
Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air - chimprich
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/08/spreading-rock-dust-on-fields-could-remove-vast-amounts-of-co2-from-air
======
petermcneeley
This (undesired) effect was occurring within Biosphere2.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2))

"This concealed the underlying process until an investigation by Jeff
Severinghaus and Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont Doherty
Earth Observatory using isotopic analysis showed that carbon dioxide was
reacting with exposed concrete inside Biosphere 2 to form calcium carbonate in
a process called carbonatation, thereby sequestering both carbon and oxygen."

~~~
eindiran
That was one of the most unexpectedly crazy Wikipedia articles I've ever read.
The level of intrigue seems completely out of proportion with what the project
is. Steve Bannon (yes, that Steve Bannon) makes an appearance, a hostile
takeover occurs, Federal Marshals and local police are called in on 2 separate
occasions, former employees sabotage the site, experiments go awry,
accusations of research fraud are constantly thrown around. It sounds like the
plot of a TV show about a research project.

The drama starts in the Group dynamics section of the article amd continues to
the end:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2#Group_dynamics:_ps...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2#Group_dynamics:_psychology,_conflict,_and_cooperation)

~~~
starpilot
The documentary Spaceship Earth on Hulu is about all of this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth_\(film\)).
Really worth watching.

~~~
ndesaulniers
I think there's an allusion to this in Netflix's Space Force?

~~~
bredren
There is, this episode was so unfunny we stopped watching the series. I don’t
know how you can have that much talent in a potentially funny space and blow
it that bad.

~~~
michaelcampbell
I wanted to like it, but ... just couldn't.

~~~
ndesaulniers
Yeah, I couldn't finish it. Lost interest after the monkey episode. Wisecrack
did a criticism video on YouTube that I thought had some fair points:
[https://youtu.be/49v6m7jQPaQ](https://youtu.be/49v6m7jQPaQ)

------
jelliclesfarm
Farmer Bob Cannard of Napa has been saying this for 25 something years now.
All that I knew about growing, I know from him and his students. Even though I
never had the opportunity to learn from him, I absorbed second and third hand.
Farmers have enormous knowledge of earth and plants and trees. I wish they’d
be given the recognition they deserve as domain experts. We are just wasting
time.

~~~
rglover
What do you think are some ways to boost their voices and/or credibility?
Seems like a no brainer to listen to these folks.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
Partnerships and collaborations. Have tech companies sponsor farms by letting
them use tech.

Many farmers are land rich, cash poor, labour costs eat up profit margins.
Many will die. And with these farms, the knowledge. They will sell the land
and retire on the proceeds as rich farmland is paved over.

What they need is accessible, affordable tech. And where their inherited
generational and practical knowledge can be tested and validated and adopted
by tech. It needs to be with trustworthy partners who don’t see farmers as
future consumers but as collaborators and partners.

Current Agtech is geared towards commodity crops and industrial Ag. All
farming knowledge that is soil and environment oriented comes from small
family farms. Their goal is to keep the soil fertile. The purpose of a farming
corporation is to make profits. Not soil health or environment.

By asking big Ag concerns to take care of soil, we are burdening them with a
job they don’t want..but that requirement towards soil and environment should
be part of the tech they use.

So the domain experts of soil..the ones who actually have dirty hands by
working in the soil should be the ones who help create the tech. Right now,
wrong allocation of responsibility to skill is what’s not working.

Farming is intuitive. A farmer tries to maintain the soil and make it better.
Industrial Ag razes* down soil with each harvest and supplements With inputs
and brute mechanical force, they bring soil back to a threshold that is bare
minimum for cultivation. That’s why a farmer says that only sun, water and
soil is needed to grow food. Industrial Ag needs inputs, machinery and data.

As a small acreage soil focused farmer, I say that we need soil, water,
sun...and tech. Tech that would replace manual repetitive labour ..labour
costs that is killing our profits can be boosted by small acreage
automation/mechanization.

*i like to illustrate this with a personal example. When I wanted to redo my garden, I wanted to move a couple of structures, add a fountain, plant a few trees, remove some vegetation and put down a walking path with pavers.

When I called a landscape architect, he said that we will have to remove
everything, create a blank slate and implement the landscape design.

That is the difference between farmers and industrial Ag.

