Rock The Carbon
August 18, 2023 12:51 PM Subscribe
Could weathered rock be the magic dust that vaults us towards our climate goals? "Previous research has looked at the huge potential of rock weathering—the process through which rain that captures CO2 from the atmosphere as it falls, reacts with rock to form carbonates which capture the carbon. ... ‘Enhanced’ rock weathering is a process that relies on first grinding the rock up to increase the available surface area for the weathering action to occur. Vast tracts of farmland provide the ideal real estate where this technology can be applied at scale—and farmers benefit, as weathered basalt enriches the soil with crop-boosting minerals over time."
"...Across those initial 963 farms, the researchers found that basalt could sequester about 64 gigatons of carbon dioxide—an amount equivalent to the emissions from 35 years’ worth of coal burning in the United States.
This is already an impressive figure—but if spread across all the world’s croplands the potential is astronomical: rock dust could lock away 217 gigatons of carbon over the next 75 years."
It should go without saying that:
(1) We still need to stop burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
(2) If the rock is crushed and distributed using fossil-fuel-powered machinery, much of the benefit of this technique will be lost. But we're now in a position to do it with technology powered by renewable electricity.
"...Across those initial 963 farms, the researchers found that basalt could sequester about 64 gigatons of carbon dioxide—an amount equivalent to the emissions from 35 years’ worth of coal burning in the United States.
This is already an impressive figure—but if spread across all the world’s croplands the potential is astronomical: rock dust could lock away 217 gigatons of carbon over the next 75 years."
It should go without saying that:
(1) We still need to stop burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
(2) If the rock is crushed and distributed using fossil-fuel-powered machinery, much of the benefit of this technique will be lost. But we're now in a position to do it with technology powered by renewable electricity.
I've been advising colleges and universities to get into this, especially if they have lawns, but also for ag programs.
Yes, this seems like a win-win for agriculture, big and small, as well as any other entities interested in carbon capture -- including governments and businesses trying to offset their emissions.
I can envision farmers making a pretty penny selling carbon credits to those who want or need them.
It's super-low-tech -- way simpler than the elaborate carbon capture technologies that, e.g., the oil industry is obsessed with. And it looks cheaper and more reliable too.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:57 PM on August 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
Yes, this seems like a win-win for agriculture, big and small, as well as any other entities interested in carbon capture -- including governments and businesses trying to offset their emissions.
I can envision farmers making a pretty penny selling carbon credits to those who want or need them.
It's super-low-tech -- way simpler than the elaborate carbon capture technologies that, e.g., the oil industry is obsessed with. And it looks cheaper and more reliable too.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:57 PM on August 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
If the rock is crushed and distributed using fossil-fuel-powered machinery, much of the benefit of this technique will be lost.
We can at least estimate what "much" means here.
Rock weathering will ultimately stablise the climate by absorbing excess carbon dioxide. That happens over millions of years because rock weathers very slowly. To make it happen faster you need that rock to have a higher surface area, which means grinding it into fine particles. The research paper behind that article compared 1 mm grains with 0.1 mm grains. The sequestration was about ten times slower for coarser grains.
That paper didn't compare the emissions increased by grinding rock to dust. Without that figure, this paper answers only half of the question.
Energy costs for grinding rock depend upon the rock and the particle size but a ballpark is 10 kWh for enough 0.1 mm particles to absorb 1 tonne of CO2. (Rough figures pulled from NASEM's 300-page review of research into ocean carbon dioxide removal but they note "to date, a complete life-cycle analysis has not been conducted, and there are no empirical data for a scaled experiment or field trials with calculated energy budgets.".)
Burning enough coal to release one tonne of CO2 releases energy worth 3100 kWh. Converting that energy to electricity gets you 1000 kWh, give or take. Grinding up the rock to absorb that CO2 requires 10 kWh. So "much" means not actually very much. 1%ish.
Addendum:
1. Yes, on top of the grinding you need to add emissions from mining & transport. Those might triple the emissions but you'd still be way ahead.
2. Yes, you could use renewable electricity to power the grinding. But that renewable electricty is better used to replace fossil fuel use in the first place.
posted by happyinmotion at 2:14 PM on August 18, 2023 [28 favorites]
We can at least estimate what "much" means here.
Rock weathering will ultimately stablise the climate by absorbing excess carbon dioxide. That happens over millions of years because rock weathers very slowly. To make it happen faster you need that rock to have a higher surface area, which means grinding it into fine particles. The research paper behind that article compared 1 mm grains with 0.1 mm grains. The sequestration was about ten times slower for coarser grains.
That paper didn't compare the emissions increased by grinding rock to dust. Without that figure, this paper answers only half of the question.
Energy costs for grinding rock depend upon the rock and the particle size but a ballpark is 10 kWh for enough 0.1 mm particles to absorb 1 tonne of CO2. (Rough figures pulled from NASEM's 300-page review of research into ocean carbon dioxide removal but they note "to date, a complete life-cycle analysis has not been conducted, and there are no empirical data for a scaled experiment or field trials with calculated energy budgets.".)
Burning enough coal to release one tonne of CO2 releases energy worth 3100 kWh. Converting that energy to electricity gets you 1000 kWh, give or take. Grinding up the rock to absorb that CO2 requires 10 kWh. So "much" means not actually very much. 1%ish.
Addendum:
1. Yes, on top of the grinding you need to add emissions from mining & transport. Those might triple the emissions but you'd still be way ahead.
2. Yes, you could use renewable electricity to power the grinding. But that renewable electricty is better used to replace fossil fuel use in the first place.
posted by happyinmotion at 2:14 PM on August 18, 2023 [28 favorites]
What if the grinding was done by petroleum company executives and large stockholders? As a public works project.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:59 PM on August 18, 2023 [21 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:59 PM on August 18, 2023 [21 favorites]
What if the grinding was done by petroleum company executives and large stockholders? As a public works project.
Inefficient as it would be from a climate perspective, it would be marvelous to see them all lined up with hammers chipping bigger rocks into smaller rocks.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:13 PM on August 18, 2023 [13 favorites]
Inefficient as it would be from a climate perspective, it would be marvelous to see them all lined up with hammers chipping bigger rocks into smaller rocks.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:13 PM on August 18, 2023 [13 favorites]
Rock weathering and cloud seeding via seawater aerosols from fleets of oceangoing ships are about the only things I think we realistically have a shot at spinning up in the crucial next few years that will have a noticeable, positive impact. Yes, we have to stop burning fossil fuels immediately. But even if we somehow overnight grow the political will to do that, the cessation of pouring more carbon and greenhouse gases into the system just stops the bleeding. Positive results in the form of "we avoided a worse negative result" don't motivate people; c.f. COVID. We may not see the positive results from that in most peoples' lifetimes. Cloud seeding would make the world less hot in like 18-24 months.
