
Negative Carbon Emissions - biofox
https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/negative-carbon-emissions/
======
hannob
This starts to sound right and at the end takes the completely wrong turn when
he says: "I especially like the idea of CO2 scrubbing for coal-fired power
plants."

I actually believe this is the big risk of all Carbon removal and Carbon
Storage technologies, and the one that always needs to be kept in mind: That
they're used to justify the continuing use of fossil fuels. (This isn't
theoretical. This happened around 10 years in Germany when many new coal
plants were built, and when people brought up the climate issue a very common
answer was: "Don't worry, we already planned to enhance those plants with
Carbon Capture and Storage technology later." Of course the latter never
happened. At around the same time Norway had very similar discussions and I'm
sure it happened elsewhere, too.)

~~~
taneq
Is continuing to use fossil fuels a bad thing, if it's in conjunction with
sufficient cleanup systems? It sounds like in your example, the problem is the
bait-and-switch from "clean CO2-neutral power plants" to "traditional coal
power plants".

~~~
hannob
Stopping fossil fuel burning is always preferrable to carbon cleanup
technologies. It's simply cheaper and easier.

Also "CO2-neutral coal power plants" is a scam. You'll always have emissions
left. Digging up coal causes emissions (the coal is not alone, there's e.g.
always methane coming up with it that you can't capture). No Carbon removal
tech can remove 100% of Carbon from emissions. (There was actually a lawsuite
because Vattenfall called one of their CCS testing plants "carbon free". They
lost.)

------
cmutel
The following open access publications give a broad overview of NETs:

Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis:
[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b)

Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects:
[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f)

Part 3: Innovation and upscaling:
[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4)

~~~
aoner
If you are interested in negative emissions this is the best review paper I've
come across so far that covers all various negative emission technologies,
from trees and oceans to bio-energy with carbon capture storage (BECSS) and
direct air capture (DAC). Highly recommended.

------
saagarjha
The article mentions this itself, but I think it's still worth mentioning that
carbon scrubbing is hard to scale. IMO it's still better to work towards
cutting emissions and finding sources of clean energy: in a very extreme case,
assuming we can figure out how to get unlimited clean energy from
fission/fusion/pushing baryons into the seventh dimension we can just pull CO₂
from the atmosphere and split it. Many of our problems can be solved with
unlimited energy; clean water for example (just boil it!).

------
ggm
I feel very strongly that proposed technical solutions to de-carbonise need to
explain the energy cost of driving CO and CO2 into carbonate complexes. If the
proposal is to make something like methane clathrates in extreme depth there
is a pumping cost. If the proposal is to inject into fracking and have it form
complexes underground there is a pumping cost. Most carbon intense energy
sources depend on big pressure drop across the turbine so there is little
energy in the stream and the smokestack for the fuel is decoupled from the
steam anyway so either there is a reaction energy (coming from where?) Or it
consumes power being generated which reduces overall system efficiency.

I just don't get it: there is no free lunch burning coal to make heat to make
steam implies combustion which necessarily makes CO and CO2 and it's in
gaseous form. It's diffuse. So making liquids or pumpable gas expends energy
and making to flow over a reaction surface to make carbonate implies back
pressure on the flue gases.. it's just hard work.

~~~
205guy
Nature invented solar-powered CO2 scrubbers, they're called plants (and
algae). We just need to not kill them everywhere. This is hard when humans
have an expanding population, which is why we humans need to realize that we
are now so numerous we are competing for physical space (Our housing and
agricultural needs) against the very resources we need to live (forests and
clean water and clean air).

~~~
AnimalMuppet
It's not that simple. If we didn't kill any more plants, would the plants be
able to pull CO2 out of the air at the rate we're producing it? I am not an
expert, but I believe that the answer is no.

------
astazangasta
This is a thermodynamically losing proposition for a human industry -
liberating carbon is enthalpically and entropically favorable. Sequestering it
requires putting the genie back in the bottle, and where will the energy
budget for that come from?

Fortunately there is a system to do this which dwarfs in scale pretty much any
industry humans ever have and ever will come up with: photosynthesis. While 10
Gigatons of C is a lot, terrestrial biomass is ~600 Gigatons of C. The best
strategy for reversing carbon emissions is letting the Earth soak it back up
again.