~~~
kitotik
Do you see any other areas in addition to mechanization that tech can be
valuable?

In other words, are there problems that software alone can help solve or is it
simply down to replacing some of the manual labor with robotics and smarter
machines?

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I think we need a systems approach in Ag ..in both small or industrial
farming..too. So we can achieve systems level results.

Software can be helpful but it’s enhancements contribute very little to the
profit margins.

Take for example this cost analysis of orient eggplant for 2005(I picked this
eggplant because it’s not a commodity crop grown by industrial Ag and is
niche. In other words, it’s not like lettuce or strawberries or corn or soy)

[http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/crops/coststudieshtml/BpEggplantOrien...](http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/crops/coststudieshtml/BpEggplantOrientalSJV2005/)

Check the percent of labour costs and capital/equip costs wrt operating costs.
Software will help as part of the bigger systems approach, but at the end of
the day, the urgent problem we need to tackle is labour costs and labour
availability.

~~~
abakker
Systems example: farmers are paid per pound for tomatoes. They therefore want
to water heavily before harvest so the tomatoes get as heavy as possible. Then
they ship the heaviest possible tomatoes to a factory to be dehydrated into
ketchup, sauce, and other canned goods.

The energy loss comes in 3 different parts - water waste, extra fuel in
shipping, and in energy to dehydrate. Everyone pays more.

The system solution would be to price the tomato solids, not the water.

~~~
mschuster91
How are you going to reliably measure the solid content without destroying the
tomato though?

~~~
evgen
Sampling. It is already the case that grains are tested and priced based on
dry weight, it would not be hard to do the same for some of the larger veg
crops.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
This point is moot. Canning tomatoes are different from market tomatoes grown
for weight. Most tomatoes are harvested mechanically while green and unripe.
They are gassed to ripeness.

------
twic
See also the use of olivine in a similar way:

[https://www.greensand.nl/en/about-greensand/greensand-
explai...](https://www.greensand.nl/en/about-greensand/greensand-explained)

[https://projectvesta.org/how-it-works/](https://projectvesta.org/how-it-
works/)

~~~
jeffdavis
I read about project vesta on HN a while back, and it seemed promising. Why do
these approaches not get more attention?

Project vesta has the additional benefit that it works directly on the oceans,
which may be the more pressing problem.

~~~
mdorazio
I'm donate to project vesta yearly. Personally, I think the lack of attention
is due to its relatively slow pace (compared to the typical news cycle) and
the fact that it's simply not going to ever be a revenue generator.

~~~
jeffdavis
What is the financing and implementation plan? Will it be donor-funded,
publicly-funded, or are they looking into some revenue options?

