Scientists have found a rapid way of producing magnesite, a mineral which stores carbon dioxide. If this can be developed to an industrial scale then it can help offset global warming. A tonne of naturally-occurring magnesite can remove around half a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Using polystyrene microspheres as a catalyst, magnesite would form within 72 days. The microspheres themselves are unchanged by the production process, so they can ideally be reused. This process takes place at room temperature, meaning that magnesite production is extremely energy efficient.
This is far faster than the natural process which takes hundreds of years.
Magnesite can be formed via talc carbonate metasomatism of peridotite and other ultramafic rocks. Magnesite is formed via carbonation of olivine in the presence of water and carbon dioxide at elevated temperatures and high pressures typical of the greenschist facies.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Quick global warming solution: 1) use smaller cars 2) live in reasonably sized apartments 3) do not waster energy (double windows for winter etc.) 4) nuclear energy and solar It is a s simple as that !
Still use of one ton of the material to remove half a ton of carbon dioxide does not look to make this solution look practical enough to remove significant amounts of carbon dioxide.
Simple cheap and effective solutions to “Climate Change”: LED lights, Pluggable Hybrid Cars, Solar Roofs, Heat pump cooling and heating. We should not feel obligated to dig it all up and burn it.
burn hydrogen for power plants and cars that would solve the entire problem. But the owners of the government will not do that because they don’t make enough money on it.
The real answer is not to store but to recycle CO2…. Global Adjustments has some possibilities in the works.
and 5) Use magnesite to reduce already elevated levels. No brainer!
Bro… 1) i like my truck, i need it for the renovations to my home 2) i dont want to live in an apartment, i want a home for my family 3) i dont have the money for new fancy windows, i make a decent salary, but i’ve got bills to pay and a family to feed. 4) nuclear energy has a ridiculous cost when considering the care for the plants that create the energey, plus where do you dispose of it? Solar, great idea, but it’s again so expensive. That’s every american’s response to your 4 answers for global warming. Until all of that can be safe and affordable, key word, affordable for the average consumer, let scientists do their thing.
We can debate whether those steps are enough, but I 100% agree that the solution is as simple as personal responsibility. We don’t need to wait for Paris. We don’t need to wait to convince others. While we do need new technologies over time, we don’t need them to change our personal behavior now, and what we do now really does matter. Drive the speed limit. Turn UP the thermostat in the summer. Wear a sweater in the winter. Choose to spend a little more on energy-saving options like renewable energy providers for electricity. Hang clothes on a clothesline. There are many things. As disclaimer, I am not associated with any company, but I do research in energy analysis as my career.
Magnesite is magnesium carbonate. Global magnesium production is less than 1 million tons/year. Global CO2 production is ~35 billion tons/year. If we want to reduce CO2, we’ll need to cut it at the source.
And make sure the emphasis implementing these things is focused on developing countries the main source of the problem.
De-populate is the only solution “. Starting with you?
De-populate is the only solution
Quick global warming solution: 1) use smaller cars 2) live in reasonably sized apartments 3) do not waster energy (double windows for winter, etc.) 4) nuclear energy and solar It is a s simple as that !
while admittedly the steps you have outlined would be helpful”” it does not fit the medias “”””the sky is falling”””” narrative”””” and as such can not be taken seriously….the fact is that people who are genuinely fearful for their collective futures are much easier to control….and that is the entire purpose of the “”””climate change narrative…CONTROL AND POWER!!!!”””
Still use of one ton of the material to remove half a ton of carbon dioxide does not look to make this solution look practical enough to remove significant amounts of carbon dioxide.
Simple cheap and effective solutions to Climate Change””: LED lights”” Pluggable Hybrid Cars Solar Roofs”” Heat pump cooling and heating. We should not feel obligated to dig it all up and burn it.”””
burn hydrogen for power plants and cars that would solve the entire problem. But the owners of the government will not do that because they don’t make enough money on it.
The real answer is not to store but to recycle CO2…. Global Adjustments has some possibilities in the works.
and 5) Use magnesite to reduce already elevated levels. No brainer!
Bro…1) i like my truck i need it for the renovations to my home2) i dont want to live in an apartment i want a home for my family3) i dont have the money for new fancy windows i make a decent salary but i’ve got bills to pay and a family to feed.4) nuclear energy has a ridiculous cost when considering the care for the plants that create the energey plus where do you dispose of it? Solar great idea but it’s again so expensive.That’s every american’s response to your 4 answers for global warming. Until all of that can be safe and affordable key word affordable for the average consumer let scientists do their thing.
We can debate whether those steps are enough but I 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} agree that the solution is as simple as personal responsibility. We don’t need to wait for Paris. We don’t need to wait to convince others. While we do need new technologies over time we don’t need them to change our personal behavior now and what we do now really does matter. Drive the speed limit. Turn UP the thermostat in the summer. Wear a sweater in the winter. Choose to spend a little more on energy-saving options like renewable energy providers for electricity. Hang clothes on a clothesline. There are many things. As disclaimer I am not associated with any company but I do research in energy analysis as my career.