And if we don't do it smartly, eventually a nation or some other actor (with a lot more to lose when next summer is even hotter that this summer, and the winter after that is hotter than last summer) is going to start dropping aerosolized sulfur out of airplanes, and make the decision for the whole world.
posted by penduluum at 3:20 PM on August 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
And if we don't do it smartly, eventually a nation or some other actor (with a lot more to lose when next summer is even hotter that this summer, and the winter after that is hotter than last summer) is going to start dropping aerosolized sulfur out of airplanes, and make the decision for the whole world.
posted by penduluum at 3:20 PM on August 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
pendulum, agree 100%. Rock dust and seawater may in hindsight be seen as the two most important substances of the 21st century.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:47 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:47 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
if we grind rocks our way out of climate change, we still have capitalism and global inequality that will eventually destabilize the system. I am convinced that if this really worked, the oil and gas companies would get government to pay for it, and we would continue on our merry way as if nothing was wrong, meanwhile all the ills of endless growth would continue apace.
Any system that will solve the climate crisis must, in my opinion, also include radical reforms to our economic, political, and cultural systems.
posted by stilgar at 4:10 PM on August 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
Any system that will solve the climate crisis must, in my opinion, also include radical reforms to our economic, political, and cultural systems.
posted by stilgar at 4:10 PM on August 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
How long does this carbonated rock stay carbonated?
I have a really hard time with any carbon "sequestration" scheme that does not reliably remove the carbon from the carbon cycle for millions, maybe tens of millions, of years. My intuition is, this powdered-rock scheme is probably not that.
Which is not to say that it is not maybe worth doing, as a sort of band-aid measure. But really reliably removing the carbon from where it can cause harm... I suspect that will require getting the carbon solidified in bulk form that's denser than water, and sinking it in midocean trenches. Or burying it in deep holes (think 1000s of meters) in continental rock, and filling the holes in again.
It will take an energy expenditure of magnitude comparable to the power released by coal- and petroleum-burning over the last 200 years just to get the carbon into solid form, probably. Seems science-fictional. Sometimes I daydream about groves of genetically-engineered trees, with vast leaf surface to transpire more air than any natural plant, that bear fruits consisting mostly of nodules of graphite, or maybe diamond. Diamond would be better I guess. That could work, right?
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 4:40 PM on August 18, 2023 [3 favorites]
I have a really hard time with any carbon "sequestration" scheme that does not reliably remove the carbon from the carbon cycle for millions, maybe tens of millions, of years. My intuition is, this powdered-rock scheme is probably not that.
Which is not to say that it is not maybe worth doing, as a sort of band-aid measure. But really reliably removing the carbon from where it can cause harm... I suspect that will require getting the carbon solidified in bulk form that's denser than water, and sinking it in midocean trenches. Or burying it in deep holes (think 1000s of meters) in continental rock, and filling the holes in again.
It will take an energy expenditure of magnitude comparable to the power released by coal- and petroleum-burning over the last 200 years just to get the carbon into solid form, probably. Seems science-fictional. Sometimes I daydream about groves of genetically-engineered trees, with vast leaf surface to transpire more air than any natural plant, that bear fruits consisting mostly of nodules of graphite, or maybe diamond. Diamond would be better I guess. That could work, right?
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 4:40 PM on August 18, 2023 [3 favorites]
Sometimes I daydream about groves of genetically-engineered trees, with vast leaf surface to transpire more air than any natural plant, that bear fruits consisting mostly of nodules of graphite
Oyster reefs. You thinking of clam shell beds and oyster reefs.
We can grow them in 3d space using ropes that extend through the water column.
You eat the animal, and spread the cultch, which sinks
If we go extinct it will be because we ve forgotten most of what our ancestors knew about the world
posted by eustatic at 5:23 PM on August 18, 2023 [10 favorites]
Oyster reefs. You thinking of clam shell beds and oyster reefs.
We can grow them in 3d space using ropes that extend through the water column.
You eat the animal, and spread the cultch, which sinks
If we go extinct it will be because we ve forgotten most of what our ancestors knew about the world
posted by eustatic at 5:23 PM on August 18, 2023 [10 favorites]
It's potentially more "distract and delay" though - another excuse too keep doing bad things :(
posted by merlynkline at 5:29 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by merlynkline at 5:29 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
How long does this carbonated rock stay carbonated?
I have a really hard time with any carbon "sequestration" scheme that does not reliably remove the carbon from the carbon cycle for millions, maybe tens of millions, of years. My intuition is, this powdered-rock scheme is probably not that.
From the article in the post:
This is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 5:47 PM on August 18, 2023 [3 favorites]
I have a really hard time with any carbon "sequestration" scheme that does not reliably remove the carbon from the carbon cycle for millions, maybe tens of millions, of years. My intuition is, this powdered-rock scheme is probably not that.
From the article in the post:
Previous research has looked at the huge potential of rock weathering—the process through which rain that captures CO2 from the atmosphere as it falls, reacts with rock to form carbonates which capture the carbon. From here, the carbon either precipitates into the soil or flows into the ocean where it can then be sequestered for centuries in marine sediments.Multiple centuries is plenty long enough, for our purposes. At the very least, it buys us time to come up with multimillion-year solutions. If some of the carbon leaks back out in the meantime, there's plenty more basalt around that we can grind up to capture it again.
This is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 5:47 PM on August 18, 2023 [3 favorites]
It's potentially more "distract and delay" though - another excuse too keep doing bad things :(
This "moral hazard" argument is frequently made against any kind of geoengineering that could actually undo the very real damage we've already done to the climate.
The problem is that we've already incurred so much damage, that even total cessation of anthropogenic carbon emissions tomorrow wouldn't save us.
We are going to need to actively sequester already-emitted carbon, and almost certainly also actively manage solar radiation, to prevent catastrophic consequences.
Not doing it out of fear that it might encourage bad behavior would be like not administering naloxone to an opioid addict having an overdose. It's either take active measures or let people die. It's a very good idea to wean the addict off the drugs that got them into trouble, but that's not sufficient in the current emergency.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 5:53 PM on August 18, 2023 [13 favorites]
This "moral hazard" argument is frequently made against any kind of geoengineering that could actually undo the very real damage we've already done to the climate.
The problem is that we've already incurred so much damage, that even total cessation of anthropogenic carbon emissions tomorrow wouldn't save us.
We are going to need to actively sequester already-emitted carbon, and almost certainly also actively manage solar radiation, to prevent catastrophic consequences.