If I donate now, what will the money be used for? Will it put green sand on
beaches, or be used for bureaucratic paperwork, or be used for marketing to
raise awareness?

~~~
ProjectVesta
Hi, Project Vesta is a non-profit focused on advancing the science and
logistics for deployment of coastal enhanced olivine weathering. Right now,
your money will be going to fund our Phase I experiments focused on
demonstrating the safety of the process, along with weathering rate and
dissolution kinetics. The goal of our Phase I experiments is to use the data
to create an open-source model that brings all of the relevant parameters
together into a single model. We plan to create an algorithm called the
Coastal Enhanced Weathering Integrated Assessment Model (CEWIAM) that will be
able to take inputs related to a specific beach site, and combine the
Weathering Rate and Safety Data with a Life Cycle Assessment so that it can
output a "Net $ cost per tonne of CO2 removed per year" from a given site. The
model will be open-sourced and peer-reviewed by the scientific community, in
additional to having it validated by 3rd parties so that it can be the
foundation for an entirely new field of carbon dioxide removal. It is our
belief that once this model exists and is validated and demonstrated
successfully, massive projects would be financed by the private sector
potentially for carbon dioxide removal credits, etc, as well as enabling
governments to deploy this on potential gigatonne scales as beach nourishment
projects that also help them make up for the shortfall in their Paris
Agreement emissions commitments.

------
perfunctory
Just in case somebody jumps to the conclusion that this is some kind of
panacea.

> The researchers are clear that cutting the fossil fuel burning that releases
> CO2 is the most important action needed to tackle the climate emergency. But
> climate scientists also agree that, in addition, massive amounts of CO2 need
> to be removed from the air to meet the Paris agreement goals of keeping
> global temperature rise below 2C.

Basically we need to stop burning fossil fuels _and_ spread rock dust. Short
of some miracle, humanity is screwed.

~~~
ancientworldnow
Paris agreement is also built on IPCC models that ignored methane and many
other feedback loops. The new model runs for the updated report coming out
soon do not and their estimated temps are almost double in many cases (and
more in some).

------
8bitsrule
Spreading green vehicles on the Earth's surface would stop vast amounts of CO2
being added to the air. The fuel cost is none (and sustainable for roughly the
Sun's lifetime), fuel-transportation costs much lower, the waste costs almost
nil. The investment would be large, the likely return on that investment
substantially greater. The more quickly we make this choice, the sooner the
world benefits.

Removing CO2 may be necessary; stopping CO2 addition has to become a critical
priority.

------
dzhiurgis
US$80-180 per ton of CO2 * 16.50 metric tons of CO2 emissions per USA capita
(2014)

= between 1,320 and 2,970 USD per year for keeping our planet in check. Maybe
multiply by 3x to exclude children, retired and unemployed. Not too bad for a
median USA income. Same for Indian - 10x less emissions so about 130-300 USD
per year.

------
walleeee
Crops also sequester CO2. Breeding and/or engineering for traits like deeper
roots can increase the rate of uptake and also improve yield. There is a lot
of potential computational work in this area (automating phenotype data
collection with robotics, growth modeling, data engineering and web
development for science gateways) and more research is needed. The funding is
there for this in the U.S., e.g. from the DOE.

------
H8crilA
Can't find the basic science of the idea in the article - which chemical
process makes rock (also which rock) capture CO2? Is there a ton of rocks out
there that are rich with unbound metal oxides?

~~~
colechristensen
There are many minerals which are ionic compounds of silicon oxides on one
side and metal compounds on the other. Grind them up real fine and many of the
metals will preferably react with carbon dioxide to make, for example, calcium
carbonate (CaCO3) and the silicon and oxygen become silicon dioxide which is
ordinary sand.

There are indeed a ton of rocks out there bound less tightly to other things.

High heat (say, magma) would break up the carbonate so thats why the rocks
arent already in that chemical state.

(simplified answer from a non specialist)

~~~
H8crilA
Thank you, that makes perfect sense!

------
aitchnyu
India now uses rock dust for cement aggregate since excavating river sand is
causing environmental problems. Would concrete buildings help?

~~~
Flogiston
Concrete production emmits 8% of the world co2 pollution. Man-made concrete
doesnt help us in this way

~~~
StavrosK
Does producing concrete use fossil fuels? Not for energy, but in the actual
chemical process, like plastic does.

~~~
Bjartr
Carbon dioxide is emitted as a by-product of clinker production, an
intermediate product in cement manufacture, in which calcium carbonate (CaCO3)
is calcinated and converted to lime (CaO), the primary component of cement.[1]

[1] [https://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/3_1_Cement_P...](https://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/3_1_Cement_Production.pdf)

------
beervirus
Not much information about the actual mechanism at work here. Why farmland
specifically? Why basalt specifically?