Magnesite is magnesium carbonate. Global magnesium production is less than 1 million tons/year. Global CO2 production is ~35 billion tons/year. If we want to reduce CO2 we’ll need to cut it at the source.
And make sure the emphasis implementing these things is focused on developing countries the main source of the problem.
De-populate is the only solution “”. Starting with you?”””
De-populate is the only solution
If this can be developed to an industrial scale then it can help offset global warming. ” Just how big of an “if” is that? We have a lot of tons of CO2 we’re talking about here. What’s the cost, both economic and environmental, as now you probably have to mine something to get that olivine and such.
Global magnesium production is less than 1 million tons/year (magnesite is magnesium carbonate.). Global CO2 production is ~35 billion tons/year. If we want to reduce CO2, we’ll need to cut it at the source.
Agreed, especially for point 3: it’s amazing how many homes still do not have proper insulation.
Those are all valid. Therefore, nothing else should be done?
You’re not wrong, but I ‘m sort of skeptical towards any idea that starts with “everybody should just ____”. Because everybody won’t. Also as I understand it, limiting new greenhouse gasses going up to the atmosphere isn’t going to cut it anymore. Even if we somehow got it down to zero today. We need to start fixing the mess that we already made. Anyways. I agree. More nuclear power, electric cars, everybody living in cities and other places that share and optimize resource use, all that good stuff. But Also YAY! to these kinds of inventions that might reverse the damage that has been done. We need both.
Solutions to climate changing in a way we don’t like have to start with a physical model of the climate which can predict what will happen without fudging the numbers. 100% of the warming seen for the last few decades is created by making adjustments to the actual data that have no physical basis. It is the creation of people who believe in AGW, not a measured result. Then a the proper climate needs to be agreed on. Good luck with that.
Cool. There were a dozen or so comments to this article. They all have disappeared except for the first. Nice system. Maybe they’ll randomly come back?
while admittedly the steps you have outlined would be “helpful” it does not fit the medias “the sky is falling” narrative, and as such can not be taken seriously….the fact is that people who are genuinely fearful for their collective futures are much easier to control….and that is the entire purpose of the “climate change narrative…CONTROL AND POWER!!!!
If this can be developed to an industrial scale then it can help offset global warming. “”Just how big of an “”””if”””” is that? We have a lot of tons of CO2 we’re talking about here. What’s the cost”” both economic and environmental”” as now you probably have to mine something to get that olivine and such.”””
Global magnesium production is less than 1 million tons/year (magnesite is magnesium carbonate.). Global CO2 production is ~35 billion tons/year. If we want to reduce CO2 we’ll need to cut it at the source.
Agreed especially for point 3: it’s amazing how many homes still do not have proper insulation.
Those are all valid. Therefore nothing else should be done?
You’re not wrong but I ‘m sort of skeptical towards any idea that starts with everybody should just ____””. Because everybody won’t. Also as I understand it”” limiting new greenhouse gasses going up to the atmosphere isn’t going to cut it anymore. Even if we somehow got it down to zero today. We need to start fixing the mess that we already made.Anyways. I agree. More nuclear power electric cars everybody living in cities and other places that share and optimize resource use”” all that good stuff. But Also YAY! to these kinds of inventions that might reverse the damage that has been done.We need both.”””
Solutions to climate changing in a way we don’t like have to start with a physical model of the climate which can predict what will happen without fudging the numbers. 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the warming seen for the last few decades is created by making adjustments to the actual data that have no physical basis. It is the creation of people who believe in AGW not a measured result.Then a the proper climate needs to be agreed on. Good luck with that.
Cool. There were a dozen or so comments to this article. They all have disappeared except for the first. Nice system. Maybe they’ll randomly come back?
Depopulation is a bad solution. It’ll either take too long, or require genocide. If you go the genocide route, but cut the wrong part of the population, it can cause other problems like famine and disease with not enough people left with the right skills to man the farming equipment, or provide medical care, or run the factories that make the equipment you need. Even if you do it right, unless you cut the birth rate, it’s only temporary. The population will grow back, with the same problems as before. The proper solution is lowering our environmental footprint through pollution controls, cleaner energy sources, recycling, etc. We’re gradually getting better at that. As others have mentioned, there are energy conservation and other steps that can be taken by individuals. And lifting the poor out of poverty and giving them a better education would help reduce birth rates. Birth rates are already in decline in the developed world.
Could it be used at the exhaust part of extremely polluting factory? in the exhaust part of vehicule with an easily changed part at determined interval would there be a way to use the technology by adding easily added CO2 cleaning apparatus to the exhaust of most polluting plants and vehicules; those CO2 remover would have to be replaced regularly of course but would that work? /
100% of the warming seen for the last few decades is created by making adjustments to the actual data that have no physical basis.” I think you mean “taken into account”, as opposed to “created”. Because a model doesn’t take into account warming, and then is updated to include a more accurate model that thusly warms the previous result, does not mean the warming was simply created with no physical basis.
