantage of a plant that has cheap inputs and incredibly valuable outputs, then it's going to cost yah.
Personally I see the greatest advantage of this technology as being applicable to very geographically remote areas where a power grid is not practical but that still have a fuel demand.
posted by askmeaboutboardgames at 8:37 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
The technology holds a particular niche - if the physical location of your best renewable energy is different from your market. You could locate one of these "air to fuel" plants in buttfuck nowhere and convert highly variable renewable energy generation into a steady truck convoy (maybe even a pipeline) of carbon neutral fuel that can be used in any vehicle anywhere to displace fossil fuel use.
It addresses a couple of well-known challenges with renewable energy generation which are "what do we do when the wind isn't blowing" and "how do we distribute and fin a market for all the energy that we do make". It is a highly (renewable!) energy intensive process because it costs you energy to take CO2 from 410ppm up to pure CO2 AND get hydrogen AND reform them into syngas AND go through a Fischer-Tropsch process.
But if you want the huge advantage of a plant that has cheap inputs and incredibly valuable outputs, then it's going to cost yah.
Personally I see the greatest advantage of this technology as being applicable to very geographically remote areas where a power grid is not practical but that still have a fuel demand.
posted by askmeaboutboardgames at 8:37 PM on April 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
There is no way for "breakthroughs" to get around pesky details like the conservation of energy.
We can't beat physical laws, but we've discovered ways over the years to use catalysts to dramatically lower the energy costs of chemical reactions, to make it possible to feed, clothe, house, and move people around.
The Haber-Bosch process is one popular example of using such catalysts. It has made fertilizer production possible on an industrial scale, feeding (ultimately) billions of people.
History suggests it might be shortsighted to entirely write off a technology that is in its infancy, only because it hasn't solved climate change overnight, or because it doesn't have all the technical problems fixed on inception.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:08 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
We can't beat physical laws, but we've discovered ways over the years to use catalysts to dramatically lower the energy costs of chemical reactions, to make it possible to feed, clothe, house, and move people around.
The Haber-Bosch process is one popular example of using such catalysts. It has made fertilizer production possible on an industrial scale, feeding (ultimately) billions of people.
History suggests it might be shortsighted to entirely write off a technology that is in its infancy, only because it hasn't solved climate change overnight, or because it doesn't have all the technical problems fixed on inception.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:08 PM on April 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Interesting news as this comes on the heels of the release of Canada's Changing Climate Report which has quite alarming things to say about the effects of climate change on Canada (spoiler alert: it's not great).
I'm trying to wade through the paper, published in Joule, which purports to be able to do this for <$100/ton, but I'm not an engineer and it's a bit beyond me at this hour.
I'm also side-eyeing the company kind of hard because they've put up a bent molecule of CO2 on their website. C'mon, CO2 is like the prototypical linear molecule. And don't get me started on the BBC infographic. It's O for oxygen, not 0 for... zero. Yes, I'm great fun at parties.
posted by invokeuse at 11:30 PM on April 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
I'm trying to wade through the paper, published in Joule, which purports to be able to do this for <$100/ton, but I'm not an engineer and it's a bit beyond me at this hour.
I'm also side-eyeing the company kind of hard because they've put up a bent molecule of CO2 on their website. C'mon, CO2 is like the prototypical linear molecule. And don't get me started on the BBC infographic. It's O for oxygen, not 0 for... zero. Yes, I'm great fun at parties.
posted by invokeuse at 11:30 PM on April 3, 2019 [4 favorites]
Fun fact: Compressed CO2 costs less than compressed air.
Heated CO2 treatment for a few days significantly increases the quality of fresh cement and concrete. Maybe 30% ends up incorporated and sequestered in the material.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:33 AM on April 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
Heated CO2 treatment for a few days significantly increases the quality of fresh cement and concrete. Maybe 30% ends up incorporated and sequestered in the material.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:33 AM on April 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
So we use energy to bind CO2 with hydroxides, then we use energy to turn that into calcium carbonate, then we use energy to heat that to 900 degrees to create concentrated CO2, then we use energy to "clean up" that concentrate to remove water impurities, then we use energy to catalyze that (also at 900C) into carbon monoxide, then we use energy to bind that with hydrogen (which we get by using energy for water electrolysis) to make a "synthesis gas", then we use energy to convert that into liquid hydrocarbons (using a process that wikipedia describes as "unpopular for many reasons" including "high operating and maintenance costs".)