Not doing it out of fear that it might encourage bad behavior would be like not administering naloxone to an opioid addict having an overdose. It's either take active measures or let people die. It's a very good idea to wean the addict off the drugs that got them into trouble, but that's not sufficient in the current emergency.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 5:53 PM on August 18, 2023 [13 favorites]
I love this stuff! Here's a direct link to some specific research on how this can be deployed in the real world: https://lab.igb.illinois.edu/long/press/press-releases/farming-crops-rocks-reduce-co2-and-improve-global-food-security
(And yes capitalism can ruin anything but this post is about science and using it to help, not about how capitalism sucks. It does, and we have plenty of threads on that, but let's try to not shit on this cool research merely because there exist bad actors)
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:57 PM on August 18, 2023 [5 favorites]
(And yes capitalism can ruin anything but this post is about science and using it to help, not about how capitalism sucks. It does, and we have plenty of threads on that, but let's try to not shit on this cool research merely because there exist bad actors)
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:57 PM on August 18, 2023 [5 favorites]
I seem to recall that the rise of the Himalayas, in addition to drastically changing global weather patterns, is thought to have in part precipitated our current cycle of Ice Ages through all the carbon they removed from the atmosphere simply by existing and thus weathering.
Been many years since I saw that in some documentary or another, but the idea always stuck with me.
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 5:58 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
Been many years since I saw that in some documentary or another, but the idea always stuck with me.
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 5:58 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
Any system that will solve the climate crisis must, in my opinion, also include radical reforms to our economic, political, and cultural systems
Refusing to consider measures that could stop and even reverse climate change if they don't also result in the end of capitalism seems kind of purist, IMO.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 6:00 PM on August 18, 2023 [13 favorites]
Refusing to consider measures that could stop and even reverse climate change if they don't also result in the end of capitalism seems kind of purist, IMO.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 6:00 PM on August 18, 2023 [13 favorites]
It will take an energy expenditure of magnitude comparable to the power released by coal- and petroleum-burning over the last 200 years just to get the carbon into solid form, probably.
This is a misconception I too once shared, and it was very discouraging. However, the chemistry of enhanced weathering doesn't involve reversing the combustion reaction. (Unlike, say, the arrogance of Terraform Industries.)
Instead, enhanced weathering follows thermodynamically favorable pathways that transform CO2 into solid and stable compounds of carbon at a lower energy state. If a tonne of CO2 represents ~3000 kWh of energy released, then a process that fixes the same amount of carbon using a small fraction of that energy (thanks to adequate availability of feedstock and favorable chemistry) is a minor "miracle" of science worth exploring.
posted by Verg at 6:10 PM on August 18, 2023 [8 favorites]
This is a misconception I too once shared, and it was very discouraging. However, the chemistry of enhanced weathering doesn't involve reversing the combustion reaction. (Unlike, say, the arrogance of Terraform Industries.)
Instead, enhanced weathering follows thermodynamically favorable pathways that transform CO2 into solid and stable compounds of carbon at a lower energy state. If a tonne of CO2 represents ~3000 kWh of energy released, then a process that fixes the same amount of carbon using a small fraction of that energy (thanks to adequate availability of feedstock and favorable chemistry) is a minor "miracle" of science worth exploring.
posted by Verg at 6:10 PM on August 18, 2023 [8 favorites]
I'm curious why there is there no mention in the article or linked articles of the pioneering work of John Hamaker.
posted by Glomar response at 6:12 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Glomar response at 6:12 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
Hey I have no idea if this will work, i have some concerns about the mining.
But compared to the geoengineering we are currently engaged in, and the $50 -$200 billion in tax credits Joe Manchin put into the IRA bill for clean coal, which shoots the.liquified CO2 into your drinking water at high pressures, and prays.
this seems sane.
To me, seems like a great use for tidal power.
We need to pass a climate bill to electrify the nation and build energy microgrids. The IRA has a little bit of Billion toward these things, it just needs to be scaled up an order of magnitude or two
Which would have destroyed the oil market but that is the point / that s why the larger bill was killed
We almost passed a climate bill in the USA. We can try again.
We need land use solutions, and this seems a much more scalable, safe, sound technology than using that same farmland as a liquid CO2 injection site, which is what the USA is still trying now.
posted by eustatic at 6:16 PM on August 18, 2023 [3 favorites]
But compared to the geoengineering we are currently engaged in, and the $50 -$200 billion in tax credits Joe Manchin put into the IRA bill for clean coal, which shoots the.liquified CO2 into your drinking water at high pressures, and prays.
this seems sane.
To me, seems like a great use for tidal power.
We need to pass a climate bill to electrify the nation and build energy microgrids. The IRA has a little bit of Billion toward these things, it just needs to be scaled up an order of magnitude or two
Which would have destroyed the oil market but that is the point / that s why the larger bill was killed
We almost passed a climate bill in the USA. We can try again.
We need land use solutions, and this seems a much more scalable, safe, sound technology than using that same farmland as a liquid CO2 injection site, which is what the USA is still trying now.
posted by eustatic at 6:16 PM on August 18, 2023 [3 favorites]
> We are going to need to actively sequester already-emitted carbon
Fair. I'm probably too cynical TBH. We should try everything and there's no doubt we need stopgaps at the very least.
posted by merlynkline at 6:25 PM on August 18, 2023 [2 favorites]
Fair. I'm probably too cynical TBH. We should try everything and there's no doubt we need stopgaps at the very least.
posted by merlynkline at 6:25 PM on August 18, 2023 [2 favorites]
To me, seems like a great use for tidal power.
One of the frequently commented on facts of the green energy transition is that while cheap, solar is incredibly seasonal, and annual variation in hydro is also large due to rainfall changes. Because long-term storage of energy is hard / expensive you end up having to massively overbuild when things are running well. Industries like ammonia and smelting that are heavily energy driven help by using lots of power when it's cheap. Hydrogen is often suggested, but is pretty expensive and inefficient to store. So energy-intensive carbon fixation projects are a natural fit, as long as someone is willing to pay for them.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 7:11 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
One of the frequently commented on facts of the green energy transition is that while cheap, solar is incredibly seasonal, and annual variation in hydro is also large due to rainfall changes. Because long-term storage of energy is hard / expensive you end up having to massively overbuild when things are running well. Industries like ammonia and smelting that are heavily energy driven help by using lots of power when it's cheap. Hydrogen is often suggested, but is pretty expensive and inefficient to store. So energy-intensive carbon fixation projects are a natural fit, as long as someone is willing to pay for them.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 7:11 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
Hey I have no idea if this will work, i have some concerns about the mining.
That's an understandable concern, but it seems that we probably have all the already-mined basalt we would need just sitting around already.
According to this article: "Mine owners benefit because ground basalt has been piling up as an unwanted waste product worldwide for decades."
I realize this whole idea sounds too good to be true, but the more you investigate it, the more credible a solution it appears to be.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:21 PM on August 18, 2023 [8 favorites]
That's an understandable concern, but it seems that we probably have all the already-mined basalt we would need just sitting around already.
According to this article: "Mine owners benefit because ground basalt has been piling up as an unwanted waste product worldwide for decades."