~~~
adrianN
Photosynthesis is only about 1% efficient and you'd have to store the biomass
in a form that doesn't decompose (e.g. as coal). It might be possible to
improve this.

~~~
barry-cotter
Mass production of biochar and use it as a soil amendment. Sequesters carbon
in production, sequesters more in the soil as it encourages biomass formation
and encourages even more as plants grown in such soil do better.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar)

> Biochar is charcoal used as a soil amendment. Biochar is a stable solid,
> rich in carbon, and can endure in soil for thousands of years.[1] Like most
> charcoal, biochar is made from biomass via pyrolysis. Biochar is under
> investigation as an approach to carbon sequestration,[1] as it has the
> potential to help mitigate climate change.[2][3][4] It results in processes
> related to pyrogenic carbon capture and storage (PyCCS).[5] Independently,
> biochar can increase soil fertility of acidic soils (low pH soils), increase
> agricultural productivity, and provide protection against some foliar and
> soil-borne diseases.[6]

~~~
roryisok
This passage caught my eye :

> Researchers have estimated that sustainable use of biocharring could reduce
> the global net emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane, and nitrous
> oxide by up to 1.8 Pg CO 2-C equivalent (CO 2-Ce) per year (12% of current
> anthropogenic CO 2-Ce emissions; 1 Pg=1 Gt), and total net emissions over
> the course of the next century by 130 Pg CO 2-Ce, without endangering food
> security, habitat, or soil conservation.

It feels like every other week I read about one approach which has the
potential to save us from climate change, if scaled correctly. Suberin rich
food crops. Autonomous ships that produce artificial clouds. Biochar. Painting
things white. Olivine rock weathering. Greening the Sahara. I don't believe
any of these solutions alone is going to save the planet, but surely doing
several in concert would help

------
mrpopo
The article does a good job at keeping ideas within the realm of reality.

> I especially like the idea of CO2 scrubbing for coal-fired power plants. Of
> course to cut carbon emissions it would be better to ban coal-fired power
> plants.

I don't like this idea at all. It shows that at the current rate of action,
global warming handling is a tragedy. It's a life threatening issue for
billions of us, yet nothing happens, only insignificant changes.

~~~
chrisco255
Life threatening? Cold weather and lack of electricity kill far more people
than global warming.

~~~
mrpopo
Currently yes, although it's not long before things are really going to
change. I am not sure where you stand on this but here are a few things to
think about :

I assume you heard of the 1.5C target from the COP21. Depending on the
estimations we already reached +1, and there is a lot of inertia in the whole
system, so it's just not gonna happen. It's all a political "aim high, think
later" thing.

Without doing anything about the climate itself, thepeak oil and the people
aversion to coal pollution will probably slow down our carbon addiction by the
end of the century. Estimates for this scenario are within 7-12C. More
optimistic scientific reviews, that assume we would give a fuck about it, are
in the 3-7C range. Note that there are more centuries to come.

Assume we reach a rather optimistic 4C global warming. This is a worldwide
average, and you may know that oceans trap most of the heat, so the air above
the oceans will not warm up as much. To compensate, it means that the air
above land will be a couple degrees hotter, say 6C, and depending on how the
winds will change, some place will get hotter than others (for instance
currently the Arctic region is already 2C warmer than ours industrial levels).
So even in an optimistic scenario today the average year round temperature in
some place could get to +10C. If nothing is done, I'm not quite sure, but it's
probably safe to say that it will be +20-30C in some areas. Maybe this kind of
temperature delta can make you think of the kind of challenge the next
generations would face. Vegetation (food) would die during heat waves, mass
migrations, etc.

When ice caps melt, the earth's albedo changes, and it reflects less sunlight.
That's one of the mechanisms behind the transitions from an ice age to a warm
age. The Arctic is currently melting at unprecedented rates, which means that
the warming is unlikely to stop unless drastic changes are done.

Global warming causes sea level rises, through dilatation due to heat, and
melting of on-land ice (greenland, Antarctica). Current warming is enough to
make sea levels rise by 1m. This is locked in (unstoppable). Estimates vary
but including future warming, it may rise by 2.4m. Bangladesh is the poster
child for rising sea level dangers. It's not just about loss of coastal areas
(40%), but also increased salinity in drinking water, less fertile lands.
People will lose their houses and starve.

There's a lot more to global warming than this, and the literature is plenty.
I invite you to discover it.