Gah, my comment got wiped out earlier as well it seems. But basically (after math) it would take a production rate of 104 Earth surface areas every 72 days to keep pace with just the CO2 added in 2017 alone. Kicker: that 104 Earth SA’s has a layer height of 10 km. So while this seems like a good idea, the numbers say otherwise.
Where does the energy come from to obtain the billion tons of Magnesium? Just fast track Gen IV nuclear development.
Depopulation is a bad solution. It’ll either take too long or require genocide. If you go the genocide route but cut the wrong part of the population it can cause other problems like famine and disease with not enough people left with the right skills to man the farming equipment or provide medical care or run the factories that make the equipment you need. Even if you do it right unless you cut the birth rate it’s only temporary. The population will grow back with the same problems as before.The proper solution is lowering our environmental footprint through pollution controls cleaner energy sources recycling etc. We’re gradually getting better at that. As others have mentioned there are energy conservation and other steps that can be taken by individuals. And lifting the poor out of poverty and giving them a better education would help reduce birth rates. Birth rates are already in decline in the developed world.
Could it be used at the exhaust part of extremely polluting factory? in the exhaust part of vehicule with an easily changed part at determined interval would there be a way to use the technology by adding easily added CO2 cleaning apparatus to the exhaust of most polluting plants and vehicules; those CO2 remover would have to be replaced regularly of course but would that work?/
100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the warming seen for the last few decades is created by making adjustments to the actual data that have no physical basis.””I think you mean “”””taken into account”””””””” as opposed to “”””created””””. Because a model doesn’t take into account warming”” and then is updated to include a more accurate model that thusly warms the previous result”” does not mean the warming was simply created with no physical basis.”””
Gah my comment got wiped out earlier as well it seems.But basically (after math) it would take a production rate of 104 Earth surface areas every 72 days to keep pace with just the CO2 added in 2017 alone. Kicker: that 104 Earth SA’s has a layer height of 10 km. So while this seems like a good idea the numbers say otherwise.
Where does the energy come from to obtain the billion tons of Magnesium?Just fast track Gen IV nuclear development.
Where do you think the hydrogen comes from? There are two industrial routes to hydrogen: 1. Various fossil fuel cracking processes. This produces a bunch of CO2 as a byproduct. If that CO2 isn’t captured, it gets added to the atmosphere. 2. Water splitting. This takes just as much energy as you’ll get back from burning the hydrogen, except you actually end up spending more energy than you get back, because of inefficiencies. All of that energy has to come from somewhere, and if you have a clean energy source for that, you may as well just use it directly, and skip the hydrogen.
Where do you think the hydrogen comes from?There are two industrial routes to hydrogen:1. Various fossil fuel cracking processes. This produces a bunch of CO2 as a byproduct. If that CO2 isn’t captured it gets added to the atmosphere.2. Water splitting. This takes just as much energy as you’ll get back from burning the hydrogen except you actually end up spending more energy than you get back because of inefficiencies. All of that energy has to come from somewhere and if you have a clean energy source for that you may as well just use it directly and skip the hydrogen.
You are going to have to show the math. Because MY math goes like this. Surface area of Earth is 510 million square km 10 km high gives us 5.1 billion cubic km. Density of Magnesite = 3 tonnes per cubic meters = 3 billion tonnes per cubic km = 15 quintillion tonnes for the total volume. Except you said it would take 104 of those, so about 1.5 sextillion tonnes. If 1 tonne of magnesite captures 1/2 tonne of CO2 that’s 750 quintillion tonnes of CO2. Total CO2 released in 2017 is 32.5 billion tonnes, which in 72 days (a bizarre unit of measurement) is 6.4 billion tonnes, which is…120 million times too much magnesite. So you’re out by a factor of 120 million. However, the point remains that even dropping the total volume of magnesite down by a factor of 120 million, still gives us a block of magnesite 10 km high and 442 square km in area. About the size of Barbados.
Uh! ? Do not worry,American people and people in general are already dumbtards enough you do not need c change to be controlled 🙂
Because everybody won’t. ” 1) start to do it yourself 2) coerce other people to do it Then complain
Start doing this and then we will see
Carbon dioxide removal is the best way forward, particularly using the direct air capture method. Climeworks has a method that works, and they’re building a plant right now that they expect to scale, and to allow them to remove one million tons of carbon from the atmosphere every year. If they’re right–if it does scale–we can do a buildout of their plant design coupled with overall reduction of emissions. Eventually, we can reach the point where we’re removing more carbon from the atmosphere than we’re emitting, offering the possibility of not merely stopping climate change, but reversing it. And this is to say nothing of all the other methods of taking carbon out of the atmosphere, like biochar.