I realize this whole idea sounds too good to be true, but the more you investigate it, the more credible a solution it appears to be.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:21 PM on August 18, 2023 [8 favorites]
I'm curious why there is there no mention in the article or linked articles of the pioneering work of John Hamaker.
Wow, he sounds fascinating, and was clearly a pioneer in studying the agricultural benefits of rock dust.
However, it seems that he was operating from an assumption that the Earth's climate was cooling, rather than warming, and carbon sequestration does not appear to have been one of his major concerns.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:27 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
Wow, he sounds fascinating, and was clearly a pioneer in studying the agricultural benefits of rock dust.
However, it seems that he was operating from an assumption that the Earth's climate was cooling, rather than warming, and carbon sequestration does not appear to have been one of his major concerns.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:27 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
Confusingly, Wikipedia says he wrote a book that called for "reforesting the planet to return atmospheric carbon dioxide to a normal interglacial level near 280 ppm, to help slow the glacial advance."
Slow?
The link implied between CO2 and glaciation is confusing here.
posted by Verg at 8:03 PM on August 18, 2023
Slow?
The link implied between CO2 and glaciation is confusing here.
posted by Verg at 8:03 PM on August 18, 2023
"Mine owners benefit because ground basalt has been piling up as an unwanted waste product worldwide for decades."
So aren't mine owners effectively already doing this, by making giant piles of ground up CO2-sequestering rock? I get that spreading it on a field exposes more surface area and is more efficient, but if it's already lying around in giant piles, shouldn't we be seeing some portion of the effect already?
posted by Dysk at 5:26 AM on August 19, 2023 [1 favorite]
So aren't mine owners effectively already doing this, by making giant piles of ground up CO2-sequestering rock? I get that spreading it on a field exposes more surface area and is more efficient, but if it's already lying around in giant piles, shouldn't we be seeing some portion of the effect already?
posted by Dysk at 5:26 AM on August 19, 2023 [1 favorite]
I’m guessing most of the existing ground-up “waste” basalt is in the form of gravel, not dust.
posted by schmod at 6:24 AM on August 19, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by schmod at 6:24 AM on August 19, 2023 [4 favorites]
I also have my doubts on the effectiveness. If it’s pulverized fine enough to work on a short enough time scale, it’s also fine enough to blow away, or get washed away, if it’s not thoroughly worked into the ground. And if it’s thoroughly worked into the ground, that’s going to significantly reduce the speed at which it operates down to the speed at which the CO2 is diffusing into the ground. I mean, it will weather wherever it is, and carbon capture will happen, but the effective weathering rate is going to be hugely variable, and not anywhere near the theoretical maximum of “entire powder surface area in contact with atmosphere”.
Another way to look at it is that the entire ocean surface is only soaking up about 25% of the current fossil fuel CO2 production. So 70% of the surface area of the Earth, with whatever mixing down to deep water for longer-term sinking, is maxing out at a minority fraction of the needed sinking rate just to break even against current generation.
Do you really think sprinkling some goddamn dust around on a couple percent of the land surface area is going to move the needle?
And even if it worked, I would be unsurprised (and darkly amused) if it also irreparably screwed up the soil chemistry where it was used, in some fashion not currently expected or understood. Wouldn’t be the first time a soil “fertilization” treatment did that.
posted by notoriety public at 7:20 AM on August 19, 2023 [2 favorites]
Another way to look at it is that the entire ocean surface is only soaking up about 25% of the current fossil fuel CO2 production. So 70% of the surface area of the Earth, with whatever mixing down to deep water for longer-term sinking, is maxing out at a minority fraction of the needed sinking rate just to break even against current generation.
Do you really think sprinkling some goddamn dust around on a couple percent of the land surface area is going to move the needle?
And even if it worked, I would be unsurprised (and darkly amused) if it also irreparably screwed up the soil chemistry where it was used, in some fashion not currently expected or understood. Wouldn’t be the first time a soil “fertilization” treatment did that.
posted by notoriety public at 7:20 AM on August 19, 2023 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Comment removed for offensive content with sexual innuendo. Please keep the guidelines in mind when making comments!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:38 AM on August 19, 2023
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:38 AM on August 19, 2023
if it’s thoroughly worked into the ground, that’s going to significantly reduce the speed at which it operates down to the speed at which the CO2 is diffusing into the ground
tbf if the basalt is an acceptable agricultural amendment* the topsoil will be full of fine farmed-plant roots pumping CO2 into the ground (plants run the CO2-O2 cycle both ways, root CO2 is big in eg limestone cavern initiation, etc etc).
*so variable depending on the rock and the soil and the crops! There’s already a big split in Ca amendments with and without Mg, frex, and Extension soil analyses tell you which you need, if you need Ca.
posted by clew at 10:31 AM on August 19, 2023 [2 favorites]
tbf if the basalt is an acceptable agricultural amendment* the topsoil will be full of fine farmed-plant roots pumping CO2 into the ground (plants run the CO2-O2 cycle both ways, root CO2 is big in eg limestone cavern initiation, etc etc).
*so variable depending on the rock and the soil and the crops! There’s already a big split in Ca amendments with and without Mg, frex, and Extension soil analyses tell you which you need, if you need Ca.
posted by clew at 10:31 AM on August 19, 2023 [2 favorites]
So aren't mine owners effectively already doing this, by making giant piles of ground up CO2-sequestering rock? I get that spreading it on a field exposes more surface area and is more efficient, but if it's already lying around in giant piles, shouldn't we be seeing some portion of the effect already?
We are. Which is to say, the exposed surfaces of those piles of mine-waste basalt are absorbing as much CO2 as they can. But I think you may be underestimating how vastly the surface area increases when you pulverize rock into dust. It's probably safe to say it's increased not by thousands of times, but by millions or even billions of times.
If it’s pulverized fine enough to work on a short enough time scale, it’s also fine enough to blow away, or get washed away, if it’s not thoroughly worked into the ground.
That doesn't really matter. Almost anywhere it's blown or washed to will be a place with plenty of atmospheric or marine CO2 to be absorbed.
Anyway, to be clear, this is not a back-of-the-napkin brainstorm -- this is an idea that's been pretty thoroughly researched and modeled. I feel confident that the scientists who wrote the papers on this that are referenced in the article know way more about it than any of us.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:55 AM on August 19, 2023 [8 favorites]
We are. Which is to say, the exposed surfaces of those piles of mine-waste basalt are absorbing as much CO2 as they can. But I think you may be underestimating how vastly the surface area increases when you pulverize rock into dust. It's probably safe to say it's increased not by thousands of times, but by millions or even billions of times.
If it’s pulverized fine enough to work on a short enough time scale, it’s also fine enough to blow away, or get washed away, if it’s not thoroughly worked into the ground.