Then we burn that fuel, putting the CO2 back into the atmosphere.
We're saved!
posted by ook at 7:42 AM on April 4, 2019 [5 favorites]
Then we burn that fuel, putting the CO2 back into the atmosphere.
We're saved!
posted by ook at 7:42 AM on April 4, 2019 [5 favorites]
If the energy input for all of that is renewable, and this is a way to both bank renewable energy and leverage existing HC infrastructure, yes it could be a reasonably big deal. If Shell takes this up and makes it work with wind or solar inputs, that would be fantastic.
I have to say though that I'm very skeptical. Costs are beyond prohibitive in multiple ways, by factors of 100 or more (i.e. a gallon of CC gasoline might cost $400USD). I am not convinced that this is anymore than a blind alley that the big resource companies are throwing money at (mostly tax-free or even R&D "credits", so they don't care very much) to greenwash themselves.
posted by bonehead at 7:47 AM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
I have to say though that I'm very skeptical. Costs are beyond prohibitive in multiple ways, by factors of 100 or more (i.e. a gallon of CC gasoline might cost $400USD). I am not convinced that this is anymore than a blind alley that the big resource companies are throwing money at (mostly tax-free or even R&D "credits", so they don't care very much) to greenwash themselves.
posted by bonehead at 7:47 AM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
I'm with weed donkey here; I think engineering is the only way we're going to realistically get ourselves out of global warming. Some of it we're already doing, like the focus on renewable power sources instead of fossil fuels. Some of it is still mostly pie in the sky, like carbon capture. I mean it's possible but as everyone points out it has to be a net positive for CO2 removal to be worth doing. Presumably this new project discussed here thinks it will be.
But it's the fear highlighted in the pull quote here, "climate campaigners are worried that the technology will be used to extract even more oil", that concerns me. There's a significant faction of climate activists who are convinced the only solution is for the world to use less energy. In the extreme it's almost a moral argument, like "you evil people in your cars and using electricity for looking at Internet discussion forums, you are destroying the planet". The reality is the world's economy consumes a shit-ton of fuel and will continue to increase ever moreso as the economy expands.
For that matter there's a moral imperative to actually allow fossil fuel expansion in less developed countries like India or most of Africa; the increasing carbon footprint of these places is directly tied to their improving access to food, lighting at night, basic things that we in the rich world take for granted. Saying "everyone has to stop using coal right now" is a hopeless impossibility.
So sure, campaign for fewer CO2 emissions, more efficient uses of fuel. That's a good thing where possible. But cleaner sources of power are also necessary. And maybe technologies to sequester the carbon we're already producing are part of the solution.
The big elephant in the room is whether planetary geoengineering is also part of the solution. There was a big international policy meeting about this last year that was supposed to set some ground rules for discussing projects like dimming sunlight with sulfur aerosols. Not to actually develop that tech! Just to talk about an international framework for how we might consider that developing and deploying that tech. The meeting failed to produce even a consensus that the discussion was worth having, reportedly because the US and Saudi Arabia are refusing to be bound to any international agreement about anything related to climate.
posted by Nelson at 7:50 AM on April 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
But it's the fear highlighted in the pull quote here, "climate campaigners are worried that the technology will be used to extract even more oil", that concerns me. There's a significant faction of climate activists who are convinced the only solution is for the world to use less energy. In the extreme it's almost a moral argument, like "you evil people in your cars and using electricity for looking at Internet discussion forums, you are destroying the planet". The reality is the world's economy consumes a shit-ton of fuel and will continue to increase ever moreso as the economy expands.
For that matter there's a moral imperative to actually allow fossil fuel expansion in less developed countries like India or most of Africa; the increasing carbon footprint of these places is directly tied to their improving access to food, lighting at night, basic things that we in the rich world take for granted. Saying "everyone has to stop using coal right now" is a hopeless impossibility.
So sure, campaign for fewer CO2 emissions, more efficient uses of fuel. That's a good thing where possible. But cleaner sources of power are also necessary. And maybe technologies to sequester the carbon we're already producing are part of the solution.