------
aoner
I've read a lot of papers about negative emissions. My main take-away was: 1\.
It will be necessary 2\. We can solve part of the problem with cheaper/easier
solutions like trees and ocean farming, but we will need more technological
solutions.

I think BECSS are difficult since it's still uncertain how the actual net
carbon negativity changes when we change land to grow 'BECSS' crops/grasses.
Also BECCS cost a land and water, something which will be a luxury when we are
going from 7.5 billion to 10 billion people in 2050. With DAC we can actually
set an upper boundary of the total cost of the negative emissions, which will
only go down due to technological improvements.

What I do agree on is that we need to stop using fossil fuels where possible.
I don't think every sector will be ready in time (airplanes and boats for
example). However we can make synthetic fuels using direct air capture which
are almost carbon neutral (look at the super work David Keith is doing with
Carbon Engineering:
[http://carbonengineering.com/](http://carbonengineering.com/) )

~~~
roryisok
> Also BECCS cost a land and water, something which will be a luxury when we
> are going from 7.5 billion to 10 billion people in 2050

This is going to be the biggest challenge. It's going to be a struggle to
maintain biodiversity and stop deforestation while also trying to feed 10
billion people , especially with the overfishing currently happening with just
7. We'll have more mouths to feed and less fish to do it with. The only way we
can realistically achieve this is by cutting out livestock, increasing fish
farming and lab grown meat and building lots and lots of vertical farms.

------
alexandercrohde
How about this proposal - Carbon tax. Over 30 years it scales up to the cost
of carbon-scrubbing. All of the tax collected goes to purchasing scrubbing
(within the US only, and monitored for accountability).

~~~
205guy
How about putting it much more simply: you can either change to reduce your
carbon usage across the board (and help everyone else to understand and do the
same) or your children will suffer by your own fault.

~~~
alexandercrohde
That's a terrible non-solution. Your strategy is to hope that every single
person independently chooses to reduce carbon usage?

It _has_ to be government mandated. And most of the carbon is by COMPANIES not
individuals.

~~~
205guy
That may work in China (maybe), but I'm afraid it doesn't stand a chance in
the US--probably still the biggest CO2 emitter overall and certainly the
highest per capita.

No, my strategy is to spread this message far and wide, and encourage others
to do so too, until hopefully enough people are convinced and choose to do so.
I kinda went overboard with the comments on this one article, but I was
inspired.

Sometimes I wonder if turning carbon-piety into a religion (or vice versa)
would be the way to go. After all, the way I see it, the defining
characteristic of US conservatives, who generally oppose individual actions
and government mandates to reduce carbon, is religiousness. "Forgive me father
for I have flown in an airplane again this month."

------
fallingfrog
I can only imagine how it feels to be an 18 year old in 2019, knowing what’s
going to happen in your lifetime.

A lot of the social movements of the 60’s were ultimately based on the fact
that every young male at that time had a draft number, and so the political
struggle was personal and very real. I’m not surprised that young people are
starting to treat climate change in the same way. It’s different when it’s
your life that’s on the line.

~~~
antt
Being 18 anytime between 1948 and 1988 was worse. People forget that everyone
expected a nuclear war to kill all of us in a way that makes climate change
seem like a nice relaxing day at the beach.

~~~
paulsutter
I was 18 in 1984 and I never met anyone in my entire life who expected nuclear
war.

Anyone with an interest in science already knew about global warming in 1984.
And politicians from both parties haven’t done jack about it ever since.

~~~
ars
That is not true. I was (and am) obsessed with science and the only thing I
heard about then was global _cooling_ because of carbon (as in smoke, not
carbon dioxide) pollution.

The main fear back then was toxins of various kinds, from smog to nuclear to
pesticides.

I agree with you that nuclear war was an earlier fear, 1960's.

Back then the concern was cleaning up the environment. CO2 was never
mentioned. It was about air and water pollution, and garbage on land.

~~~
mikeash
I would just like to remind everybody that nuclear war is still a major
threat! It didn’t evaporate with the USSR, despite how people act. The US and
Russia still have thousands of warheads ready to go at a moment’s notice. The
numbers are down substantially from their peak, but the arsenals are still
large enough to thoroughly wreck civilization.

I’m constantly baffled at how everyone acts like nuclear war is a historical
curiosity.

This is not to take away from climate change, which is also a major threat.
It’s not either-or, we should fix both.