That doesn't really matter. Almost anywhere it's blown or washed to will be a place with plenty of atmospheric or marine CO2 to be absorbed.
Anyway, to be clear, this is not a back-of-the-napkin brainstorm -- this is an idea that's been pretty thoroughly researched and modeled. I feel confident that the scientists who wrote the papers on this that are referenced in the article know way more about it than any of us.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:55 AM on August 19, 2023 [8 favorites]
And even if it worked, I would be unsurprised (and darkly amused) if it also irreparably screwed up the soil chemistry where it was used, in some fashion not currently expected or understood.
Basalt rock dust is already a commonly used and well understood soil amendment.
It may not be ideal for use in every situation, but there are doubtless vast areas of the Earth's surface where spreading a bit of this (a bit more than whatever amount is already naturally there) would have minimal impact. Certainly it would be far more low impact than a lot of what we do to the environment.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:04 AM on August 19, 2023 [2 favorites]
Basalt rock dust is already a commonly used and well understood soil amendment.
It may not be ideal for use in every situation, but there are doubtless vast areas of the Earth's surface where spreading a bit of this (a bit more than whatever amount is already naturally there) would have minimal impact. Certainly it would be far more low impact than a lot of what we do to the environment.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:04 AM on August 19, 2023 [2 favorites]
How long does this carbonated rock stay carbonated?
I'm sitting in the middle of a mass of exactly this reaction product which is 165 million years old, and is quite good for making houses out of.
posted by ambrosen at 11:38 AM on August 19, 2023 [5 favorites]
I'm sitting in the middle of a mass of exactly this reaction product which is 165 million years old, and is quite good for making houses out of.
posted by ambrosen at 11:38 AM on August 19, 2023 [5 favorites]
There's a similar potential solution being tested by Project Vesta that covers beaches in sand made out of olivine where apparently the weathering process from the waves causes the mineral to sequester carbon, and iirc it also helps with ocean acidification? Some of these ideas utilizing natural processes are just so cool.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:19 PM on August 19, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by jason_steakums at 12:19 PM on August 19, 2023 [3 favorites]
But I think you may be underestimating how vastly the surface area increases when you pulverize rock into dust.
No, I was responding to a statement that heavily implied that the basalt was already ground. I get that grinds differ, but when the context is "we need ground basalt! thankfully we already have pulled if ground basalt sitting around!" then I don't think it's an unreasonable read.
posted by Dysk at 12:48 PM on August 19, 2023
No, I was responding to a statement that heavily implied that the basalt was already ground. I get that grinds differ, but when the context is "we need ground basalt! thankfully we already have pulled if ground basalt sitting around!" then I don't think it's an unreasonable read.
posted by Dysk at 12:48 PM on August 19, 2023
Why is it that every new idea winds up costing more energy?
We need to reduce energy use. Granted, it's calling for electric generation rather than gas/oil. However, we still haven't addressed the problems of exponentially increasing electric generation. We're trying to ramp up to using electric cars, and who knows how that's going to work out in the long run.
I live about a half mile from a gravel pit. They don't grind rock, but they dig and sort it. Between the noise and the god-awful dust, it's not pleasant, and we're up-wind. So who are the lucky ones that get to live where all this mining/digging and grinding is going on? What about the tons of dust thrown up into the atmosphere causing health problems and general reduction in the quality of living? "...dust can aggravate respiratory problems and other health issues in humans, severely impact road, rail and air transport and reduce the output of solar panels...." We already have issues with pollution involving dust generation. We need more?
posted by BlueHorse at 1:12 PM on August 19, 2023
We need to reduce energy use. Granted, it's calling for electric generation rather than gas/oil. However, we still haven't addressed the problems of exponentially increasing electric generation. We're trying to ramp up to using electric cars, and who knows how that's going to work out in the long run.
I live about a half mile from a gravel pit. They don't grind rock, but they dig and sort it. Between the noise and the god-awful dust, it's not pleasant, and we're up-wind. So who are the lucky ones that get to live where all this mining/digging and grinding is going on? What about the tons of dust thrown up into the atmosphere causing health problems and general reduction in the quality of living? "...dust can aggravate respiratory problems and other health issues in humans, severely impact road, rail and air transport and reduce the output of solar panels...." We already have issues with pollution involving dust generation. We need more?
posted by BlueHorse at 1:12 PM on August 19, 2023
The point is that it won't take a huge effort to obtain the basalt -- since it's sitting around in big piles outside of mines, it doesn't have to be dug out of the ground. It does still have to be crushed into dust particles in order to make it effective at the kind of mass-scale decarbonization we need.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:13 PM on August 19, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:13 PM on August 19, 2023 [1 favorite]
Why is it that every new idea winds up costing more energy?
I don't think there's any part of getting to net zero at all that doesn't involve more energy use up front. We can't keep using a fossil fuel based infrastructure without building something new, we can't pull carbon from the atmosphere without extra energy use even if you could do it all with trees or whatever.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:34 PM on August 19, 2023 [9 favorites]
I don't think there's any part of getting to net zero at all that doesn't involve more energy use up front. We can't keep using a fossil fuel based infrastructure without building something new, we can't pull carbon from the atmosphere without extra energy use even if you could do it all with trees or whatever.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:34 PM on August 19, 2023 [9 favorites]
217 gigatons??? Great Scott!
posted by mmrtnt at 3:12 PM on August 19, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by mmrtnt at 3:12 PM on August 19, 2023 [4 favorites]
0) Of the various Geo-engineering and negative emissions tech schemes out there, rock-dusting farms seems the most attractive.
1) this and other geo-engineering schemes will be done to us regardless of our opinions about them (just like all the other forms of pollution and collateral damage are) , so these conversations are entertainment, not deliberation, so lets have fun and not be mean to each-other while discussing them.
2) we shouldn't let the fact that some members of the public will use any excuse to continue making the pollution crisis worse, even the barest suggestion of a hint of an idea that a technology might in the future exist that will rescue them from having to fight for change now... that behavior of the public shouldn't stigmatize real research efforts into a myriad of responses.
3) of course Geo-engineering and negative emissions tech will not be "in addition to ending fossil fuel use", but will be "to justify and expand " existing fossil fuel use until the fuels become too scarce and uneconomical to extract. But not Geo-engineering will do nothing to alter that. Its not dishonestly on the part of Geo-engineering advocates, its a power-imbalance between those whose concentrated interests are currently powerful, and the public. Just as renewables aren't being brought online as a substitute for fossil fuel use, but as an addition to that use (indeed, the planet is bringing online both more renewables and more fossil fuels).
4) the upsides to technologies that aren't yet deployed are obvious, the downsides are yet to be discovered. Three that strike me to this (aside from the impossible scale and unknown energy cost needed) is: trace contaminants of mining waste entering soils, food and watersheds at accelerated rates - heavy metals mostly; the carbonates breaking down and re-releasing their co2 from the increased acidity of rain from the sulfate aerosol sky-dimming plans and lastly,mass silicosis from finely grinding and distributing silicates into flat wind-prone areas.
