Well, instead of repeating myself manually, I'll paste in a comment of mine here from a past discussion on carbon capture:<p>It's easy to forget why there is a bit of a challenge to getting C02 out of the air: there's so little of it, comparatively.<p>In order, air is, broadly, made up of the following:<p>Nitrogen: %78.084<p>Oxygen: %20.946<p>Argon: %00.934<p>CO2: %00.042<p>The stuff is essentially beyond a rounding error - it really gives one an appreciation of the "either don't release it, or capture it at the point of release" sentiment, and for the difficulties in making carbon capture outside of these scenarios be even slightly cost-effective.
Indeed. I've always had trouble picturing how to efficiently "unmix the cake" too. CO2 is rare and throughout the whole atmospheric column. What kind of concentration gradient can you get going to meaningfully pull it out from <i>everywhere</i> in human timescales? (Sorry if this nerd-snipes someone stronger with calculus than me.)
Also more fundamentally it's always going to be more efficient to not produce CO2 than to unproduce it.<p>Ok maybe in a small number of circumstances there's no other option (e.g. planes), but mostly you're <i>far</i> better off spending your energy making solar, wind, batteries, heat pumps, insulation etc.
I get what you're saying, but couldn't this be used in a place with high concentrations of CO2, like factory chimneys?
So then, is it really the CO2 that produces the cognitive impairment, or is the CO2 here just the proxy value that we are measuring, and the real reason for the cognitive impairment is low oxygen?
Nitrogen also causes cognitive impairment. It is essentially a very weak anesthetic. If you can replace all of the nitrogen in your breathing gas with helium then you'll probably gain the equivalent of a couple IQ points (although obviously that isn't generally practical).
If the amount of CO2 is basically a rounding error, so too would be the reduction in oxygen.
It’s also the metabolic changes in pH. CO2 is a proxy for ph as carbon dioxide acidifies the blood as it dissolves.
You could climb a mountain to test your hypothesis, keeping an eye on partial pressure of O2
Plants seem to manage it okay.
What if one started emitting Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon in the right proportions instead to get the mix right again?
I like the unconventional approach. A few minutes with GPT raises two issues:<p>1. We've raised CO2 from 280ppm to 420ppm, about a 50% increase. To dilute it back down would require 50% more total atmosphere. This would also raise the surface air pressure 1.5x.<p>2. How much heat is trapped is related to the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the fraction. So the diluted atmosphere would retain just as much heat.
Would it increase the steady state surface air pressure by 50%, or would more molecules offgas into outer space to compensate?<p>If the latter, it might actually work. Assuming they offgas at-proportion. Which they probably wouldn’t…
Interesting thought but you would need a <i>lot</i> of these gasses on the one hand and on the other hand it doesn’t help in working against the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect depends on the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the percentage. How much infrared light is absorbed by CO2 primarily depends on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
My naive guess is that since CO2 takes up so few percentage, you would need an unfathomable amount of N, O, and Ar to get the mix right..?
We will unquestionably reach more than twice the CO2 concentration of pre-industrial levels (which was around 280 ppm; we're at 424 ppm now, it'll increase to beyond 560 ppm in most not-super-optimistic projections).<p>Do you really think it's both feasible and a good idea to release so much O2 and N2 to <i>double the mass of the atmosphere</i>? Or even just increase it by some appreciable fraction?<p>For the record, the atmosphere is around 5 150 000 000 000 000 metric tons. 5 <i>quintillion</i> kilograms. You're talking about producing <i>metric exatons</i> of gas.<p>Wikipedia says that there's 300 000 to a million gigatons of nitrogen in the earth's crust; that's 300 teratons to a petaton (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen#Occurrence" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen#Occurrence</a>). If you extracted LITERALLY ALL THE NITROGEN IN THE CRUST, converted it to nitrogen gas and released it into the atmosphere, and we use the extremely optimistic 1 petaton estimate, you'd have increased the mass of the atmosphere by roughly 1/5000. That means you'd have decreased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere ... by roughly 1/5000. From 424 ppm to 423.92 ppm.
These gases are refined from air to begin with.
Do they need to be?
Where else are they going to come from? They’re all basic elements, either you separate them from air, or you have to go through an energy intensive process to liberate them from various chemicals they’ve been compounded into.<p>But guess what, all of those chemicals are extremely valuable, such as nitrates for fertiliser, water, and Argon does really react with anything (it’s a noble gas), which is why we use it as a shield gas in processes like welding.<p>So producing enough of those gases to somehow offset CO2 production would first require ludicrously large amounts of energy, and if we had access to that amount of clean energy we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Plus it requires breaking down really valuable chemicals that we spend quite a lot of energy trying to produce or preserve anyway.
Where would that come from? It's not that we have some large untapped Oxygen or Nitrogen source laying around that is not part of the atmosphere.
Think about the magnitude you’re talking about here. Every internal combustion engine on earth is emitting CO2. Every volcano, forest fire, coal power plant, etc. The atmosphere is <i>massive</i>. We’ve been, basically, doing our best to pump it full of CO2 for the last 150 years, and this is what we’ve got. Ignoring the chemical challenges with your idea here, the scale is impossibly gargantuan.
I am not against doing research in this area, please do, it is interesting and likely has many applications but global CO2 removal isn't one of them. Nothing proposed, including this, is within any orders of magnitude of a viable solution. The only solution we have is put less in the air in the first place. This tech looks interesting for transporting CO2 but that doesn't mean it sequesters it and even if sequestration was solved the scales here are massive. If we don't have the political will to reduce the amount going into the air then what makes anyone think we would have the political will to build out some system to capture and sequester? We need to focus more on not putting CO2 into the air and less on trying to take it out.
> If we don't have the political will to reduce the amount going into the air then what makes anyone think we would have the political will to build out some system to capture and sequester?<p>Because political will requires coordination, building systems and turning them on doesn't have to!<p>> We need to focus more on not putting CO2 into the air and less on trying to take it out.<p>What part of the "we" in <i>this</i> coordination problem doesn't require political will?
The implicit model in "just emit less" is that human coordination problems are easier than engineering problems. That's historically backwards. We're extremely good at building things. We're terrible at getting everyone to sacrifice simultaneously for diffuse future benefits. Please generalize this!
Covid proved this generalisation is not a truism.<p>USofA was probably the only place that actively resisted the global effort.<p>I think people do want a better world.
Greed is not universal.
Most countries that grow a middle class find most people prefer to stop work. I.e. there are not that many infinitely greedy humans. And they can be taxed.<p>Despite neocon economic theory, most people aren't selfish. And those that are, are often happily rewarded with a plaque in their honor or a medal.<p>Just look at the length Trump goes to for an award.
COVID didn’t cost anyone anything in terms of improved standard of living. Curbing emissions growth would do that.<p>People aren’t “greedy,” but my family in Bangladesh absolutely wants to live like my family in America, or at the very least like my family in Canada. They don’t consider that “greedy” and if you tell them it is they’ll laugh at you.<p>The country’s CO2 emissions per person have increased by a factor of 5x since we left in 1989, consistent with per capita GDP going up by 10x. Even on an efficient development path it’s going to go up another 5x in order to increase the country’s GDP per capita another 10x, which will put it at the level of a poor eastern european country like Hungary or Croatia. That’s the earliest anyone is even going to listen to you about CO2 reduction.