~~~
chidg
Farmland is a good place to put it because rock dust is also high in
phosphorous and other minerals and for that reason is often used anyway as a
fertiliser, particularly in organic agriculture.

Basalt is one of the types of rock that can react with CO2 to trap carbon.

------
fractal618
What’s the added co2 cost of grinding rocks and transporting them to farms?

~~~
sacred_numbers
Grinding rocks to 200 mesh (74 microns) takes about 20 Kwh per ton. Using 100%
coal electricity that would lead to 20 kg CO2. Transporting a ton of cargo by
truck 200 km creates about 22 kg of CO2. Basalt seems to remove less CO2 per
ton than other minerals, but I'm guessing it would still be more than 100 kg
CO2 removed per ton of basalt (perhaps much more). Olivine (see Project Vesta)
and serpentine are quite efficient; they remove about 1.2 tons of CO2 per ton.
Basalt is extremely common, though, so it might win out in some circumstances.

------
waheoo
I wonder if there is a similar carbonation that can occur in sea water.

~~~
tim333
You can try putting iron in it:
[https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-
scienc...](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/iron-
sulfate-slow-global-warming.htm)

------
ericvanular
Really interesting potential application. Cross posting this on
[https://collective.energy](https://collective.energy) for sure

------
dr_dshiv
Sometimes you will hear the expression: "We think technology will save us.
Technology got us into this mess"

Or, you might hear about the moral hazard of suggesting that technological
approaches could reduce the need for reduced consumption [1]

These seem to be compelling arguments for many people -- including those who
fund science. Geoengineering is, one might say, a dirty word in the sciences
today. Are there any scientists who could weigh in?

[1] Hale, B. (2012). The world that would have been: moral hazard arguments
against geoengineering. Engineering the climate: The ethics of solar radiation
management, 113.

~~~
ralusek
If spreading rock dust on the ground serves some function, then it is itself
technology.

------
linuxftw
Spreading waste from mining operations is 100% something you don't want to do
to farm fields.

~~~
sacred_numbers
There are different types of mine waste. Certainly you don't want to spread
waste contaminated with heavy metals, but most mine waste is just rocks that
have been ground up and filtered by a sluice or shaker table to get the tiny
fraction of the ore that is actually valuable.

~~~
linuxftw
Typically speaking, if you're mining rocks, that's a quarry. The article also
suggests using waste from steel and cement manufacturing, which is crazy.

~~~
ggm
_The article also suggests using waste from steel and cement manufacturing,
which is crazy._

<citation required>

If the production process is happening anyway, and if the waste exists anyway,
why is it definedly crazy to re-purpose it? It isn't neccessarily the best at
scale economic source of the kinds of rock dust we need, but if you have it,
and it worked, then (without citing specifics like cross contamination risks
or at scale problems) why is this specifically more crazy than the idea
itself?

~~~
linuxftw
Putting industrial waste onto food, bad, bad idea. Look into the amount of
contaminants in former steel mill sites.

------
etrabroline
Apparently this process explains a lot of the current climate.

[https://youtu.be/Yze1YAz_LYM?t=1161](https://youtu.be/Yze1YAz_LYM?t=1161)

------
tejtm
Wow, maybe a mid-80's in the title as that was when I last recall hearing this
line of reasoning.

\- glaciers grind up rocks \- ground up rocks end ice age promote life \-
fresh ground rocks get used up and new ice age \- rinse and repeat

------
mac01021
They say treating 1/2 of global farmland with basalt dust would offset the
current carbon emissions of Germany and Japan.

1\. Why did they choose the two axis powers to draw their comparison?

2\. What would be the cost, in additional carbon emissions, to procure,
distribute, and deploy all that basalt?

~~~
mclightning
Germany and Japan being two axis powers is so irrelevant to the given topic...
GPT-2 is probably smarter than you if this is all the skill you have in
correlation.

~~~
reitzensteinm
Perhaps suggest an alternative, instead of just being mean?