But that's all just speculation, which has no place on the internet.
5) Lets hope the crops don't fail before we have a chance to deploy this and ocean fertilization and sulfate sky-dimming to scale. One disaster would be survivable. To finish the job industrialism has started, it will probably take a more complex predicament of interlocking crises to bring the end-holocene mass extinction to completion. Maybe we should scatter small nuclear reactors around and hope to invent in the future ways to deal with the waste while we are at it.
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 6:20 PM on August 20, 2023 [4 favorites]
1) this and other geo-engineering schemes will be done to us regardless of our opinions about them (just like all the other forms of pollution and collateral damage are) , so these conversations are entertainment, not deliberation, so lets have fun and not be mean to each-other while discussing them.
2) we shouldn't let the fact that some members of the public will use any excuse to continue making the pollution crisis worse, even the barest suggestion of a hint of an idea that a technology might in the future exist that will rescue them from having to fight for change now... that behavior of the public shouldn't stigmatize real research efforts into a myriad of responses.
3) of course Geo-engineering and negative emissions tech will not be "in addition to ending fossil fuel use", but will be "to justify and expand " existing fossil fuel use until the fuels become too scarce and uneconomical to extract. But not Geo-engineering will do nothing to alter that. Its not dishonestly on the part of Geo-engineering advocates, its a power-imbalance between those whose concentrated interests are currently powerful, and the public. Just as renewables aren't being brought online as a substitute for fossil fuel use, but as an addition to that use (indeed, the planet is bringing online both more renewables and more fossil fuels).
4) the upsides to technologies that aren't yet deployed are obvious, the downsides are yet to be discovered. Three that strike me to this (aside from the impossible scale and unknown energy cost needed) is: trace contaminants of mining waste entering soils, food and watersheds at accelerated rates - heavy metals mostly; the carbonates breaking down and re-releasing their co2 from the increased acidity of rain from the sulfate aerosol sky-dimming plans and lastly,mass silicosis from finely grinding and distributing silicates into flat wind-prone areas.
But that's all just speculation, which has no place on the internet.
5) Lets hope the crops don't fail before we have a chance to deploy this and ocean fertilization and sulfate sky-dimming to scale. One disaster would be survivable. To finish the job industrialism has started, it will probably take a more complex predicament of interlocking crises to bring the end-holocene mass extinction to completion. Maybe we should scatter small nuclear reactors around and hope to invent in the future ways to deal with the waste while we are at it.
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 6:20 PM on August 20, 2023 [4 favorites]
4) the upsides to technologies that aren't yet deployed are obvious, the downsides are yet to be discovered. Three that strike me to this (aside from the impossible scale and unknown energy cost needed) is: trace contaminants of mining waste entering soils, food and watersheds at accelerated rates - heavy metals mostly; the carbonates breaking down and re-releasing their co2 from the increased acidity of rain from the sulfate aerosol sky-dimming plans and lastly,mass silicosis from finely grinding and distributing silicates into flat wind-prone areas.
These are all worthwhile considerations. From what I've read, heavy metals are more of an issue with olivine, the mineral that was initially touted as ideal for decarbonization. That's why researchers pivoted to basalt:
As for silicosis: My understanding is that basalt is supposed to have a relatively low silica content. I don't really know if the quantity of dust we'd be talking about would appreciably increase lung problems... unless the grinding and distribution was done in a really sloppy way. The Biden administration's big push to make environmental justice a consideration in all future projects will hopefully mitigate such problems going forward... if it is maintained. Needless to say, a lot is riding on what kind of leadership we have in the years ahead.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:03 PM on August 20, 2023 [4 favorites]
These are all worthwhile considerations. From what I've read, heavy metals are more of an issue with olivine, the mineral that was initially touted as ideal for decarbonization. That's why researchers pivoted to basalt:
Even if the promise of olivine materializes, the method has one major drawback, Beerling says. The mineral is usually contaminated with nickel and chromium—both potentially toxic metals. “If the world is up in arms about plastics in the ocean and coral reefs dying and ocean acidification, how are you going to get people to accept tons of chromium- and nickel-rich rocks in the ocean?”As for sulfates: It seems that a better way to do solar radiation management is marine cloud brightening, which involves spraying a fine mist of sea water into the air from ships. The salt particles serve as nuclei for increased cloud formation. No sulfates are required, and the process can be "turned off" instantly if desired, because the seawater doesn't persist in the atmosphere.
For these reasons, around 2014 Beerling and his team began testing a different approach. Rather than olivine, they proposed using basalt, a common igneous rock, to take up CO2. Basalt is rich in pyroxene, a blocky, dark mineral that, like olivine, weathers quickly but does not contain toxic heavy metals.
As for silicosis: My understanding is that basalt is supposed to have a relatively low silica content. I don't really know if the quantity of dust we'd be talking about would appreciably increase lung problems... unless the grinding and distribution was done in a really sloppy way. The Biden administration's big push to make environmental justice a consideration in all future projects will hopefully mitigate such problems going forward... if it is maintained. Needless to say, a lot is riding on what kind of leadership we have in the years ahead.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:03 PM on August 20, 2023 [4 favorites]
Thank you Artifice_Eternity
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 12:45 AM on August 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 12:45 AM on August 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
I've been listening to and reading a lot of Nate Hagens and his various fellow travellers who very much make the point that - while we have to solve climate change, there are a lot of other boundaries on human civilisation that do not go away when we solve it.
There is only so much copper, so much lithium, so much cobalt, so much uranium in high grade ores. Yes, the ultimate crustal abundance of many of these things is high, but even with incredibly cheap and carbon free energy (not on its way soon) you still hit a limit. Plus there is land availability, other fertiliser inputs, the way that our various waste products are accumulating, basically on every dimension we are outside of carrying capacity even in our current world where only a small number of people get the full benefits of modernity.
Combine that with the facts that:
1) No democratic (or otherwise, really) society will ever tolerate a backslide in its perceived standard of living.
2) The poor of the world quite rightly won't accept a future where they don't get at least current European average living standards (forget about US or Canadian for the minute).
And we are in real trouble even without global warming.
I also agree with those that say that regardless of what we think: this kind of technology will simply be deployed by countries that are most at risk from climate change. India faces incredible danger to its population, agricultural, and industrial core. They will not permit that to happen and nor should they. (Yes it's a big country but someone in Pune isn't going to draw much comfort from the fact that Kerala remains pleasant - also, because of topography it's a deceptively large country with population heavily concentrated on the Indo-Gangetic plain, once you subtract the Deccan plateau, the Ghats, and the other central mountain ranges it's not as geographically big a country for people to live in and grow food as it looks on a non-topo map.