> <i>USofA was probably the only place that actively resisted the global effort.</i><p>Really? China, Indonesia, Iran, South Korea, Italy, UK, Brazil, Tanzania, North Korea, etc.?<p>Making the COVID response sound like one global cooperative endeavor is some serious retcon'ing.
The is one trick that doesn't require political will. If you can make the microeconomics work it can be made to scale it self.<p>E.G. Make CO2 extraction so cheap it's worth everyone doing it and say, make a market to sell the CO2 to farmers. Then make burying inedible bits of plants so cheap it's done on a large scale.<p>Then you just wait. Microeconomics takes over.<p>They did this with plastic clean up. By building a machine that makes plastic into fuel & construction pellets. Then stuck such a machine on a plastic poluted island and waited.<p>For this trick. All you require from your políticans is that they don't lie or bomb the place.
I think you have a point. It could be difficult to justify the cost of carbon capture based on sequestration alone. One of the reasons I think this might still work is that captured carbon can be used to create platform chemicals (various hydrocarbons) using the fischer tropsch process. Electrofuels are using direct air capture to generate fossil replacements.<p>Only requirement is energy and there too it isn't all that expensive to pull air in from the atmosphere or to seperate CO2 from adsorbent via low grade heat (70-100c)<p>So far into the future this method could allow us to continue produce critical hydrocarbon materials (used everywhere from plastics to pharamaceuticals) without having to depend upon concentrated and contested oil supplies.<p>More than energy efficiency its volumetric efficiency that's the issue. At the moment (to the best of my knowledge) kg of capturing materials capture tens of grams of CO2. Pulling it from air is not that energy intensive but finding materials that can actually filter out CO2 from that air is difficult. If breakthroughs are made in this area it will have industrial applications. Then it won't be just sequestering.<p>Of course the easier solution is to plant more trees and grasses but they grow very slowly and require valuable land. Still this approach is feasible in some uncultivable lands. Crops like cottongrass[1] can grow even in tundra climate and can be valuable source of both technically imp carbon via cellulose and a means to capture CO2. We don't have to make a choice. We can do both simultaneously.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/graminoid/erivag/all.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/graminoid/eriva...</a>
I wonder what the economics could look like for using this with remote solar for production instead of considering it for global removal/sequestration. If you build a solar farm in a desert and use this to pull raw materials from the air to create something actually worth money, what levels of efficiency do you need to make that profitable? How close is something like that in reality?
Giant miscanthus can grow on land that's not viable for farming food (other than grazing grasses), has a lot of properties that ready it for becoming charcoal (high tonnage per acre, self drying, minimal inputs needed). Without a price for carbon, it's hard to make it work, though.
There are applications where weight still makes battery storage impossible. By capturing carbon, we may give ourselves the ability to harvest fuel from the air instead of the ground. Given the sometimes negative cost of electricity, this could make it more cost effective to do so. If we replace fossil fuel drilling with sequestration then we are at net zero.<p>This may be part of the solution … or maybe we find a way to make a utopia where we can all agree to just stop polluting. Historically, the utopia has no precedent that I am aware of.
Sequestering CO2 where it's highly concentrated, e.g. at power plants or cement factories exhausts, would be one way to emit less.
This is called Carbon Capture and Storage and so far it has never been worth it energetically. And the only companies doing it are oil companies in a process known as enhanced recovery which pushes more co2 out than is pushed in. The OP was right. Better to leave it in the ground
I've wondered if capturing carbon emissions from industrial-scale compost facilities would be a net positive. It would have the added benefit of the carbon initially being captured by natural organic processes (i.e. growing food), so it avoids the problem of the energy requirements from trying to just pull carbon from the ambient atmosphere. I don't know if this is feasible but I haven't seen any research on it.
What we need to offset the last 3 centuries of coal use is to reverse the process. Plant large amounts of trees, cut them, burn the hydrogen part of them, producing char and reclaiming some energy, then bury the resulting coal back in the abandoned coal mines.
Yeah, that too. There's not going to be one single solution, the problem is just too big for that. The idea with compost is that growing plants for food and dealing with the waste and excess (which is substantial) is something we're already doing, so can we tack carbon sequestration on top of that
> burn the hydrogen part of them<p>Could you elaborate
I think OPs point is this tech is good only if you sink it after.<p>I. e. Collection is half the problem.<p>Collecting it in a way it's cheap to get it back again is potentially just less than minus half the problem.
> The only solution we have is put less in the air in the first place<p>That’s not a solution either, because the developing world is not going to stop increasing their CO2 output until they fully industrialize. They’re just not. Feel free to seek reductions where you can, but don’t think of it as a solution because it’s not.<p>The technical problems with CO2 capture are far more solvable than the sociological problems with net zero emissions.
I think they are, but more by accident. They’re going to industrialize with renewables, batteries, EVs and electric everything. It’s inevitable due to economics
They will increase emissions more slowly than European countries did at the same phase in their development, but emissions will still go up a ton compared to now. China's CO2 emissions per capita is now almost double that of France. India has gone from 0.5 tons/person in 1980 to over 2 tons/person today. They're building some renewables, but they're also building a ton of coal and gas. The EU retired 11 GW of coal in 2024, while China built 30GW and India built another 6 GW.<p>It's not just economics, it's logistics. Countries like Bangladesh don't have the space to build wind and solar, and they don't have the sophistication to manage long distance grids with batteries, EVs, etc. That's why they keep building more coal. They're not stupid, there is just are practical concerns these countries confront that don't exist in countries that have more central organizational capacity.<p>And the math just sucks. Say countries like India industrialize with a high percentage of renewables, etc., so they end up with developed economies at just double the current CO2 output of India (4 tons/capita). That would mean that the growth in CO2 output from the subcontinent alone (India+Pakistan+Bangladesh) would exceed the current CO2 output of <i>the entire EU</i>.
Developing world generally has a lot more sunlight, and now very cheap solar energy.
It's not cheaper when you factor in the batteries, the need for sophisticated electric grids, etc. China and India continue to build huge amounts of coal power. It's not because they're too stupid to buy the cheaper option.
We'll need this tech later. If and when we get emissions to net zero we'll still have too much CO2 in the air. Better to have begun the research now.
"The Wizard and the Prophet" by Charles C Mann sets up an interesting duality that I think more people should be aware of.<p>Mann describes "Prophets" as people who see a problem and then try to prod people to change their behaviour in order to avoid it. e.g. Thomas Malthus observed that exponential population growth had humanity on track to experience severe famine, conflict, etc. that would violently and savagely bring our numbers back within the carrying capacity of the Earth. Multiple people have made predictions about when humanity would reach the brink at numerous points in the years since Malthus, but were always wrong about <i>when</i> the Malthusian trap would finally spring...<p>...because of "Wizards". Wizards are people who set about solving problems with tech. Advances like the use of fertilizer, first bat guano and then the Haber-Bosch process, followed by scientific crop breeding have effectively raised the carrying capacity of the Earth so much that, despite our exponentially ballooning numbers, there are far more calories per person available now than in Malthus' day.<p>Prophets are valuable for their ability to observe and raise awareness about problems. The Earth does have an ultimate carrying capacity too, which we should keep in mind even if we don't know what it is. However, the track record undeniably favours the Wizards. They get things done. Prophets <i>hate</i> this, because it makes it look like they were wrong. They weren't wrong. They were just too focused on an approach to the problem that rarely works.<p>The modern environmentalist movement is dominated by prophets. So much so, that wizards are often portrayed as the enemy. History has shown that this is wrong-headed. We should value prophets for what they do, but ignore them when they tell us not to fund the wizards.