You are going to have to show the math. Because MY math goes like this.Surface area of Earth is 510 million square km10 km high gives us 5.1 billion cubic km.Density of Magnesite = 3 tonnes per cubic meters = 3 billion tonnes per cubic km = 15 quintillion tonnes for the total volume.Except you said it would take 104 of those so about 1.5 sextillion tonnes.If 1 tonne of magnesite captures 1/2 tonne of CO2 that’s 750 quintillion tonnes of CO2.Total CO2 released in 2017 is 32.5 billion tonnes which in 72 days (a bizarre unit of measurement) is 6.4 billion tonnes which is…120 million times too much magnesite.So you’re out by a factor of 120 million. However the point remains that even dropping the total volume of magnesite down by a factor of 120 million still gives us a block of magnesite 10 km high and 442 square km in area. About the size of Barbados.
Uh! ? Do not worryAmerican people and people in general are already dumbtards enough you do not need c change to be controlled 🙂
Because everybody won’t. “” 1) start to do it yourself 2) coerce other people to do it Then complain”””
Start doing this and then we will see
Carbon dioxide removal is the best way forward particularly using the direct air capture method. Climeworks has a method that works and they’re building a plant right now that they expect to scale and to allow them to remove one million tons of carbon from the atmosphere every year. If they’re right–if it does scale–we can do a buildout of their plant design coupled with overall reduction of emissions. Eventually we can reach the point where we’re removing more carbon from the atmosphere than we’re emitting offering the possibility of not merely stopping climate change but reversing it.And this is to say nothing of all the other methods of taking carbon out of the atmosphere like biochar.
Average depth of the ocean floor is 3.7 kilometers. So that means you could make a Barbados sized seastead every 27 days, if you built the island like a single vertical pillar of rock. A quick google search of what magnesite looks like tells me that these would be very attractive islands, if a little lacking in vegetation and beaches.
There is heaps of free hydrogen available on the Sun. You are just part of the conspiracy to conceal this fact to support your imperialistic fascist communist Jacobin illuminati anarcho-monarchial paymasters. I’m on to you.
Global Adjustments Services Private Limited is an expatriate services company that provides support for relocation to India and cross-cultural services, helping …
You multiplied by the density of MgCO3 instead of dividing. The denser the material, the smaller the block of the same weight, so you divide by density not multiply. So instead of multiplying (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) * (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3) = 2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3, Divide to get (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) / (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3) = 3.0 x 10^10 m3 MgCO3, The problem with this stuff is that the numbers are so far out of human experience that you can be many orders of magnitude out and it isn’t obvious. If we were calculating the weight of a dog or something and you get an answer of 1 million tonnes, then you stop and think “That is probably not quite right.” OK. MOST people would realise something was wrong with their million tonne dog answer. Of the people who I have to deal with at least 90% of them would not say “Million tonne dog. I used my calculator so it is correct.” 80% at least. On a good day.
Pt. 2 ——————————– CO2 in 2017 = 4.5 x 10^10 tonnes 9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3 = (4.5 x 10^10 tonnes CO2) * (2 tonnes MgCO3 / 1 tonne CO2) 9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3) * (1000 kg / 1 tonne) 2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) * (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3) 27,000,000 km2 MgCO3 = (2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3) * (1 / 10,000 m) * (1 km2 / 1,000,000 m2) 5,326,027 km2 per batch = (27,000,000 km2 MgCO3) * (72 days / 365 days batch) Which is 69% of an Australia and much more feasible, but again that’s still 10 km high. Bringing that height down to 100 m puts the surface area at just over 1 Earth (532,607,739 km2). But yeah, that error would do it.
Goodness gracious…I have to do this in two parts because I mislabeled something, deleted the comment, and tried to repost it but with Vukkle, you can’t post a comment which was similar to another comment….what in the hell. Pt. 1 ————————- I knew I should have went to bed instead of satisfying my curiosity….found my error: I saw 510.1 million km2…and thought m2….yikes! I also had slightly different numbers as well: CO2 added to the atmosphere in 2017: 45 billion tonnes Rate of CO2 removal via magnesite (MgCO3) capture: 2 tonnes MgCO3 :: 1 tonne CO2 MgCO3 density: 2980 kg/m3 Duration of production per batch: 72 days
I knew I should have went to bed instead of satisfying my curiosity….found my error: I saw 510.1 million km2…and thought m2….yikes! I also had slightly different numbers as well: CO2 added to the atmosphere in 2017: 45 billion tonnes Rate of CO2 removal via magnesite (MgCO3) capture: 2 tonnes MgCO3 :: 1 tonne CO2 MgCO3 density: 2980 kg/m3 Duration of production per batch: 72 days ————————————————————- CO2 in 2017 = 4.5 x 10^10 tonnes 9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3 = (4.5 x 10^10 tonnes CO2) * (2 tonnes MgCO3 / 1 tonne CO2) 9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3) * (1000 kg / 1 tonne) 2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) * (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3) 27,000,000 km2 MgCO3 = (2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3) * (1 / 10,000 m) * (1 km2 / 1,000,000 m2) 5,326,027 km2 MgCO3 per batch = (27,000,000 km2 MgCO3) * (365 days / 72 days / batch) Which is 69% of an Australia and much more feasible, but again that’s still 10 km high. Bringing that height down to 100 m puts the surface area at just over 1 Earth (532,602,740 km2). But yeah, that error would do it.