The big elephant in the room is whether planetary geoengineering is also part of the solution. There was a big international policy meeting about this last year that was supposed to set some ground rules for discussing projects like dimming sunlight with sulfur aerosols. Not to actually develop that tech! Just to talk about an international framework for how we might consider that developing and deploying that tech. The meeting failed to produce even a consensus that the discussion was worth having, reportedly because the US and Saudi Arabia are refusing to be bound to any international agreement about anything related to climate.
posted by Nelson at 7:50 AM on April 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
A thread of threads about restorative agricultural practices that could start sinking significant amounts of carbon today if they where enacted on a large scale with the benefit of creating habitat recreation, biodiversity, pollution clean up etc
posted by The Whelk at 7:59 AM on April 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 7:59 AM on April 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
I'm an environmental scientist---one of the main things I do is look at impacts of anthropogenic events on ecosystems and habitats. It's extraordinarily hard to predict adverse knock-on effects. The sorts of things like how predators adapt to prey changes, how, for example fish might thrive or go into catastrophic decline because the thermocline that their prey prefer to live in moves up or down by a few centimeters. And how that might affect resident mammal populations. Or feed back into the populations of other species the fish also prey upon. Natural environments are characterized by endless feedback-loops, which you absolutely can't assume are linear.
This is why geo-engineering is hard. We generally have little to no idea what large scale meddling will do. The science for the most part isn't there, either as evidence or in predictive models. It's taken decades to get a grip on what climate change is doing, and we're still scratching the surface on that.
Large scale geo-engineering right now is piloting a jet plane before we can crawl. Iron in the sea or aerosols in the atmosphere---those are the sorts of things that risk crashing the whole world by run-away warming or cooling. We don't have a scratch earth to try them out on. To put this in programming terms, do you really want to be patching a running system with literally uncounted numbers of elements? Without tests?
posted by bonehead at 8:07 AM on April 4, 2019 [4 favorites]
This is why geo-engineering is hard. We generally have little to no idea what large scale meddling will do. The science for the most part isn't there, either as evidence or in predictive models. It's taken decades to get a grip on what climate change is doing, and we're still scratching the surface on that.
Large scale geo-engineering right now is piloting a jet plane before we can crawl. Iron in the sea or aerosols in the atmosphere---those are the sorts of things that risk crashing the whole world by run-away warming or cooling. We don't have a scratch earth to try them out on. To put this in programming terms, do you really want to be patching a running system with literally uncounted numbers of elements? Without tests?
posted by bonehead at 8:07 AM on April 4, 2019 [4 favorites]
Yeah, don't get me wrong, planetary geoengineering is a terrifying idea! But so is +3C, not to mention the +5C or more we're likely to actually get on our current political course. Also terrifying is that there may be no global framework for geoengineering experiments at all, but some individual actor (a country or even a group of rich people) just start flying aerosol jets unilaterally.
Geoengineering technology is worth discussing is all I'm trying to say. You are right that it may not realistically possible for us to do anything safely in the important timeframe, say 20 years. My guess is someone's going to decide it's either safe or damn-the-consequences anyway.
posted by Nelson at 8:15 AM on April 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
Geoengineering technology is worth discussing is all I'm trying to say. You are right that it may not realistically possible for us to do anything safely in the important timeframe, say 20 years. My guess is someone's going to decide it's either safe or damn-the-consequences anyway.
posted by Nelson at 8:15 AM on April 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
For that matter there's a moral imperative to actually allow fossil fuel expansion in less developed countries like India or most of Africa; the increasing carbon footprint of these places is directly tied to their improving access to food, lighting at night, basic things that we in the rich world take for granted. Saying "everyone has to stop using coal right now" is a hopeless impossibility.
That may have been true a decade ago, but in many places (especially hot, sunny ones!) solar is cheaper to produce and faster to deploy:
* India cancels plans for huge coal power stations as solar energy prices hit record low (and solar in many areas in India became cheaper than coal over two years ago)
* Cheap renewable energy is killing India’s coal-based power plants
* India has largely completed electrification of the country
I think it is not only possible but probable that areas requiring electrification will skip directly to renewables in a way not dissimilar to how those areas skipped installing copper for landlines and went right to cell towers.