We need this even if emissions went to zero overnight. World is a big place, can do more than one thing at a time.
Removing CO2 from the air is a pipe dream for several obvious reasons.<p>Firstly, it will always be more difficult and energy-intensive to extract CO2 than to just stop putting it into the atmosphere in the first place. Yet the world is nowhere near agreeing any meaningful framework on reducing emissions, and the party in power in the largest democracy in the world is in denial that a problem even exists.<p>But mainly, if there was an effective means of CO2 removal, who will be in charge of the dials, and who will set the targets?<p>Atmospheric CO2 is now 50% higher than when I was born. Will we go back to the levels as at the 60s, or perhaps the beginning of the industrial revolution? Obviously that is unfavorable to the frozen regions that are now thawing - like Russia (and Greenland), who benefit from climate change.
It's not practical now but maybe in a more enlightened (and warm) future it may be? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization</a> could be cheap for example.
> Removing CO2 from the air is a pipe dream for several obvious reasons.<p>For me at least both your arguments are not obvious.<p>There are a lot of things that are harder to put in the atmosphere than to remove them. Stones for example.<p>The second one is less of an argument, but rather a question. Why not the UN, the US, China, or Europe?
Stop writing confident rhetorical takes on about which you know nothing.
Unfortunately, Technological solutions are more politically feasible than attempting to reduce via restrictions and regulations that require intense global coordination that does not exist.
This. The fossil fuel industry continues to overflow the tub with CO2, but instead of turning off the tap, we keep trying to invent a better sponge.<p>We need carbon taxes, tariffs on high-emitting countries and products, and support for adopting clean energy, clean transportation, and clean everything else. Lobbying and misinformation has made these actual solutions politically impossible to implement though, so we continue to waste resources on sponges.
You might think it is silly to do this, but what if carbon emission trading makes this profitable?
There are 4 different categories of fixing the global CO2 challenge:
a. Remove CO2 from atmosphere
b. Prevent adding new CO2 from reaching atmosphere<p>This could also be a good use case for #b where CO2 is captured before being released to the atmosphere. For example factories and vehicles could be mandated to use this.
Maybe we need to genetically engineer special of trees that are active only during the day and sleep at night. Photosynthesis at daytime and Dormancy at nighttime for maximum CO2 conversion.
I'm going to have to disagree in a (hopefully) nuanced way. First, I just ran an end-to-end continent scale simulation of CO2 sequestration for the US, as is. To put it bluntly: there's no way outside of magical pocket sized fusion that will make this work. If you add full ground transportation abatement; full power abatement; and, then, use dedicated thermal sources, then the final cost is ~1 trillion a year. And, that's after all the positive upsides to the economy. There's a bunch of "almost unlimited upside" to be had from not having to move Miami, Houston, etc., but it's too complicated to model. However, just the healthcare implication upsides are roughly parity, disaster included.<p>But! Notice that abatement doesn't get us to 0. It merely <i>slows</i> the process. The remainder absolutely needs ACC. The output stream needs to be dirt cheap, the thermals need to be 100°C and not 900°C. Those sorts of things would bring ACC down to "hundreds of billions" rather than a trillion.
Zoidberg is always worth quoting.<p>“Why not both?”
Thank you
There's no general will, it's not specifically political will. Emitting less CO2 means doing less things or doing them for much more money due to high taxes to discourage it (and also disproportionately affect poor people). Other than some luddites I've never met anyone that genuinely was willing to sacrifice eating a nice steak or going on vacation unless they are millionaires, and that's only because those people know they can do it as much as they want. You have a huge mass of people getting lifted from poverty that will tell you to fuck off if you tell them that now they are finally out of eating rice and starving they can't have a steak, because of CO2.<p>All the things silicon valley "caviar communists" say you need to stop doing are basically the dreams of a whole mass of people coming out of poverty. Nice food, traveling, having a car, having A/C, etc.<p>So we can either find alternatives, or slowly figure out more geoengineering projects like mass absorbing CO2 and the like.
At current rates of emissions, we’re only about 20 years away from people needing to install CO2 scrubbers in their homes.<p>Soda lime, or calcium hydroxide, is the current state of the art. We use that in an anesthesia and in saltwater aquariums and in scuba rebreathers. An idealized system can capture 500 mg per gram, but in practice you only capture around 250mg/g. This outperforms the method in the article but it’s one-shot. There are interesting proposals to use this for direct capture at industrial facilities and to turn the waste material into bricks for building.<p>The key advantage of this new material appears to be that it can be heated and reused. That would be very valuable in an interior direct air capture use case. Think about filtering the CO2 from an office or a home to get us back to pre-industrial levels indoors.
I think it’s little appreciated that high CO2 levels cause cognitive impairment, and with the same amount of (often very poor) air exchange, higher outdoor concentrations can push indoor spaces to levels that cause impaired cognition and poor sleep. I’ve already been seeing this in my home, and will often open windows even when cold just to keep co2 levels reasonable. One solution that can help is an external air heat exchanger, which can exchange air with the outdoors without compromising your homes heating and cooling like an open window will do.<p>Noticeable cognitive impairment starts in the 700-1000ppm range, whereas it is very common for homes to reach 2000-3000ppm, especially when in a closed bedroom.
> <i>Noticeable cognitive impairment starts in the 700-1000ppm range</i><p>The US navy failed to detect such effects in submarine crew, even at much higher levels like 10,000 ppm.<p>Another reason to be skeptical is that exhaled breath is 4% CO2 (40,000 ppm!). Therefore a few thousand extra ppm in the inhaled air should not make much of a difference to the homeostasis mechanisms in our bodies.
>One solution that can help is an external air heat exchanger<p>I have one of those, it blows fresh air in through the bedroom and sucks it back out through the kitchen (loft house, this route prevents food smells from wafting into the bedroom). Aside from just feeling fresh all year, this system also prevents mosquitoes from entering in summer while still allowing air circulation, it automatically bypasses the exchanger at night to provide cool air and it has some pollen filters installed which helps with hay fever.<p>So great economic return and a bunch of upsides, but it does require space for the exchanger and the ducts throughout the house.
This. I have that type (regenerative MHVR) installed in the attic for upstairs, and a synced pair of in-wall ceramic (recuperative) types on opposite sides of main living area downstairs (eliminating ducting, albeit with reduced efficiency). I haven't attempted any energy/ROI calculations but fresh filtered air, lower humidity and good nights sleep are well worth the claimed single-digit watt power usage to me.
I suspect bathrooms aren't big enough to buffer the air pressure but it seems like we should design the air handling so the “fan” is always on in the bathrooms. Maybe a split between several places and taking a bit from the cold air return for the rest.
The system is always on and moving air as a whole, and the water closet and bathroom have an intake duct that sucks in humid air that goes to the heat exchanger for exhaust. I have a little humidity sensor hooked up to Home Assistant that kicks the fan in the exchanger into a higher gear and returns to auto when humidity returns to baseline.<p>All rooms in the house have an intake or exhaust duct depending on requirements.<p>There is also a small control panel next to the thermostat in the living room that controls the whole system for when, ahem, your number two's are particularly odorous (or you're using the kitchen to cook for 6).