There is heaps of free hydrogen available on the Sun. You are just part of the conspiracy to conceal this fact to support your imperialistic fascist communist Jacobin illuminati anarcho-monarchial paymasters. I’m on to you.
Global Adjustments Services Private Limited is an expatriate services company that provides support for relocation to India and cross-cultural services helping …
You multiplied by the density of MgCO3 instead of dividing.The denser the material the smaller the block of the same weight so you divide by density not multiply.So instead of multiplying (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) * (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3) = 2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3Divide to get (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) / (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3) = 3.0 x 10^10 m3 MgCO3The problem with this stuff is that the numbers are so far out of human experience that you can be many orders of magnitude out and it isn’t obvious. If we were calculating the weight of a dog or something and you get an answer of 1 million tonnes then you stop and think That is probably not quite right.””OK. MOST people would realise something was wrong with their million tonne dog answer. Of the people who I have to deal with at least 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of them would not say “”””Million tonne dog. I used my calculator so it is correct.”””” 80{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} at least. On a good day.”””
Pt. 2——————————–CO2 in 2017 = 4.5 x 10^10 tonnes 9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3 = (4.5 x 10^10 tonnes CO2) * (2 tonnes MgCO3 / 1 tonne CO2) 9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3) * (1000 kg / 1 tonne) 2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) * (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3) 27000000 km2 MgCO3 = (2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3) * (1 / 10000 m) * (1 km2 / 1000000 m2) 5326027 km2 per batch = (27000000 km2 MgCO3) * (72 days / 365 days batch)Which is 69{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of an Australia and much more feasible but again that’s still 10 km high. Bringing that height down to 100 m puts the surface area at just over 1 Earth (532607739 km2).But yeah that error would do it.
Goodness gracious…I have to do this in two parts because I mislabeled something deleted the comment and tried to repost it but with Vukkle you can’t post a comment which was similar to another comment….what in the hell.Pt. 1————————-I knew I should have went to bed instead of satisfying my curiosity….found my error: I saw 510.1 million km2…and thought m2….yikes! I also had slightly different numbers as well: CO2 added to the atmosphere in 2017: 45 billion tonnes Rate of CO2 removal via magnesite (MgCO3) capture: 2 tonnes MgCO3 :: 1 tonne CO2 MgCO3 density: 2980 kg/m3 Duration of production per batch: 72 days
I knew I should have went to bed instead of satisfying my curiosity….found my error: I saw 510.1 million km2…and thought m2….yikes!I also had slightly different numbers as well:CO2 added to the atmosphere in 2017: 45 billion tonnesRate of CO2 removal via magnesite (MgCO3) capture: 2 tonnes MgCO3 :: 1 tonne CO2MgCO3 density: 2980 kg/m3 Duration of production per batch: 72 days————————————————————-CO2 in 2017 = 4.5 x 10^10 tonnes 9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3 = (4.5 x 10^10 tonnes CO2) * (2 tonnes MgCO3 / 1 tonne CO2) 9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3) * (1000 kg / 1 tonne)2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) * (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3) 27000000 km2 MgCO3 = (2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3) * (1 / 10000 m) * (1 km2 / 1000000 m2)5326027 km2 MgCO3 per batch = (27000000 km2 MgCO3) * (365 days / 72 days / batch)Which is 69{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of an Australia and much more feasible but again that’s still 10 km high. Bringing that height down to 100 m puts the surface area at just over 1 Earth (532602740 km2). But yeah that error would do it.
The problem with CO2 removal schemes is the scale, and how dilute the CO2 is in the atmosphere. We’re emitting ~35 billion ton/year of CO2, and that rate is probably still increasing. Air density is 1.2 kg/m^2, and CO2 is ~400 ppm of that, so ~0.5g/m^3. You’d need to process 7e16 m^3 or 70 million cubic km of air per year just to match that emission rate. It makes more sense to cut emissions as much as possible, and capture the remaining emissions at the source. The stuff already in the atmosphere will gradually get absorbed by plants etc.
To finish the calculation, 3e10 m^3 is 30 cubic km, or a cube about 3 km on a side. I’m not sure how you got to your Barbados sized chunk..
I know you’re being sarcastic, but those who think you aren’t are welcome to go to the Sun and try getting the hydrogen from there. Better go at night. (Pro tip: Jupiter may be easier)
The problem with CO2 removal schemes is the scale and how dilute the CO2 is in the atmosphere.We’re emitting ~35 billion ton/year of CO2 and that rate is probably still increasing. Air density is 1.2 kg/m^2 and CO2 is ~400 ppm of that so ~0.5g/m^3. You’d need to process 7e16 m^3 or 70 million cubic km of air per year just to match that emission rate.It makes more sense to cut emissions as much as possible and capture the remaining emissions at the source. The stuff already in the atmosphere will gradually get absorbed by plants etc.