I hope it works. I am optimistic during my day job which is all about clean energy deployment and on some metrics we are doing incredible work, but... global total emissions are still rising.
Anything that gives us the breathing room to move away from emitting greenhouse gases as an essential part of our way of life is something that should be pursued.
posted by atrazine at 1:59 AM on August 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
There is only so much copper, so much lithium, so much cobalt, so much uranium in high grade ores. Yes, the ultimate crustal abundance of many of these things is high, but even with incredibly cheap and carbon free energy (not on its way soon) you still hit a limit. Plus there is land availability, other fertiliser inputs, the way that our various waste products are accumulating, basically on every dimension we are outside of carrying capacity even in our current world where only a small number of people get the full benefits of modernity.
Combine that with the facts that:
1) No democratic (or otherwise, really) society will ever tolerate a backslide in its perceived standard of living.
2) The poor of the world quite rightly won't accept a future where they don't get at least current European average living standards (forget about US or Canadian for the minute).
And we are in real trouble even without global warming.
I also agree with those that say that regardless of what we think: this kind of technology will simply be deployed by countries that are most at risk from climate change. India faces incredible danger to its population, agricultural, and industrial core. They will not permit that to happen and nor should they. (Yes it's a big country but someone in Pune isn't going to draw much comfort from the fact that Kerala remains pleasant - also, because of topography it's a deceptively large country with population heavily concentrated on the Indo-Gangetic plain, once you subtract the Deccan plateau, the Ghats, and the other central mountain ranges it's not as geographically big a country for people to live in and grow food as it looks on a non-topo map.
I hope it works. I am optimistic during my day job which is all about clean energy deployment and on some metrics we are doing incredible work, but... global total emissions are still rising.
Anything that gives us the breathing room to move away from emitting greenhouse gases as an essential part of our way of life is something that should be pursued.
posted by atrazine at 1:59 AM on August 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
I did some napkin math. Surface area of the United States is 9.834 trillion square meters. Yearly coal consumption is 8 billion tons (so 8 trillion kg)
Let’s say the rock dust is 1:1 carbon absorption by weight (I don’t actually know the number, but I’d honestly be surprised if it’s any greater than that, and is probably a lot less.
So spreading 8 trillion kg of crushed basalt over the entire United States, every year, comes to 0.8 kg of basalt dust, over every square meter of the country, every year, just to break even.
Sure, it wouldn’t be done that way, but it would be have to be done on that kind of colossal scale, just to break even. And it would be done entirely as a cost, rather than anything that makes any kind of money.
I’m sorry, but if you think this is even going to happen, never mind whether it’s even going to work? Have you met any human beings?
posted by notoriety public at 8:11 AM on August 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
Let’s say the rock dust is 1:1 carbon absorption by weight (I don’t actually know the number, but I’d honestly be surprised if it’s any greater than that, and is probably a lot less.
So spreading 8 trillion kg of crushed basalt over the entire United States, every year, comes to 0.8 kg of basalt dust, over every square meter of the country, every year, just to break even.
Sure, it wouldn’t be done that way, but it would be have to be done on that kind of colossal scale, just to break even. And it would be done entirely as a cost, rather than anything that makes any kind of money.
I’m sorry, but if you think this is even going to happen, never mind whether it’s even going to work? Have you met any human beings?
posted by notoriety public at 8:11 AM on August 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
That's comparing the global coal consumption with the surface area of the US.
happyinmotion's first linked paper says 10 tonnes per hectare of arable land, which comes out to about a kg / square meter (but on arable land only, not the whole country).
They extrapolate that to 215 GTonnes of CO2 to 2080 compared to just under 40 GT annual emissions currently, that's 2.9GT / year or about 8% to 9%. Hopefully a much larger fraction of future annual emissions.
posted by atrazine at 9:19 AM on August 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
happyinmotion's first linked paper says 10 tonnes per hectare of arable land, which comes out to about a kg / square meter (but on arable land only, not the whole country).
They extrapolate that to 215 GTonnes of CO2 to 2080 compared to just under 40 GT annual emissions currently, that's 2.9GT / year or about 8% to 9%. Hopefully a much larger fraction of future annual emissions.
posted by atrazine at 9:19 AM on August 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
It's definitely worth an attempt of course, and similar ideas maybe helps elsewhere too, but if you want the Betteridge's law of headlines take:
In the study, they "[apply] a fixed rate of 10 tons of basalt dust per hectare .. over a 75-year period" to sequester 217 gigatonnes of CO2. We emit 35 gigatonnes per year, so this represents capturing 6.2 years worth, over 75 years.
Impressive, but we need some way to really bring emissions down, because you'll never sequester enough this way to counter outgoing emissions. I suppose renewables could reduce some coal emissions, so long as coal consumption is largely local, but renewables cannot touch oil or gas emissions, since someone else always burns those.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:07 PM on August 21, 2023
In the study, they "[apply] a fixed rate of 10 tons of basalt dust per hectare .. over a 75-year period" to sequester 217 gigatonnes of CO2. We emit 35 gigatonnes per year, so this represents capturing 6.2 years worth, over 75 years.
Impressive, but we need some way to really bring emissions down, because you'll never sequester enough this way to counter outgoing emissions. I suppose renewables could reduce some coal emissions, so long as coal consumption is largely local, but renewables cannot touch oil or gas emissions, since someone else always burns those.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:07 PM on August 21, 2023
Why is it that every new idea winds up costing more energy?
I don’t think this has been explicitly said — it’s because we made all this CO2 and CH4 because we got energy from combusting the C. To get the C back into a harmless form, we have to put energy back in. If there were a harmless compound energetically "downhill” of CO2, we’d be exploiting it already, or it would even happen without intervention.
posted by clew at 9:06 AM on August 22, 2023 [4 favorites]
I don’t think this has been explicitly said — it’s because we made all this CO2 and CH4 because we got energy from combusting the C. To get the C back into a harmless form, we have to put energy back in. If there were a harmless compound energetically "downhill” of CO2, we’d be exploiting it already, or it would even happen without intervention.
posted by clew at 9:06 AM on August 22, 2023 [4 favorites]
If there were a harmless compound energetically "downhill” of CO2, we’d be exploiting it already, or it would even happen without intervention.