~~~
PeCaN
Suggest an alternative to… saying something dumb? …What?

~~~
reitzensteinm
Parent implies there is a correlation, but GP doesn't see it because they're
stupid. My assumption is they were referring to post Fukushima nuclear
shutdown.

Even if I'm misreading it and parent is instead saying there's no correlation,
there's still no need to be mean.

------
trustmeimdrunk
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, as I am happy to see this issue making
headlines, but this sounds like something out of Mike Judge's Idiocracy
universe.

It's probably a really bad idea to spread rock dust on arable land. The
mixture will probably retard the natural soil microbiota, and at worst render
land unusable.

Just try adding a bunch of concrete dust to your basil plant in the window
sill, see what happens. Most likely this will be the source, as concrete waste
is a huge issue in most population centers. Natural microbiota, the life in
soils, are our best bet at sequestering our overabundance of atmospheric ghg,
because we literally have to do nothing. Just leave it the fuck alone. Most
land is not past the point of no return, and most land is not being used to
grow essential food crops. Our actual food is grown on a very small part of
farms worldwide and has lots of room to intensify while reducing energy and
chemical inputs.

Rebuilding and growing bogs, marshes, and wetlands should be our top priority
if we want our great-grandchildren to enjoy the world outside of a cave or a
bubble.

~~~
ggm
you know, if you showed us you are a soil agronomist, and cited something we
might agree. Or, we might look at the other people commenting some of them who
do cite references, who say this isn't retarding natural soil microbiota and
isn't going to the at-worst case, making land unusable.

your example of "try this at home" is not actually good. concrete dust before
hydration is completely different to the dust made post hydration, or fly ash,
or surplus rock dust from mining. The properties of the pre-build and post-
build chemical reactivity of concrete (its an exothermic reaction) need to be
borne in mind.

That said, aggressive de-carbonisation of industry and agriculture, biochar,
wetland remediation, re-forestation are probably vital, and urgent.

~~~
jaclaz
Maybe you are confusing (or I am not understanding) concrete dust with cement
dust.

Concrete dust should be the result of demolition of concrete (already hydrated
when it was cement to form the concrete, i.e. post exothermic reaction).

But, allegedly, the concrete surfaces (not reduced to dust) exposed in the
Biosphere2 was sequestering both CO2 and oxigen, and - at least in that case -
the "solution" was a supplement of oxygen, so maybe the concrete (not cement)
dust uses both CO2 and oxigen while basalt only or mainly uses CO2?

Also, whether it is basalt or concrete dust, wouldn't this treatment alter the
pH of the soil? (at least here historically where there is an excessively acid
soil it is often corrected with additives like calcium carbonate or similar).

~~~
ggm
my answer was an attempt to get to this point because the OP said "get some
cement and sprinkle it on your garden and see what happens" and the whole
point was "thats not what people are doing in the farm sector here, they're
not using pre-moistened cement dust, they are using post-pour concrete dust,
the chemistry is different"

altering the PH can be desirable or harmful depending. thats where the 'get a
soil agronomist into the convo' comes in.

from memory, there can be a significant non-bound component of concrete, and
it can persist for years. so I accept there is a continuing risk of
aggregation of the dust, because it doesn't completely process in immediate
time-frame of the pour (I am told that the hoover dam continued to bake off
for years afterward)

~~~
jaclaz
Sure, I was only trying to distinguish cement dust from concrete dust, the OP
mentioned concrete dust, not cement, and he mentioned it being "waste":

>Just try adding a bunch of concrete dust to your basil plant in the window
sill, see what happens. Most likely this will be the source, as concrete waste
is a huge issue in most population

About aggregation, there are usually big differences between the different
kinds of cement, modern Portland cements tend to end hydration (and thus
hardening) within months, whilst good ol' Pozzolanic went on for years.

But I wouldn't be surprised if such a massive pour as a dam would go on
hardening for many years.