------
mrhappyunhappy
I feel like this article wrongly assumes that the switch from coal to
alternative would take a very long time and presents a nifty graph of total
energy use.

The reality is that current policies worldwide favor coal for many reasons -
most of which boil down to self-preservation. If a switch in policy was
enacted quickly, that chart would see a dramatic rise in alternative energy
sources. The trick is enacting self-harming policies that limit economic
prosperity while ensuring the other guy does the same. This is where
international agreements come in, which some countries _ahem_ simply ignore.

What is the ultimate solution? I don’t know, but it feels like we need a huge
shift in political values that put climate as the one and only issue that
matters before all else. This would require and educated public willing to put
aside other policies that they may disagree with. Ultimately we are probably
doomed because our individual self-preservation will trump our collective well
being (however flawed this view may be given that we are all living on the
same rock).

------
pkrein
Lots of discussion here, but is anybody here working on a negative emission
technology that might help? Would love to hear about it!

We’re working on carbon negative industrial hydrogen at Charm Industrial, and
we’re hiring:
[https://www.charmindustrial.com/about](https://www.charmindustrial.com/about)

~~~
aoner
I've definetly come across charm industrial :). What is your plan on the
negative emissions part? Underground CCS or do you have utilization plans?

~~~
pkrein
Overproduction of biochar relative to closed loop heating needs, and
underground CCS.

------
planck01
Couldn't we achieve negative carbon emission simply by build all houses from
wood?

Cut down all grown trees and replace them by young ones. The houses act as
carbon sinks. The young trees capture more co2 than the old trees. Easy.

Takes little technology, but does take up land. Probably we need all
alternatives too, but this seems low hanging fruit to me.

~~~
kanjus
The theory that young trees capture more CO2 than older trees has been
debunked as far as I know. The best carbon sinks are older large trees: they
grow at lower rates height-wise, but faster mass-wise, sequestering much more
carbon. A single large tree might add the same amount of carbon to a forest
within a year as is contained in an entire mid-sized tree, I’ll add some
sources later

~~~
205guy
I read once that the highest density of living entities on the planet,
measured in weight per surface area, are the Sequoia groves in California.
That is, the mature ones that escaped logging. Now, I'm not sure we can
consider the entire tree to be alive, but relevant to this discussion, they
are almost entirely composed of atmospheric carbon, tons and tons of it quite
literally.

In all practicality though, I think sequoia and redwoods are more difficult to
grow and have limited climate tolerances (an issue when the the climate is
changing). I wonder if go fast-growing tropical trees such as albezias or
others would be better. But we should also be looking for 3-4 ideal trees for
each climate zone or better yet, trees adapted to several zones.

------
agumonkey
A tiny gateway into cement replacement:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement#Green_cement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement#Green_cement)

------
l_camacho84
The best negative carbon tech that exists are trees and plants. It's not
future tech it's already here!

~~~
ElKrist
Yes. However it only works when trees grow and are not burnt after (use in
construction for example). I will try to find sources if you're interested but
basically this solution (planting forest & not burning wood) does not scale.
You'd have to cover very large areas with trees (losing land for agriculture
btw). To push it further as the amount of land is limited this can't work with
a scenario of growing emissions. It's clearly interesting to mitigate the
problem though.

~~~
l_camacho84
We don't need to scale up if the developed countries agree to scale down
consumption. Reducing commuting (working from home when possible), have taxes
on airplane travel, tax goods that come unnecessarily from far away, invest in
durability. This is not scyfy solutions sorry to disappoint

~~~
ben_w
Sure, and the UK could have a 4-hour work week if it halved it’s manufacturing
and automated all its services.

Annoyingly, people don’t follow such oversimplified economic models. (If we
did, free market economics and communism would both be ‘right’).

~~~
leadingthenet
Well they are both "right" in the sense that they have different premises and
optimise for different variables in the economy. They both work in certain
circumstances and not in others. There's no such thing as a perfect economic
system that magically solves all human problems, but that doesn't mean that
there aren't gradations of how good one is compared to another, given a set of
things you want to achieve in a society.

Capitalism has advantages and disadvantages, and the same is true for
communism. If, however, the variable you want to optimise for is carbon
footprint, then clearly capitalism is the wrong tool for the job.

Also, models are a perfect representation of reality, but since we can't
possibly capture all the data inherent in a system as large as our planet (or
Solar System, or the Universe), it's pretty much all we have to make sense of
the world.