To finish the calculation 3e10 m^3 is 30 cubic km or a cube about 3 km on a side. I’m not sure how you got to your Barbados sized chunk..
I know you’re being sarcastic but those who think you aren’t are welcome to go to the Sun and try getting the hydrogen from there. Better go at night.(Pro tip: Jupiter may be easier)
Average depth of the ocean floor is 3.7 kilometers. So that means you could make a Barbados sized seastead every 27 days if you built the island like a single vertical pillar of rock. A quick google search of what magnesite looks like tells me that these would be very attractive islands if a little lacking in vegetation and beaches.
There are a bunch of stationary CO2 sources other than power plants: cement factories, chemical plants (e.g fossil fuel cracking to make syngas), etc. These will still produce CO2 even if we phase out all fossil fuel power plants. But the CO2 stream from these isn’t much harder to capture than from a power plant, and certainly much easier than extracting it from the air. Ground transportation can be largely electrified. Large shipping too. There were proposals for nuclear-powered container ships. There was some work on seawater batteries. In a couple decades or so batteries may be good enough to electrify air travel too. And I can imagine chainsaws and the like working off batteries too, once the batteries improve enough. But then they’re not a major source of CO2 to begin with. The major sources are stationary and transportation. For capture, I personally like the proposals of ocean fertilization and kelp farming. That seems more scalable than magnesite and the like.
The problem with this stuff is that the numbers are so far out of human experience that you can be many orders of magnitude out and it isn’t obvious. ” Or, in my case, a wrong order of operations when I *even* have the units written down to make it obvious what to do….this has not been my week. And that makes a huge difference, considering that 100 m high area is then reduced to just under 60 km2 per batch, or a little over 1 Delaware @ 1 m height per batch. MUCH more feasible, even though it’s still not. Thank you for highlighting my errors.
There is a problem with capturing emissions at the source. There are energy uses like electricity generation where we could capture the emissions at the source, but it is also easy to replace fossil fuels with non-fossil energy sources like nuclear. The energy uses that are really hard to do with non-fossil energy are mobile devices like airplanes, cars, chainsaws, where it is also really hard to capture the CO2. It makes the most sense to replace fossil fuels where it is easy & maybe schemes like biochar, ocean iron fertilization, magnesite creation can scale up enough to absorb the remaining emissions.
There are a bunch of stationary CO2 sources other than power plants: cement factories chemical plants (e.g fossil fuel cracking to make syngas) etc. These will still produce CO2 even if we phase out all fossil fuel power plants. But the CO2 stream from these isn’t much harder to capture than from a power plant and certainly much easier than extracting it from the air.Ground transportation can be largely electrified. Large shipping too. There were proposals for nuclear-powered container ships. There was some work on seawater batteries. In a couple decades or so batteries may be good enough to electrify air travel too. And I can imagine chainsaws and the like working off batteries too once the batteries improve enough. But then they’re not a major source of CO2 to begin with. The major sources are stationary and transportation.For capture I personally like the proposals of ocean fertilization and kelp farming. That seems more scalable than magnesite and the like.
The problem with this stuff is that the numbers are so far out of human experience that you can be many orders of magnitude out and it isn’t obvious. “”Or”” in my case a wrong order of operations when I *even* have the units written down to make it obvious what to do….this has not been my week. And that makes a huge difference considering that 100 m high area is then reduced to just under 60 km2 per batch or a little over 1 Delaware @ 1 m height per batch. MUCH more feasible”” even though it’s still not. Thank you for highlighting my errors.”””
There is a problem with capturing emissions at the source.There are energy uses like electricity generation where we could capture the emissions at the source but it is also easy to replace fossil fuels with non-fossil energy sources like nuclear. The energy uses that are really hard to do with non-fossil energy are mobile devices like airplanes cars chainsaws where it is also really hard to capture the CO2. It makes the most sense to replace fossil fuels where it is easy & maybe schemes like biochar ocean iron fertilization magnesite creation can scale up enough to absorb the remaining emissions.
Our farming practices also put CO2 into the air, since we cut down the crops and remove them, rather than letting their roots go deep into the ground and the extra biomass be churned into the dirt, where carbon can be stored for years. Agriculture is responsible for nearly half of our carbon emissions. Vehicles are a sizable fraction, but less than agriculture/forestry. Not many people are aware of that. Hard to do source control on that, although planting cover crops for the off-season, instead of tilling, letting it sit fallow and spraying for weeds, would be a very good first step. It also requires less artificial fertilizer.
CO2 is not the main driver of climate, but in a balanced system, a minor driver can become the critical input. Warmer weather, and with it shifts in precipitation and rising sea levels, is not necessarily a bad thing for nature. But it will be a change for humans, so we’ll have to give up farming in some areas and start it in others, we’ll have to move cities inland or provide expensive storm barriers (probably just abandon Miami). In the meantime, insurance companies are already assuming it will happen to some extent and trying to build it into future projections. It will be a very expensive change for us.