Transport will be harder, but China is trying to lead the way.
posted by gwint at 8:31 AM on April 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
That may have been true a decade ago, but in many places (especially hot, sunny ones!) solar is cheaper to produce and faster to deploy:
* India cancels plans for huge coal power stations as solar energy prices hit record low (and solar in many areas in India became cheaper than coal over two years ago)
* Cheap renewable energy is killing India’s coal-based power plants
* India has largely completed electrification of the country
I think it is not only possible but probable that areas requiring electrification will skip directly to renewables in a way not dissimilar to how those areas skipped installing copper for landlines and went right to cell towers.
Transport will be harder, but China is trying to lead the way.
posted by gwint at 8:31 AM on April 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
So the article says that the sequestering of the carbon into calcium carbonate involves reacting carbon dioxide with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_hydroxide.
Ok, great! So how is calcium hydroxide commercially produced? Apparently by reacting water with lime. Ok, that's not so bad. So where do they get the lime from?
Why, it is produced by burning energy to add heat to calcium carbonate to make it release the carbon dioxide trapped in it.
And that's the scam.
posted by Zalzidrax at 8:56 AM on April 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
Ok, great! So how is calcium hydroxide commercially produced? Apparently by reacting water with lime. Ok, that's not so bad. So where do they get the lime from?
Why, it is produced by burning energy to add heat to calcium carbonate to make it release the carbon dioxide trapped in it.
And that's the scam.
posted by Zalzidrax at 8:56 AM on April 4, 2019 [7 favorites]
→ So let's SERIOUSLY invest in carbon capture.
Real carbon capture is a good idea. But so much of it — like the Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration are just ways of funnelling public money to private companies. The Boundary Dam demo project basically exists to improve oil recovery.
From fossil plants, you can do recovery that works (chilled amine cycle) or recovery you can afford (ammonia process).
posted by scruss at 9:56 AM on April 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
Real carbon capture is a good idea. But so much of it — like the Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration are just ways of funnelling public money to private companies. The Boundary Dam demo project basically exists to improve oil recovery.
From fossil plants, you can do recovery that works (chilled amine cycle) or recovery you can afford (ammonia process).
posted by scruss at 9:56 AM on April 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
In other news, our house is now in that seasonal sweet spot where we only pay $7 connection fees for access to the electricity grid, and bank statement credits until we need to turn on the A/C (as late as possible for me). I'd love to see my whole neighborhood be a net exporter of solar energy!
posted by Hermeowne Grangepurr at 12:03 PM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Hermeowne Grangepurr at 12:03 PM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
Mechanical Engineer wept.
Seriously, the ME inside of me shudders at shit like this that continues to suck the air out of the room , pun intended, rather than forcing people to realize that ending fossil fuel use/abuse and getting general efficiency numbers up across the production/consumption spectrum is step fucking zero in any sensible analysis of what should happen. Renewable resources are a huge part of that but they alone will not be enough for a long time and, again, clothes lines, proper tire inflation, and insulation in walls and attics is the low hanging fruit we should have been using all along.
I am at the throwing up the hands phase regarding humanity and the future of the same, so what do I know anyway.
posted by RolandOfEld at 5:30 PM on April 4, 2019 [4 favorites]
Seriously, the ME inside of me shudders at shit like this that continues to suck the air out of the room , pun intended, rather than forcing people to realize that ending fossil fuel use/abuse and getting general efficiency numbers up across the production/consumption spectrum is step fucking zero in any sensible analysis of what should happen. Renewable resources are a huge part of that but they alone will not be enough for a long time and, again, clothes lines, proper tire inflation, and insulation in walls and attics is the low hanging fruit we should have been using all along.
I am at the throwing up the hands phase regarding humanity and the future of the same, so what do I know anyway.
posted by RolandOfEld at 5:30 PM on April 4, 2019 [4 favorites]
Large scale geo-engineering right now is piloting a jet plane before we can crawl. Iron in the sea or aerosols in the atmosphere---those are the sorts of things that risk crashing the whole world by run-away warming or cooling.
This is precisely why carbon capture and sequestration is so damn important. Past emissions are already enough to create many trillions of dollars in economic losses and cause millions of early deaths.
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time giving a shit if the wrong people are funding it or even if the economic benefits might be stolen by asshats if we sit on our hands, so long as it actually works. Given the reality of things like aviation, where the energy density of alternative energy storage mediums basically requires liquid hydrocarbons at present, having to option to use the same outputs from carbon capture plants to generate liquid fuels for those uses where replacement is currently impossible is a good thing.