I have been monitoring for high CO2 for a few months now. I easily find myself in the 1000 - 1400 range for some time before I finally let some air in in winter.<p>I have not noticed significant cognitive impairment (not saying it did not happen)
My quality of sleep/life have greatly increased since installing an Energy Recovery Vent (ERV) — it exchanges outside/inside air through a membrane, which is about 60-80% efficient for both humidity and temperature re-capture (depending on fan speed).<p>[•] <<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation#Energy_recovery_ventilation" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation#Ener...</a>><p>I use a Panasonic model — readily available from Big Box Retail (~$700 + $100 in vent/conduit) — which can do 20 - 60 cfm (in my 900 sqft home this can easiliy exchange the entire volume several times per day).
> higher outdoor concentrations can push indoor spaces to levels that cause impaired cognition<p>I am somewhat skeptical of this:<p><a href="https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/eight-hundred-slightly-poisoned-word" rel="nofollow">https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/eight-hundred-slightly-pois...</a>
This is a meme on hacker news that's usually stated as a fact, but I'm not sure there's any robust evidence of cognitive impairment at <1000ppm
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232300358X" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232...</a><p>> In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis of fifteen eligible studies was performed to quantify the effects of short-term CO2 exposure on cognitive task performance.<p>> The complex task performance declined significantly when exposed to additional CO2 concentrations of 1000–1500 ppm and 1500–3000 ppm
> I think it’s little appreciated that high CO2 levels cause cognitive impairment<p>Have you been telling representatives? Here's a letter I wrote to mine:<p><a href="https://pdfhost.io/v/bRJEGptatL_climate-change" rel="nofollow">https://pdfhost.io/v/bRJEGptatL_climate-change</a>
Really? Wow, I try to keep my place at 500-600, without that much effort.
I find it extremely unlikely that homes are routinely at 2000-3000 ppm. That is extremely high and would mean multiple people in a small area with no air exchange for a long while.<p>I monitor my indoor co2, but don't take any action because it's extremely rare to be above 700 or 800. I can only remember a handful of times its reached 1k ppm. And my house should be prime candidate for co2, it was built during the era of "seal all air gaps" but before ERV or HRVs. I also use pressurized co2 to inject co2 into a planted aquarium. And my dogs are terrified of open windows so they are rarely open.
It happens a lot in efficient houses that don't cover all bases with HVAC (the vast majority of recently built houses), where the room door is closed, maybe the vents are not ideal, and there is usually no makeup air or forced air ventilation other than a furnace intake.<p>This change in scientific literature actually causes a ~quadrupling of recommended airflow ratios for tight homes versus ASHRAE's previous guidelines, putting strong emphasis on an ERV. Previously, ventilation needs tended to be dominated by air quality and smell, by humidity buildup, or by theoretical house parties that maxed out the system.<p>This ventilation adds capital expense, but it's substantially more controllable and significantly cheaper in the long run in colder climates than 'just open a window' or 'just don't build the house so tightly sealed'. Reserve the operable window for the aforementioned house party, which is out of a reasonable design envelope.
Homes in the upper midwest are well-sealed and insulated. Bedrooms can hit 2,000 ppm with two adults sleeping in them.
My bedroom regularly gets to 3000 at night, and the flat in general is around 2000. This is in the winter, when I don't open the windows for days because of the cold. The flat is very well insulated.
If we are three in my small living room in winter (around 20m2), it easily climbs above to 2000ppm in less than an hour
Ok this sounds like BS, what kind of sensor is being used to get such readings? What do you use?
I used an Awair Element after wondering if Co2 buildup was causing my groggieness in the morning and an ever so slight dull headache.<p>My bedroom was quite small at the time, but I measured the same effect of buildup in a larger bedroom, just the Co2 level took a little longer to reach it's peak.<p>In the small room it took about 45 mins to climb to about 1400 after I closed the door and went to sleep.<p>I'm currently trying to install some above-door vents to improve circulation but this is a topic most people don't consider at all, even though studies have shown the effects of classrooms having high Co2 concentrations on exam results and cognition.
> high CO2 levels cause cognitive impairment<p>Sounds seriously unlikely. How would this work in practice, at the level of bodily functions?
> The ease of releasing CO2 is the key advantage of the new compound.<p>I have no idea why the journalist that wrote this article choose to highlight the carbon density of the sub-header. It's almost completely irrelevant for carbon capture plants.<p>Another clear benefit is that it's a liquid.<p>Today people mostly use the substances that you called non-reversible in research plants (AFAIK, all plants are research right now). They are perfectly reversible, but that uses a lot of energy.
> <i>perfectly reversible, but that uses a lot of energy</i><p>Looks like a perfect match to a solar plant, which provides basically free energy periodically. All you need is a large enough cistern to hold the liquid during night time.
Yes, it's a great match to solar plants.<p>But you don't need to store the capture medium. You use a bit more energy to make they work faster while the Sun is shining, and stop everything when it's gone.<p>The largest bottleneck is what you do to get rid of the CO2.
We use the CO2 to synthesize methanol with the H2 we electrolyze using surplus solar energy. The methanol we burn in winter for heat. Yes, that releases the CO2 again. The goal here is not to save the planet. It is to bring solar energy to winter. My house produces many times the electricity that it needs per year, but most of it is wasted in summer. Efficient conversion is not a factor. If I can get 20% of the energy input back as heat in winter, it is worth it: that is oil or wood I don't have to burn for heat.
160F, non toxic, this already sounds like something that could feasibly be used in the home. I would already be interested in installing one. And would absolutely love to see what it would do to school performance.<p>The hard part is capture and disposal.
Do you have a citation for that 20 years estimate?
<a href="https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/" rel="nofollow">https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/</a><p>Extending the current exponential for 20 years, we get into the 500ppm region.<p>I don't think that's enough to need scrubbers.
According to <a href="https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/carbon-dioxide-indoor-levels-chart" rel="nofollow">https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/carbon-dioxide-indoor-le...</a>, at 1000 ppm people start getting drowsy. Let's assume that a decent indoor environment has 300 ppm more CO2 This means that our threshold for when people start getting drowsy even in decent indoor environments is when atmospheric CO2 reaches 700 ppm. For reference, it is currently around 420 ppm, and pre-industrial levels were 280 ppm.<p>From <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide" rel="nofollow">https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...</a>, the pessimistic projections suggest that we may reach our 700 ppm threshold by roughly 2070; 45 years from now. (The graphs are hard to read precisely)<p>The 300 ppm offset compared to the outside air is naturally just an arbitrary number, everything up to 1000 ppm (meaning everything up to 580 ppm more than atmospheric levels) is considered "acceptable". That means any increase in CO2 concentration will take an indoor environment which used to be considered "acceptable" and make it cross the threshold into "unacceptable". An indoor environment which would've been at 900 ppm around the industrial revolution (280 ppm) would've crossed the threshold when we surpassed 380 ppm (which was in 1965 according to <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091926/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-historic/" rel="nofollow">https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091926/atmospheric-conc...</a>).<p>let's compare the past 20 years. In 2004, the concentration was ~377 ppm. That's 47 ppm lower than what was in 2024. An indoor environment which was "borderline but acceptable" at 955 ppm CO2 in 2004 would've crossed the arbitrary 1000 ppm threshold by now, and therefore would benefit from a CO2 scrubber. The next 20 years will likely have a higher increase than the past 20 years, so there will be a larger range of currently acceptable indoor environments which will cross the 1000 ppm threshold by 2045.<p>TL;DR: It's complicated, 20 years is arbitrary, but as CO2 concentrations increase, indoor quality gets worse so indoor environments which were already bad will become worse. 45 years is a more realistic estimate for when your typical good indoor environment will become unacceptable, but it's a gradient.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphe...</a><p>Just extrapolate.