As doubtful as I am about this idea, from the Gibbs free energy argument (the "downhill" you're talking about), the math does work out. Carbonates are very energetically favorable. The problem is the very slow reaction rate. It does happen by itself- if you put any one of several different metal ions up in close contact with water and dissolved CO2, you'll get some carbonates out of it. The reaction just proceeds very slowly. A useful way to think about it is that in order to shove that Ca++ ion in (for example) to make it calcium carbonate instead of carbonic acid, you need to pull two H+ ions away to achieve the swap. That's a pretty high energy barrier to overcome, even if it does get you to a net lower energy state.
posted by notoriety public at 8:35 PM on August 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
As doubtful as I am about this idea, from the Gibbs free energy argument (the "downhill" you're talking about), the math does work out. Carbonates are very energetically favorable. The problem is the very slow reaction rate. It does happen by itself- if you put any one of several different metal ions up in close contact with water and dissolved CO2, you'll get some carbonates out of it. The reaction just proceeds very slowly. A useful way to think about it is that in order to shove that Ca++ ion in (for example) to make it calcium carbonate instead of carbonic acid, you need to pull two H+ ions away to achieve the swap. That's a pretty high energy barrier to overcome, even if it does get you to a net lower energy state.
posted by notoriety public at 8:35 PM on August 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
An optimistic but believable reading..
We cannot cancel out emissions nor stave off climate change this way, because 75 years of hard global work gains only 6 years of recovery. We avoid the worst only by leaving fossil fuels in the group, not eating meat, not chopping down forest, minimizing global trade, iron, concrete, etc.
Yet, there is a path here by which future post-carbon humans might counteract very slow tipping points, or even terraform the planet back towards our liking, provided enough industry survives for pulverizing rocks and spreading the dust. It's still hopeful, even if climate change or other planetary boundaries wipe out like 90% of humanity first.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:24 PM on August 23, 2023
We cannot cancel out emissions nor stave off climate change this way, because 75 years of hard global work gains only 6 years of recovery. We avoid the worst only by leaving fossil fuels in the group, not eating meat, not chopping down forest, minimizing global trade, iron, concrete, etc.
Yet, there is a path here by which future post-carbon humans might counteract very slow tipping points, or even terraform the planet back towards our liking, provided enough industry survives for pulverizing rocks and spreading the dust. It's still hopeful, even if climate change or other planetary boundaries wipe out like 90% of humanity first.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:24 PM on August 23, 2023
1 kg/m2 or 2lbs per square yard. Go to the ag store, buy some pulverized lime, mark out a spot on your gravel driveway or lawn or whatever and apply it. Ok, how much went into the wind? Now that stuff needs 75 years to do its thing. And that gets you less than 10% per year of emissions.. can you make the layer 10 times thicker? 20lbs per square yard... try it. We pollute faster and more than we can sequester. And pollution is how we out-compete our geopolitical rivals for economic and military power. Don't see a lot of electric tanks and hydrogen powered drones do you?
But if you can't stop the fossil fuels coming out of the ground, if you don't stop the growing human material footprint in finite materials, if you can't stop the pollution... no amount of 'buying us time' will buy us anything.
The greenhouse effect has been known for 170 years, it was a predicted consequence of coal burning for 120 years, the warming effect in actual climate data was first hinted at 90 years ago, and confirmed 50 years ago, the first presidential emergency declaration about it was 65 years ago, the fossil fuel and automotive companies knew it would be disastrous in 50-60 years ago, with the exception of silicon based solar panels, we've had renewable electricity and electric cars for over 100 years. Silicon solar panels became commercially available in the 1950s.
You will hear it a lot. " We need to do this, to buy us time". It is a suicidal lie. We had time, we spent it making the problem much bigger, not any better. Half the fossil fuels we've burned have come after 1990. We knew, we know, we are making it worse. And that was when we had the luxury of the holocene climate to live and work in, and to grow our crops. The freedom to do anything other than scavenge our surroundings for our next meal is dwindling. And with it, all the fancy promises of technologies to save us from our technologies.
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 12:18 AM on August 26, 2023
But if you can't stop the fossil fuels coming out of the ground, if you don't stop the growing human material footprint in finite materials, if you can't stop the pollution... no amount of 'buying us time' will buy us anything.
The greenhouse effect has been known for 170 years, it was a predicted consequence of coal burning for 120 years, the warming effect in actual climate data was first hinted at 90 years ago, and confirmed 50 years ago, the first presidential emergency declaration about it was 65 years ago, the fossil fuel and automotive companies knew it would be disastrous in 50-60 years ago, with the exception of silicon based solar panels, we've had renewable electricity and electric cars for over 100 years. Silicon solar panels became commercially available in the 1950s.
You will hear it a lot. " We need to do this, to buy us time". It is a suicidal lie. We had time, we spent it making the problem much bigger, not any better. Half the fossil fuels we've burned have come after 1990. We knew, we know, we are making it worse. And that was when we had the luxury of the holocene climate to live and work in, and to grow our crops. The freedom to do anything other than scavenge our surroundings for our next meal is dwindling. And with it, all the fancy promises of technologies to save us from our technologies.
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 12:18 AM on August 26, 2023
The freedom to do anything other than scavenge our surroundings for our next meal is dwindling. And with it, all the fancy promises of technologies to save us from our technologies.
I mean, I know you must enjoy this doomerism, but no matter how difficult growing crops becomes, it'll still always be better than scavenging.
posted by ambrosen at 12:34 PM on August 26, 2023 [1 favorite]
I mean, I know you must enjoy this doomerism, but no matter how difficult growing crops becomes, it'll still always be better than scavenging.
posted by ambrosen at 12:34 PM on August 26, 2023 [1 favorite]
1 kg/m2 or 2lbs per square yard. Go to the ag store, buy some pulverized lime, mark out a spot on your gravel driveway or lawn or whatever and apply it. Ok, how much went into the wind?
I'll just note out that whether it goes into the wind or not is not a big deal. It's going to capture CO2 anywhere that it's exposed to the air. It can also do it in water.
But if you can't stop the fossil fuels coming out of the ground, if you don't stop the growing human material footprint in finite materials, if you can't stop the pollution... no amount of 'buying us time' will buy us anything.
Absolutely true, and deployment of enhanced rock weathering for carbon capture would in no way be a substitute for ending the large-scale use of fossil fuels. It would only be useful as a supplement to it.
The energy transition is accelerating rapidly -- more rapidly than many people realize -- but there is still a massive amount of work to be done.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:14 PM on August 26, 2023
I'll just note out that whether it goes into the wind or not is not a big deal. It's going to capture CO2 anywhere that it's exposed to the air. It can also do it in water.
But if you can't stop the fossil fuels coming out of the ground, if you don't stop the growing human material footprint in finite materials, if you can't stop the pollution... no amount of 'buying us time' will buy us anything.
Absolutely true, and deployment of enhanced rock weathering for carbon capture would in no way be a substitute for ending the large-scale use of fossil fuels. It would only be useful as a supplement to it.
The energy transition is accelerating rapidly -- more rapidly than many people realize -- but there is still a massive amount of work to be done.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:14 PM on August 26, 2023
« Older House of Islamic Art and Culture | The Trust Game Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by doctornemo at 1:51 PM on August 18, 2023 [5 favorites]