Like it or not, government spending is anathema to a large part of our society. If selling the output allows private funds to be used to make this and other carbon capture systems more economical, I'm fine with using people's greed to get it there at a time when, regardless of my preference, the fact of the matter is that insufficient public investments are being made. The cheaper carbon capture gets, the sooner sufficiently large amounts of carbon to make a significant difference can be removed from the atmosphere.
We simply can't afford delay because of ideological differences. Let's please do work to ensure that the benefits accrue to all, though, and not just a few. Let's just not stand in the way of progress in the meantime, we need all the help we can get, even if some of it comes from our enemies.
posted by wierdo at 6:53 PM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
This is precisely why carbon capture and sequestration is so damn important. Past emissions are already enough to create many trillions of dollars in economic losses and cause millions of early deaths.
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time giving a shit if the wrong people are funding it or even if the economic benefits might be stolen by asshats if we sit on our hands, so long as it actually works. Given the reality of things like aviation, where the energy density of alternative energy storage mediums basically requires liquid hydrocarbons at present, having to option to use the same outputs from carbon capture plants to generate liquid fuels for those uses where replacement is currently impossible is a good thing.
Like it or not, government spending is anathema to a large part of our society. If selling the output allows private funds to be used to make this and other carbon capture systems more economical, I'm fine with using people's greed to get it there at a time when, regardless of my preference, the fact of the matter is that insufficient public investments are being made. The cheaper carbon capture gets, the sooner sufficiently large amounts of carbon to make a significant difference can be removed from the atmosphere.
We simply can't afford delay because of ideological differences. Let's please do work to ensure that the benefits accrue to all, though, and not just a few. Let's just not stand in the way of progress in the meantime, we need all the help we can get, even if some of it comes from our enemies.
posted by wierdo at 6:53 PM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
To clarify, if you, like me, are horrified at the various geoengineering projects that involve spewing more shit into the atmosphere without any solid idea about what side effects might happen to result, arguing against carbon capture is counterproductive.
We're going to take some kind of active measures, like it or not. It's simply too attractive for somebody not to try it, consensus be damned, unless other options beat them to it. It is only a matter of time unless less invasive means are already pretty much ready to be deployed at scale. The visible impacts of climate change seem to be compounding, so I don't find it at all hard to believe panic will set in relatively soon and people will start doing really stupid shit if we aren't out in front of it with a solution that isn't just "use less energy and take our lumps for our past emissions."
Expecting people to sit idly by once they are forced to accept the reality of the problem seems illogical given how humans tend to respond to crisis.
posted by wierdo at 7:09 PM on April 4, 2019
We're going to take some kind of active measures, like it or not. It's simply too attractive for somebody not to try it, consensus be damned, unless other options beat them to it. It is only a matter of time unless less invasive means are already pretty much ready to be deployed at scale. The visible impacts of climate change seem to be compounding, so I don't find it at all hard to believe panic will set in relatively soon and people will start doing really stupid shit if we aren't out in front of it with a solution that isn't just "use less energy and take our lumps for our past emissions."
Expecting people to sit idly by once they are forced to accept the reality of the problem seems illogical given how humans tend to respond to crisis.
posted by wierdo at 7:09 PM on April 4, 2019
A massive problem with the "magic bullet" framing, even if it weren't so totally disconnected from reality, is that it implies waiting for some new technology innovation to pay off is a sensible approach. Or at least has a meaningful chance of solving the problem. As opposed to aggressive and costly measures that we need to start now. Oil companies putting a few tens of millions of dollars into the tech is certainly consistent with a prong of their old misdirection strategy, in which they pretend hard changes aren't needed now because easy changes are right around the corner.
I'm skeptical this approach is going to end up contributing--to do so it doesn't just need to work, it needs to work so well that $100 invested in this is better than $100 invested in solar or anything else. OTOH there's pretty much no approach to mitigation I don't think is worth at least studying now, as long as we don't use it as an excuse not to do other stuff.
FWIW for that reason I'm one of the more "geoengineering curious" members of MeFi. But carbon sequestration barely moves the needle in terms of geoengineering riskiness. If it's actually effective & energy efficient the unintended consequences of taking 100 ppm of CO2 out of the atmosphere aren't much different from never having emitted them in the first place. (Schemes to take them out like iron fertilization might fail and even backfire, but that's a different issue.)