I was also a bit skeptical, but chatgpt gave a pretty good answer I think: <a href="https://chatgpt.com/share/69553e26-ea28-8011-bc17-8658fbea4e04" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/share/69553e26-ea28-8011-bc17-8658fbea4e...</a><p>Buildings with higher people/sqft could already take advantage of indoor co2 scrubbers today.
Could something like this be used to make cement?<p>Imagine capturing CO2 to turn it into cement, used for constructions.<p>Pardon my ignorance, though.
We don't use CO2 to make cement, we use limestone, and CO2 is the byproduct of heating the limestone to make reactive calcium.
You can store CO2 and sell it to construction companies (to cure ferrock), to energy storage companies (who like to put the CO2 in huge bubbles nowadays, go figure), or to agricultural corporations (who enrich greenhouses air in CO2 to accelerate growth).
Just to counter your extreme prediction, if co2 levels halve from here all life on earth goes extinct.<p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/post/Minimum_necessary_concentration_of_CO2_in_the_atmosphere" rel="nofollow">https://www.researchgate.net/post/Minimum_necessary_concentr...</a>
Please stop trying to hurt every single human being with these derailments. There is no plausible mechanism by which carbondioxide levels would halve. That means you're just trying to derail the discussion by appealing to people's instincts about how fragile atmospheric composition is. Stop.
They aren't at risk of halving, though?
You can heat definitely heat NaHCO3 to get CO2 and NaOH back. It just takes a lot of energy.
"outperform" by only one metric too often fails usefulness. It's a one shot unless you heat the calcium carbonate to 900C, the compound in the article only requires 70C, and has quite a bit of ability to re-process CO2 absorption multiple times. Although solar ovens could reach over 900C, probably too dangerous for residential use.
citation for the co2 scrubbers in home need?
Maybe we just need to make cyanobacteria that multiplies faster.
Direct air capture imo can’t escape the scaling problem - when the feedstock has CO2 at ~400 ppm the economics simply won’t work out despite various oil companies backing one off systems around the globe.<p>Capturing CO2 at the source (power plant, etc) would be simpler to reach economic viability but without incentives it’s dead on arrival. I believe the IRA infra bill had put a price ~$50/ton of CO2 captured.
Capturing CO2 at the source will always be worse than removing the source. At the same time, capturing CO2 from the air will stay necessary until we do it.
I agree, plus were would one store the CO2 ? To get back to "1980", I really doubt puling CO2 from the atmosphere will ever work.<p>Another concern, who will pay for maintenance ? See this for why you cannot let CO2 escape from underground storage:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster</a><p>If stored near a populated area, hundreds of thousands could be kill, including all animals and insects, in a matter of minutes if the "vault" has a catastrophic failure. I would rather live near a nuclear waste site than a CO2 Site.
Can't we just store C and let the O2 back in the air like plants do? We could store it right where it came from, in old coal mines.
Chemical reduction of CO2 is a very hard problem since it takes a lot of energy. There's an enormous amount of research in this area. Storing it costs money, so most of the research focuses on turning the C into a useful product.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemical_reduction_of_carbon_dioxide" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemical_reduction_of_c...</a>
> I would rather live near a nuclear waste site than a CO2 Site.<p>If it's between immediate death and a slow one of cancer, I'm not sure your choice is the obvious one.
A failure in containment at a nuclear waste storage site means danger for people on the site itself but it is easily detected by monitoring equipment and can be repaired, the waste is solid and can't spread easily. A failure in containment of a massive quantity of pressurized CO2 would be significantly more dangerous and probably a lot more likely to happen given the frequency of accidents<p><a href="https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/prs.680130405" rel="nofollow">https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/prs.68...</a><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkWeZ1YPI88" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkWeZ1YPI88</a><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/H1rWZHNWBWo" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/shorts/H1rWZHNWBWo</a>
Well as far as storing it goes, if you can capture it, turn it into a solid and stick it in the ground.<p>Imagine you were growing a huge biomass that you harvest, dry out, and then store. We know how the bacteria and processes that stripped co2 from the atmosphere in the past, we just need to do that in a big way. Good thing we have places on earth that are huge and flat and growing algae won't be a problem.<p>And then we complement that with green energy and an attempt at net zero.
As long as leading figures either claim it's a hoax or that it's not necessary to do sth about it, none of this matters anywhere.<p>This is less of a technogical problem than it is a political one, I'm afraid.
But we still need to remove all the excess co2 that we released into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution if we want to reduce the temperature back to what it was before we started disrupting the natural state of the plane.<p>We and previous generations took out a loan and the payment is coming due.<p>Because of the framing about degrees in celcius change people are thinking in small numbers, like "oh, it's just 1.5'C over normal. oops, we missed that, well maybe we'll get it at 2.0'C. They don't realize that if we want normal we ahve to <i>reduce</i> the temperaure and to do that we need to take that c02 blanket off that we've been tightly wrapping around our collective bodies for decades.<p>And that endeavor is nearly unfathomable. Think of all the energy used by humanity since the industrial revolution <i>and</i> the energy we're going to be producing in the time period that we attempt to sequester the previously poduced C02. All of that needs to be accounted for.<p>And then there's the surplus energy roiling around in the system now, and the collapse of food webs.<p>I don't see how we get our way out of this in the next 50 years.
With ice caps melted off, just removing all the excess CO2 isn't even enough since with that reflective surface gone, more energy from sunlight stays in the atmosphere than previously when more of it was reflected back into space instead of nowadays being absorbed by the ocean.
Absolutely. People seem to think that we just need to recycle more, seal some cracks in the house with foam, install some solar panels, and buy an electric car.<p>They underestimate the scale of the intervention that will be required to stave off the potential end of human civilization as we know it. If we have any hope of continuing to live at something resembling the quality of life that we've grown up in it will require radical science fiction like developments.<p>We're going to need things like space based solar shades to regrow glaciers and icepack, advanced breeding and cloning and ecosystem engineering to reconstruct collapsing food webs, and I think the big picture thing is that we're going to need to engineer people to reduce susceptibility to addictive food and manipulative marketing.
> If we have any hope of continuing to live at something resembling the quality of life that we've grown up in<p>Chances are, developed countries won't be hit that hard, at least for a generation or two.
That’s true. It’s more of a policy issue that’s like carbon credits… nice on paper but a big nothing burger. Look at F1 and Porsche talking about sustainable synthetic fuels.<p>When you compare round trip efficiencies and economics it makes sense to just not burn the hydrocarbons to begin with.
Yes<p>For the atmospheric one, grow trees and algae
The best carbon capture device is the ocean, and for the last 10 years or so huge amounts of free-floating sargassum seaweed have grown in warm ocean waters around the world. Nobody is certain why the sargassum has appeared in such volume lately, but it's plausible to speculate that increased CO2 in ocean water plays a role. As far as I can see the only remotely efficient way to sequester carbon at scale is to leverage the ocean by gathering the seaweed and dumping it on marginal or desert land, both to trap the carbon and fertilize the soil, thus promoting additional carbon-binding plant growth.