The assumptions are that A) CO2 is the main driver of climate; and B) warmer weather caused by enhanced CO2 is a bad thing. Neither has been demonstrated.
I’ve visited friends in Barbados. Frankly, another Barbados would be just dandy!
Our farming practices also put CO2 into the air since we cut down the crops and remove them rather than letting their roots go deep into the ground and the extra biomass be churned into the dirt where carbon can be stored for years. Agriculture is responsible for nearly half of our carbon emissions. Vehicles are a sizable fraction but less than agriculture/forestry. Not many people are aware of that. Hard to do source control on that although planting cover crops for the off-season instead of tilling letting it sit fallow and spraying for weeds would be a very good first step. It also requires less artificial fertilizer.
CO2 is not the main driver of climate but in a balanced system a minor driver can become the critical input.Warmer weather and with it shifts in precipitation and rising sea levels is not necessarily a bad thing for nature.But it will be a change for humans so we’ll have to give up farming in some areas and start it in others we’ll have to move cities inland or provide expensive storm barriers (probably just abandon Miami). In the meantime insurance companies are already assuming it will happen to some extent and trying to build it into future projections. It will be a very expensive change for us.
The assumptions are that A) CO2 is the main driver of climate; and B) warmer weather caused by enhanced CO2 is a bad thing. Neither has been demonstrated.
I’ve visited friends in Barbados. Frankly another Barbados would be just dandy!
I’ve seen the Cement-Factories-Produce-CO2 statement before, and it puzzles me. Wouldn’t the amount of CO2 absorbed by the cement when setting, exactly counter the amount released when it’s produced?
I’ve seen the Cement-Factories-Produce-CO2 statement before and it puzzles me.Wouldn’t the amount of CO2 absorbed by the cement when setting exactly counter the amount released when it’s produced?
Just like everyone else, I probably divided by something that I should have multiplied by or so. Maybe converting between years and 72 days. (Why go for 72 days? What does that mean? It isn’t a round number of weeks or days or months or anything that I can think of.)
Cement factories have 2 sources of CO2 1. The CO2 that is given off when the lime is heated CaCO3 →becomes CaO plus CO2 2. The CO2 that is given off by the huge amount of fuel that is burned to produce the heat to decompose the thousands of tonnes of CaCO3. You do, as you observe, reabsorb the first lot of CO2 when the cement sets and the reaction reverses. But the second lot of CO2 is over and above that, and doesn’t get reabsorbed.
Right right.But what I’m saying is; that the CO2 production is not coupled to the cement itself.Any source of heat would do. An (renewable)electric kiln a solar kiln etc.It’s equivalent to saying that bauxite refining produces CO2 (because it takes a lot of power). When it really depends on what energy source you are using.It just seems a little misleading for people who don’t understand this.
Just like everyone else I probably divided by something that I should have multiplied by or so. Maybe converting between years and 72 days. (Why go for 72 days? What does that mean? It isn’t a round number of weeks or days or months or anything that I can think of.)
Cement factories have 2 sources of CO21. The CO2 that is given off when the lime is heated CaCO3 →becomes CaO plus CO22. The CO2 that is given off by the huge amount of fuel that is burned to produce the heat to decompose the thousands of tonnes of CaCO3.You do as you observe reabsorb the first lot of CO2 when the cement sets and the reaction reverses. But the second lot of CO2 is over and above that and doesn’t get reabsorbed.”
Right, right. But what I’m saying is; that the CO2 production is not coupled to the cement itself. Any source of heat would do. An (renewable)electric kiln, a solar kiln, etc. It’s equivalent to saying that bauxite refining produces CO2 (because it takes a lot of power). When it really depends on what energy source you are using. It just seems a little misleading for people who don’t understand this.
It’s a bit more complex than what Doctorpat wrote. There are different cement chemistries, but several of them rely on CaO, so you get the CO2 released when you make them. The common cement indeed reabsorbs CO2 when it sets, but in practice, I doubt it reabsorbs 100% of what was emitted. Other chemistries such as hydraulic cement may not reabsorb as much CO2, or any at all, depending on how it’s used. You are correct that the heat can be produced from a different source that doesn’t emit CO2, but the same can be said of today’s power plants and many of today’s factories. Either we need to change the heat source, or we still need to capture that CO2. The cement that reabsorbs CO2 when it sets is actually interesting, because if we capture the CO2 from its production, then it becomes a CO2 sink. In other words, it lets us capture CO2 from the atmosphere as it sets. And we use a LOT of cement.