A last comment/reminder: Photosynthesis is really bad at grabbing power from sunlight. Usually natural systems make human engineers look like clowns but photosynthesis is an order of magnitude worse than the old fashioned solar cells on your roof.
posted by mark k at 8:04 PM on April 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
I'm skeptical this approach is going to end up contributing--to do so it doesn't just need to work, it needs to work so well that $100 invested in this is better than $100 invested in solar or anything else. OTOH there's pretty much no approach to mitigation I don't think is worth at least studying now, as long as we don't use it as an excuse not to do other stuff.
FWIW for that reason I'm one of the more "geoengineering curious" members of MeFi. But carbon sequestration barely moves the needle in terms of geoengineering riskiness. If it's actually effective & energy efficient the unintended consequences of taking 100 ppm of CO2 out of the atmosphere aren't much different from never having emitted them in the first place. (Schemes to take them out like iron fertilization might fail and even backfire, but that's a different issue.)
A last comment/reminder: Photosynthesis is really bad at grabbing power from sunlight. Usually natural systems make human engineers look like clowns but photosynthesis is an order of magnitude worse than the old fashioned solar cells on your roof.
posted by mark k at 8:04 PM on April 4, 2019 [2 favorites]
I think my previous comment that "there's a niche for this" may have been too kind. I think this might just be a completely shitty version of BECCS (bio-energy carbon capture and sequestration). Every thousand litres of air that passes through the front end of this plant contains just 0.3 grams of carbon. I'm pretty sure that biomass gasification with carbon capture and sequestration would be significantly more efficient.
I am pretty sure that once you have a syngas stream, the question of whether you make carbon neutral fuels or electricity comes down to distance from market.
So perhaps the niche for this decreases to "somewhere with no access to feedstock crops, and with no access to an electricity market, but where liquid fuels could be distributed. But also with at least a little water supply."
posted by askmeaboutboardgames at 9:51 PM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
I am pretty sure that once you have a syngas stream, the question of whether you make carbon neutral fuels or electricity comes down to distance from market.
So perhaps the niche for this decreases to "somewhere with no access to feedstock crops, and with no access to an electricity market, but where liquid fuels could be distributed. But also with at least a little water supply."
posted by askmeaboutboardgames at 9:51 PM on April 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
Photosynthesis is really bad at grabbing power from sunlight. Usually natural systems make human engineers look like clowns but photosynthesis is an order of magnitude worse than the old fashioned solar cells on your roof
But it scales pretty well ;)
posted by gwint at 5:13 AM on April 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
But it scales pretty well ;)
posted by gwint at 5:13 AM on April 5, 2019 [1 favorite]
Photosynthesis is really bad at grabbing power from sunlight.
Photosynthesis is part of a completely self-sustaining system that requires no inputs or expertise from humans (other than enough knowledge to leave it alone, which is, actually, non-trivial, but is worth cultivating for a wide range of reasons). It also has tons of ancillary benefits:
- produces oxygen
- produces all food
- produces beauty, which gives people substantial reasons to be alive, which
- reduces depression
- produces textiles, fragrances, building materials
- creates homes and food for all animal life
- creates shade to cool homes and land
- gets moisture into the air, which aids breathing
- creates drugs to treat disease
- many, many other benefits both known and unknown
posted by amtho at 2:29 PM on April 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
Photosynthesis is part of a completely self-sustaining system that requires no inputs or expertise from humans (other than enough knowledge to leave it alone, which is, actually, non-trivial, but is worth cultivating for a wide range of reasons). It also has tons of ancillary benefits:
- produces oxygen
- produces all food
- produces beauty, which gives people substantial reasons to be alive, which
- reduces depression
- produces textiles, fragrances, building materials
- creates homes and food for all animal life
- creates shade to cool homes and land
- gets moisture into the air, which aids breathing
- creates drugs to treat disease
- many, many other benefits both known and unknown
posted by amtho at 2:29 PM on April 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
Photosynthesis is part of a completely self-sustaining system that requires no inputs or expertise from humans
I wasn't trying to do a general dismissal of plants. As I said, in general natural techniques put humans to shame. Photosynthesis is the exception though; the exquisite chemistry plants can do afterwards with the photosynthetic products doesn't change that.