> <i>for the last 10 years or so huge amounts of free-floating sargassum seaweed have grown in warm ocean waters around the world</i><p>For those curious about numbers for 2025, a couple links: <a href="https://optics.marine.usf.edu/projects/SaWS/pdf/Sargassum_outlook_2025_bulletin05_USF.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://optics.marine.usf.edu/projects/SaWS/pdf/Sargassum_ou...</a> <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/International/scientists-concerned-record-amount-seaweed-caribbean/story?id=122533091" rel="nofollow">https://abcnews.go.com/International/scientists-concerned-re...</a><p>> <i>Nobody is certain why the sargassum has appeared in such volume lately</i><p>For the record 2025 volumes specifically, the ABC article notes that sudden phosphorus flushes as a result of multi-year drought-hit watersheds finally being flushed out likely contributed. Ocean ecology at scale is usually highly correlated with nutrient density.
As a layman on this topic, but assuming the gathering requires fossil fuel and probably lots of it given the scale, is it feasible to do the gathering in a net negative carbon way?<p>I feel like anything I hear about that teases net negative sequestration at scale eventually falls apart or is found to be akin to a perpetual energy machine that eventually is debunked.
Alkalinity enhancement of oceans (so it absorbs more carbon) is one carbon capture mechanism.<p><a href="https://oceanvisions.org/ocean-alkalinity-enhancement/" rel="nofollow">https://oceanvisions.org/ocean-alkalinity-enhancement/</a><p>But in general carbon absorption by oceans leads to acidification and habitat destruction.
> leverage the ocean by gathering the seaweed and dumping it on marginal or desert land<p>Why would it gather more CO2 over there than it does where it already is?
Presumably relocating it makes room for more?
They're suggesting to harvest it and sequester it elsewhere, making room for more to grow.
Never mind the CO2 released in making the ingredients and recycling them.<p>Just plant a tree, harvest it to make lumber.<p>The article's method might be useful in a submarine or spacecraft.
A better title would be "More efficient method to capture CO2 from the atmosphere." The method is not objectively efficient, but may be more efficient than other methods (solvents/sorbents) used for DAC.
I gave my engineering students a CO2 removal design problem once, and at the end, asked why the theoretical efficiency had increased in the time since the textbook was written. The answer was that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was higher.
Yes it's important to distinguish "efficiency getting closer to theoretical maximum" from "actually cheap and economically feasible".
Economics rules everything. How much does this cost vs simply planting trees, when the value of harvesting the trees is included? Since tree farms are generally profitable, and wood is expensive, it seems this method is likely to be economically less efficient.
The problem is you cannot plant enough trees around the globe to offset our CO2 emissions.
Also, a forest only absorbs CO2 while alive. Once it dies, it emits CO2 too.
You would need to permanently store the wood somewhere (submerging in water, etc).<p>Recent article:
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/28/africa-forests-transformed-carbon-sink-carbon-source-study" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/28/africa-f...</a>
Planting trees solves both the carbon capture and the emissions issue from different angles. Some examples are:<p>- With more wood available it’s more economical to use it as a building/manufacturing material over other emissive sources (concrete, steel, plastic)<p>- We can replant the same area multiple times<p>- Even if we plant crops for biofuels, it’s closer to carbon neutral than burning fossil anyway<p>Every move we can make towards planting (and managing) more of the surface of the Earth is an improvement, without waiting for miraculous new technology.
If these forests are planted by humans, why do we think the dead trees would just be left to rot like you suggest vs being harvested for wood? The logic does not compute other than trying to make a ridiculous point.
I think this loses the forest for the trees. That is, a single tree rotting isn't what matters its how long the ecosystem the tree is part of lasts. Consider a square kilometer of denuded land turned back into a forest. You can think of the forest as a temporary storage for carbon, its stored in the trees, soil, animals, insects, etc in that square kilometer. Individual trees may die but on average if the forest remains in good health there will be a number of tons of carbon kept out of the atmosphere.
using the wood for heating also releases the CO2. I do think planting trees is a good idea, but it's worth pointing out they can be a carbon source even after harvesting, depending on the usage.<p>On the other hand if the wood is used for construction or furniture it will not emit.
What do you think happens to harvested wood?
It's possible to permanently capture the carbon if you turn the wood into charcoal and ultimately bury or store that.<p>But left out to rot and yeah, the fungus and bacteria will ultimately consume the wood and release CO2 as a byproduct.
You don’t need to convert it to coal. Use it to build houses, furniture, and other things.<p>I am currently building a wooden house this way. Wooden frame, wooden exterior, wooden floors, even wood-based insulation (<a href="https://huntonfiber.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">https://huntonfiber.co.uk/</a>). The isolation has the shortest life span and it is expected to last at least 60 years.
One little appreciated fact is that trees also respirate CO2 when they are cracking their stored sugars produced via photosynthesis. So they don’t sequester all of the CO2 that they consume.
Biochar seems like a good option
Trees have advantages that go beyond bureaucratic aspects of environmentalism.
>Economics rules everything<p>Physics rules everything, once you start trying to run at scale.<p>The density of carbon per unit volume in solid materials of interest doesn't vary that much, whether you sink it in trees or in exotic materials like diamonds. That means you can calculate the volume of material required so sink a desired amount of atmospheric carbon.<p>If you want to have a measurable impact on the atmosphere, say dialing it back to 1980 CO2 levels, you're talking not about making a pile of stuff but about making a mountain range that's a mile high and hundreds of miles long.<p>Now figure out how many trucks you're going to need to move that much material from where your sequestering machine is to where your pile of stuff is.<p>Or if you want to dump that material in the ocean (which someone else will certainly object to), extend your calculation to figure out how many container trucks worth of material you need to dump into the ocean every hour to accomplish your atmospheric cleanup in whatever amount of time you choose (a decade? If it takes a century, that's not fast enough).<p>And finally think about surface to volume ratios. You're trying to sink it into a volume, but you can only get the gas into the volume through its surface, so the speed of your process is limited by surface area.<p>If you want to do it with trees,
my personal spitball estimates are that you probably need to plant somewhere between the entire state of Connecticut and the entire state of Colorado to have the kind of impact one would want (there's more subtlety to tree calculations than one generally likes to admit, so feel free to come in with way higher numbers than I did).<p>Which brings us back to economics. If you have a well-managed forest of that size and scale, someone is eventually going to come along, maybe in 100 years, maybe in 500 years, and say "hey if we cut this down, we could burn the wood to heat our homes" and all that carbon goes back into the atmosphere, so you actually need to sink it into something that is energetically unfavorable for recovery, which means you also need to expand a huge amount of energy to sink the carbon into that energetically unfavorable state.
If we took <i>all</i> the CO2 out of the atmosphere and converted the C into graphite and spread that uniformly over the top 10 subtropical deserts it would be around 2 cm deep.<p>This suggests a long term approach of building solar powered carbon capture plants in subtropical deserts, they capture it and convert to graphite, which is then spread out under the solar panels.<p>I once did the math on this, using the specs for currently available solar powered carbon capture, and it came out to something like if we used 100 years worth of the current production annual production of solar panels for this we could carbon capture at a rate that could drop the atmosphere from current levels of CO2 to pre-industrial levels in a few years even if we do <i>not</i> reduce emission rates.<p>So...not practical now, but might be feasible as a very long term project that over many decades builds out enough capacity to get things under control as long as we can keep everything from going to hell over that time.
> you're talking not about making a pile of stuff but about making a mountain range that's a mile high and hundreds of miles long.<p>Just to put it into numbers, wikipedia has the total amount of CO2 on the global warming page, if we assume it's in a 2 kg/l substance it totals to around 180 km^3.
To put it further into numbers -<p>1). Wikipedia does have a citation [1] saying 2,450 gigatonnes of CO2 have been emitted by human activity, of which 42% stayed in the atmosphere and 34% dissolved in the oceans, with the rest already sequestered by plant growth and land use. As we start to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, it will begin to be emitted from the oceans as well; therefore, let's assume we have to recapture all excess atmospheric and oceanic CO2:<p>:: 2450x10^9 tonnes CO2 x .66 fraction to sequester ~= 1.6x10^12 tonnes CO2.<p>2) Let's convert the CO2 to something more stable for long-term storage: HDPE.<p>- Convert mass of CO2 to mass of carbon:<p>:: 1.6x10^12 tonnes CO2 x 12/44 mass fraction of C in CO2 ~= 4.4x10^11 tonnes C<p>- Convert mass C to mass HDPE; assume HDPE is effectively (CH2)n. Then:<p>:: 4.4x10^11 tonnes C x 14/12 mass fraction CH2 to C ~= 5.2x10^11 tonnes HDPE<p>3) That's a lot of plastic! How much volume? Wikipedia says HDPE is ~930-970 kg/m3; let's be conservative again and take the low figure:<p>:: 5.2x10^11 tonnes HDPE x 1.0/0.930 m3 per tonne HDPE ~= 5.5x10^11 m3 HDPE<p>4) Those are cubic meters; how about cubic kilometers?<p>:: 5.5x10^11 m3 x 1.0/1.0x10^9 km3 per m3 ~= 5.5x10^2 km3<p>In other words, if you turned all the [excess potentially climate-change impacting] CO2 that humanity has emitted since 1850 into plastic (a process that would certainly emit a large additional CO2 fraction given the industrial buildout required) then we'd end up with about 550 cubic kilometers of the stuff. Coincidentally, that's about the volume of Mount Everest according to an intermediate calculation in [2].<p>So, a mountain of carbon: more than a pile but less than a mountain range.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphere_of_Earth#Current_situation" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphe...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.quora.com/What-would-the-estimated-weight-of-Mount-Everest-be" rel="nofollow">https://www.quora.com/What-would-the-estimated-weight-of-Mou...</a>
But if you release the O2 and convert it into diamond, then by my highy-suspect back of the envelope calculations, it'd be a diamond that would fit into one square kilometer, 87 meters high. It would make quite the tourist attraction.
If we pull this off, I would not expect people 500 years from now to undo it.
In the order of importance:<p>1. Even if we do magic and emit nothing, we still need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or it will cook us over time, just longer.<p>2. We would need an enormous area for forests (which i great), which would mean a lot of intervention, like resettling people, demolishing and constructing new buildings, a lot of machinery time to move people to and from the new forests, a lot of planting and forest maintenance involved. And add he work to cut and bury resulting wood. If you would sum all the incidental emissions from this process it would rapidly become much less efficient (if at all).<p>Without either CO2 capture or a sun shade of some sort, the CO2 levels and temperature will only ever increase, just like now.
I agree. Plants are not very efficient (1% or 2%) but they include packaging the CO2 in a stable form. You can store the grain or wood for long periods of times.<p>In this case, it looks like they get CO2 as a gas. It's cheaper because you don't have to use energy to undo the burning, but it's difficult to store for a long time.<p>(I'm not sure if someone tried to make a fake underground bog in abandoned mine. Just fill with wood and water to keep the oxygen low and make the wood decompose slowly.)
Take a look at "wood vault".
'Wood vaulting': A simple climate solution you’ve probably never heard of | Grist <a href="https://share.google/lS8xnMGEd1pMzlNg2" rel="nofollow">https://share.google/lS8xnMGEd1pMzlNg2</a>
Economically not attractive but apparently very efficient in locking up CO2.
> stable form<p>Not really, forest fires happen and then a few hundred of years of sequestered CO2 gets released back in an instant.<p>Organic material with oxygen gas floating around is not stable.<p>Sequestering carbon into the ocean might be a better strategy. Not flammable and not subject to stupid capitalism effects around land prices.
The ocean has already absorbed 30% of the CO2 humanity has emitted. It causes issues: ocean acidity rises, which reduces plankton ability to grow. Plankton being the base of the ocean food chain, all ocean life gets impacted.<p>You'd need to find a way to sequester carbon without it leaching in the water.<p><a href="https://marine.copernicus.eu/ocean-climate-portal/ocean-carbon-uptake" rel="nofollow">https://marine.copernicus.eu/ocean-climate-portal/ocean-carb...</a>
Planting trees is not effective since it takes decades to capture the carbon, but the next years are crucial for determining long term climate developments.
[flagged]
The article doesn't mention the energy costs directly. The fluid is good for at most 100 cycles, probably less, to release the captured CO2 requires heating the fluid to 70C, and then you still have the problem of disposing the CO2 in some way. All cost energy.<p>A given locale has some metric, based on local generation sources, for grams of CO2 emitted per kWh or whatever. How much CO2 is released to capture 1 gram of CO2? If it is close to a gram or more, this is not worth considering. Maybe one day zero-carbon energy sources become so inexpensive we could contemplate wide-scale CO2 capture, but we aren't anywhere close yet.
This seems like the actual work of the article:
<a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5c13908" rel="nofollow">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5c13908</a><p>And the superbase is 1,5,7-triazabicyclo [4.3.0] non-6-ene<p>It is an anime based technology. Other amines in water-based solutions also get regenerated at about <200C. It is great to find new molecules to do this work but as I usual, these marketing articles sensationalize the actual work.
Sounds like this would be great on a long haul space mission where carbon capture is small scale, but very important!
One thought I had was to go a very cold place and freeze CO₂ out of the air, about -80°C.<p>There’s the katabatic winds off of the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, which could help things go through.<p>But I soon realised that CO₂ is so potent, that it’s so such a small proportion of the air that not much would be taken out.<p>There’s some renewable storage systems that liquify air, that could remove CO₂ but they don’t mention it;,but air liquification doesn’t seem to be growing fast as an option.<p>The other one from mere A-level chemistry is buffer solutions and using chemical reactions in the Oceans, apart from iron seeding for life, but a chemical that precipitate an insoluble carbonate.
Not ideal raining down precipitates, or using the Ocean as a test tube.
I read somewhere that electrolysis of marine water could emit enough oxygen, while also harvesting hydrogen, to counter CO2 emissions, but I can’t find the source, has anyone heard of it before or am I filling the gaps of my memory with generated garbage?
Keep it in the ground.
Without knowing much about the details of it, this might be interesting to evaluate as a potentially economically more attractive alternative to DAC in the supply chain of e-fuel production?
The thing people don't think about with regards to CO2 capture is that you have to get the atmosphere in order to capture CO2 from it. You essentially have to suck the entire atmosphere into these carbon capture facilities.<p>Using something like this to capture carbon from an exhaust pipe might be viable, but scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere is not even remotely viable. There's just too much air out there.