This limits how "self-sustainable" or easily "scalable" they are in a useful way right now. Photosynthesis is key to the biological carbon cycle; the problem we are facing is basically humans are dumping carbon that isn't part of that cycle back into play. This has happened before without humans to interfere with the whole thing--and led to mass extinctions we'll take a while to outdo, as much damage as we're locked into causing notwithstanding. You can't dump all the CO2 locked up over millions of years by the Carboniferous forests and expect their modern descendants to repeat the task in a few decades.
People who are going down the route of leveraging photosynthesis to deal with climate change absolutely do not think it involves no inputs or expertise from humans. It involves manipulating vast swaths of land to reshape the dominant ecosystems, then getting in and cutting down trees almost as fast as they grow so we can remove them from the "natural" cycle. On their own plants are not going to save us; as part of a human managed project they could contribute but the 2% efficiency kind of matters.
posted by mark k at 8:43 PM on April 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
I wasn't trying to do a general dismissal of plants. As I said, in general natural techniques put humans to shame. Photosynthesis is the exception though; the exquisite chemistry plants can do afterwards with the photosynthetic products doesn't change that.
This limits how "self-sustainable" or easily "scalable" they are in a useful way right now. Photosynthesis is key to the biological carbon cycle; the problem we are facing is basically humans are dumping carbon that isn't part of that cycle back into play. This has happened before without humans to interfere with the whole thing--and led to mass extinctions we'll take a while to outdo, as much damage as we're locked into causing notwithstanding. You can't dump all the CO2 locked up over millions of years by the Carboniferous forests and expect their modern descendants to repeat the task in a few decades.
People who are going down the route of leveraging photosynthesis to deal with climate change absolutely do not think it involves no inputs or expertise from humans. It involves manipulating vast swaths of land to reshape the dominant ecosystems, then getting in and cutting down trees almost as fast as they grow so we can remove them from the "natural" cycle. On their own plants are not going to save us; as part of a human managed project they could contribute but the 2% efficiency kind of matters.
posted by mark k at 8:43 PM on April 5, 2019 [3 favorites]
metafilter: I wasn't trying to do a general dismissal of plants.
posted by pelvicsorcery at 7:47 AM on April 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by pelvicsorcery at 7:47 AM on April 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
Jason Hickel (@jasonhickel) on 'magic bullets': Better Technology Isn’t The Solution To Ecological Collapse: We cannot innovate our way out of planetary disaster. We need to ditch our addiction to GDP growth
Why the bad news? The main reason is that tech innovation just doesn’t work the way most of us assume. We know that Moore’s law says that chip performance doubles about every two years–but this doesn’t apply to material use. There are physical limits to material efficiency, and once we start to reach them then the scale effect of growth drives material use back up in the long run. For instance you might be able to produce a wooden table more efficiently, but you can’t produce a table out of nothing. In the end you’ll need a minimum amount of wood, and once you reach that limit, then any growth in table production is going to come along with a corresponding growth in wood use.posted by homunculus at 8:03 PM on April 21, 2019 [3 favorites]
It would be hard to overstate the impact of these results. Right now, our only plan for dealing with the ecological emergency that’s staring us in the face is to hope that tech innovation and green growth will mitigate the coming disaster. Yes, we’re going to need all the wizardry we can get–but that alone is not going to be enough. The only real option is in fact much simpler and more obvious: We need to start consuming less.
The tricky bit is that our existing economic operating system–capitalism–has a design flaw at its core. It requires that we produce and consume more and more stuff each year. If we don’t, then firms collapse and people lose their jobs and livelihoods. So it’s time to make room for new systems to emerge–systems that don’t require endless exponential growth just to stay afloat. This is where we need to focus our creative energy, rather than clinging to the false hope of “green growth” fantasies.
There are lots of ways to get there. We could start by ditching GDP as an indicator of success in favor of a more balanced measure like the Genuine Progress Indicator, which accounts for negative “externalities” like pollution and material depletion. We could roll out a new money system that doesn’t pump our system full of interest-bearing debt. And we could start thinking about putting caps on material use, so that we never extract more than the Earth can regenerate.
The old generation of innovators believed that tech would allow us to subdue nature and bend it to our will. Our generation is waking up to a more hopeful truth: that our survival depends not on domination, but on harmony.
« Older These insects seem almost fearless in their... | Even growing in a filthy pond, the white lotus... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nubs at 2:58 PM on April 3, 2019