You can actually capture CO2 from sea water thereby reducing ocean acidification and improving its capability to continue as our planets biggest CO2 sink.
there's also lots of water to wash then.<p>The problem is the same, the relative concentration of oxygen in air is less than 0.05% (~450pars per million). In water much less.
Well here's the thing - there's quite a lot of water out there too.<p>How long and how many terawatts of power do you think it'll take to suck a significant fraction of the earth's seawater through a capture facility?
You're right, it's expensive and hard, so it's better to not do anything and... migrate all humanity onto space stations so we don't die with the earth, I guess is the alternative you're suggesting?
It's not expensive and hard, it's impossible. The largest carbon capture facility in the world is called mammoth, and in order to offset our current emissions we would need a million of them. We can not build a million of them.<p>This is why climate scientists have been saying for a hundred years that we need to stop producing all this CO2, because we can't take it back. We can't just fix it. We can't just get back all the ice that's melted and keeps melting, we can't unthaw the permafrost. We can't stop all the methane and other climate gases that have been trapped under ice for millions of years from being released and making it even worse. We just can not do it.<p>We were warned, we ignored the warnings and now we're seeing the consequences.
The earth doesn't die because CO2 levels increase. There have been multiple epoch with higher CO2 concentrations than we have now.
Never in the history of the planet has the temperature increased anywhere near as quickly as it's doing now.<p>If you look at a chart of historic temperature levels, pretty much every significant change on that chart corresponds to a mass extinction.<p>So yes, the earth does die. The earth has died many times before and it's currently happening again. The rock itself will still be here but us and pretty much everything else that lives here will be wiped out by climate change. The only question is how long it will take, and as you can see it's going fast.<p>This is not controversial, except for ignorant people who refuse to face the facts. This is what climate scientists have been warning us about for our entire lives.<p>Doesn't matter whether you believe it, it's happening.
Gasses diffuse through the air very quickly. Having a few high-volume extraction points would be enough long-term.
Tired of EU "nag screens" ?<p><a href="https://archive.ph/SjcLx" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/SjcLx</a>
Just use lye to baking soda. You could in theory make an efficient roundtrip.<p>Anyway - CO2 in the atmosphere is here to stay. Much more "realistic" approach is to decarbonize the ocean and let the ocean absorb the atmospheric CO2.
It seems like the focus should be on capturing carbon dioxide from the oceans. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is extremely diffuse, but the oceans absorb it in large quantities and as a result it becomes much more dense which makes capture fundamentally more efficient.
This solves only part of the problem: it captures CO2 and can release it later. But you still need to figure out what to do with this CO2, how to turn it into something useful.
A startup from Quebec is using an electrochemical process to produce potassium formate from CO2.<p>Electro Carbon
<a href="https://www.electrocarbon.ca/en" rel="nofollow">https://www.electrocarbon.ca/en</a><p><a href="https://sustainablebiz.ca/clear-the-runway-electro-carbon-begins-deliveries-low-carbon-de-icing-fluid" rel="nofollow">https://sustainablebiz.ca/clear-the-runway-electro-carbon-be...</a><p>Their process for generating potassium formate is greener than standard methods. It does require electricity as an input but that can come from renewable, green sources.<p>Potassium formate is used in de-icing products, fertilizer, heat transfer fluids, drilling fluid, etc... so a useful, monetizeable output comes out of the process.<p>Disclosure - Know the founders personally. Wanted to shoutout their work. No financial ties to the company.Chemistry is not at all my expertise & I don't have details on their process beyond what's on the website.
you can inject it into peridotites and let it mineralize. there is enough exposed peridotite outcrops in the world that we could inject all the co2 produced and store it there indefinitely. this process also produces elemental hydrogen.
I'm fine with keeping it inside something brick-shaped and chucking it down an abandoned mine from where it can be retrieved at a later time. It would definitely be a storage improvement over "the atmosphere and our lungs".
It can be used as an energy storage by compressing / releasing + powering a turbine. Good for storing excess wind + solar energy.
If it is reasonably energy efficient, this could be used to feed a methane processor, especially on Mars.
Stable storage would be limestone. To bring it down to pre-industrial levels it would mean that each person on earth would get a cube of 5 meters a side.<p>IDK, build houses out of limestone like we have been doing for ages.
The answer is obvious: create a cryptocurrency-based economy where countries and citizens are incentivized to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and ship it into space in exchange for crypto.<p>/s<p>One of the subplots from the excellent Delta-V series by Daniel Suarez.
Trees!
how about trees? just a thought.
People need to keep in mind how rare CO2 is in the atmosphere.
It currently is at around 420 ppm and was at around 100 ppm less in the 60s.
CO2 is a miniscule part of the atmosphere, which is why large <i>relative</i> changes are caused by human activity.<p>To remove 10ppm of atmospheric CO2 from the atmosphere (which would do nothing to sustainably lower CO2 in the atmosphere) would require processing 10ppm of the <i>entire</i> atmosphere. That is one in 100.000 parts of the atmosphere. The entire atmosphere is around 5x10^18 kg, so we need to process 5x10^13 kg of air. Which is 50 million million (no typo) kilos of air.<p>The industrial task of doing this unfathomably large and by itself would have no long term Impact.<p>Human fabricated carbon capture from ambient air is a complete fools errand only promoted by the scientific illiterate or those who benefit from scientific illiteracy. You can essentially just look at the first graph on wikipedia and see that it is never going to work: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphere_of_Earth" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphe...</a>
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
What are the use cases of CO2 appart for making my Coke fizz?
The main commercial use is enhanced oil recovery—shooting it into old wells to extract more oil (super ironic if captured from the air).<p>One application I think is neat is that it’s a pretty robust refrigerant in a heat pump application.
As I understand it, the main driver behind current carbon-capture tech is selling carbon credits.
You can add hydrogen and make methane for those industries that can't easily electrify
Supercritical CO2 turbines:
<a href="https://energy.wisc.edu/industry/technology-highlights/supercritical-co2-gas-turbines" rel="nofollow">https://energy.wisc.edu/industry/technology-highlights/super...</a><p>On a much smaller scale I've been hoping for a small solar powered CO2 compressor to exist so I could use it for mosquito traps. The state of the art for those right now is burning propane for the CO2 combined with a scent emitter for the human smell to attract female mosquitos.
Synthetic food is a potentially big one.<p>Synthetic materials is another. For example carbon electrodes for batteries.
It is used as a shielding gas in some welding processes (notably, MIG welding.)
Dry ice blasting
You can think of industrial CO2 use as basically the same as nitrogen but a little worse and several fucktons cheaper.<p>CO2 is fairly inert. This makes it useful. Welding steel is a typical example of something you can use CO2 to shield. There are many other examples in the chemicals industries of things like that where you want to do something at a "higher than natural on earth" temperature to make a reaction happen or happen faster but you don't want that reaction to happen with oxygen all around.<p>And on the other end of the temperature spectrum....dry ice.
Plant food.
Off the top of my head, CO2 can be used as a solvent for dry cleaning, it can extract THC from cannabis, and can also be used as a refrigerant.
You can combine it with H2 to produce synthetic fuels. Not ideal but could reduce fossil fuel use and hence new CO2 released.
[flagged]
I have an efficient method. It's called plants. Amazon is re-greening