It’s a bit more complex than what Doctorpat wrote. There are different cement chemistries but several of them rely on CaO so you get the CO2 released when you make them. The common cement indeed reabsorbs CO2 when it sets but in practice I doubt it reabsorbs 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of what was emitted. Other chemistries such as hydraulic cement may not reabsorb as much CO2 or any at all depending on how it’s used.You are correct that the heat can be produced from a different source that doesn’t emit CO2 but the same can be said of today’s power plants and many of today’s factories. Either we need to change the heat source or we still need to capture that CO2.The cement that reabsorbs CO2 when it sets is actually interesting because if we capture the CO2 from its production then it becomes a CO2 sink. In other words it lets us capture CO2 from the atmosphere as it sets. And we use a LOT of cement.
And here is my math: A. Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities = 32,000,000,000 tons per year Fraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks) = 43% Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere = 13,760,000,000 tons / year Amount of Magnesite required (2x the weight of CO2) = 28,000,000,000 tons per year (approximate) Density of Magnesite = 3.1 specific gravity = 193.5 pcf = 5,224.5 pcy = 2.6 tons per cy Volume of magnesite required = 10,769,000,000 cy = 6,676,000 acre*feet = 10,431 square mile*feet Area of Massachusets = 10,554 square miles Need to cover an area equal to Massachusetts with 1 ft of magnesite annually. Land area of the earth = 57,308,738 square miles Within 5,500 years we will cover the entire land surface of the earth with 1 foot of magnesite.
And here is my math:A. Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities= 32000000000 tons per yearFraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks)= 43{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere= 13760000000 tons / yearAmount of Magnesite required (2x the weight of CO2)= 28000000000 tons per year (approximate)Density of Magnesite= 3.1 specific gravity= 193.5 pcf= 5224.5 pcy= 2.6 tons per cyVolume of magnesite required= 10769000000 cy= 6676000 acre*feet= 10431 square mile*feetArea of Massachusets= 10554 square milesNeed to cover an area equal to Massachusetts with 1 ft of magnesite annually.Land area of the earth= 57308738 square milesWithin 5500 years we will cover the entire land surface of the earth with 1 foot of magnesite.
The American “dumbtards” have already established a 25 year downtrend in CO2 emissions, now matching their emissions of 1992. An American conglomerate teamed with a Nobel winning chemical engineer associated with the early IPCC; and, are testing a completed total-emissions capture, electric generating plant. These dumbtards offer the world low CO2 fuel in the form of liquefied natural gas, and offer the technology to develop native sources of this fuel. What will these dumbtards think of next?
Basalt provides the mineralogy, as the Icelandic CO2 sequestration project CarbFix tested 3 years ago.
The hydrogen on the sun has been contaminated by deadly thermonuclear waste – if you stand out in the sun long enough, you’ll get cancer off it.
‘…developing countries the main source of the problem.’ Nonsense – the average American is responsible for twice as much carbon dioxide emitted as a Frenchman, nearly three times as much as a Chinese, four times as much as an Indian or a Swede, seven times as much as a Brazilian, and over ten times as much as somebody from the Congo. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/co2-emissions-per-capita-ranking/
The hydrogen on the sun has been contaminated by deadly thermonuclear waste – if you stand out in the sun long enough you’ll get cancer off it.
‘…developing countries the main source of the problem.’Nonsense – the average American is responsible for twice as much carbon dioxide emitted as a Frenchman nearly three times as much as a Chinese four times as much as an Indian or a Swede seven times as much as a Brazilian and over ten times as much as somebody from the Congo.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/co2-emissions-per-capita-ranking/
Can you produce industrial amounts of hydrogen, other than the reformation of natural gas as the feed-stock? NG is the source of hydrogen for agricultural nitrate fertilizer synthesis. Perhaps if Gen 4 nuclear power was tolerated, hydrogen from water might make engineering sense.
Per capita versus per unit GDP. The transportation methods feasible in each location account for much of the differential of per-person emission. The American ‘Texas’ is larger than France. The agricultural prime areas are on average 2000 kilometers from coastal cities of either Atlantic or Pacific. Americans do not need to shut down a province months ahead of time to host an Olympics venue, due to opaque air. Rainfall over American soil does not enrich farmland with heavy metals washed from the air. The export portion of agriculture probably should be curtailed to reduce nitrates in rivers. Can the world then sufficiently up-rate their farming practices to avoid famine?
Can you produce industrial amounts of hydrogen other than the reformation of natural gas as the feed-stock? NG is the source of hydrogen for agricultural nitrate fertilizer synthesis. Perhaps if Gen 4 nuclear power was tolerated hydrogen from water might make engineering sense.
Per capita versus per unit GDP. The transportation methods feasible in each location account for much of the differential of per-person emission. The American ‘Texas’ is larger than France. The agricultural prime areas are on average 2000 kilometers from coastal cities of either Atlantic or Pacific.Americans do not need to shut down a province months ahead of time to host an Olympics venue due to opaque air. Rainfall over American soil does not enrich farmland with heavy metals washed from the air. The export portion of agriculture probably should be curtailed to reduce nitrates in rivers. Can the world then sufficiently up-rate their farming practices to avoid famine?
The American dumbtards”” have already established a 25 year downtrend in CO2 emissions”” now matching their emissions of 1992. An American conglomerate teamed with a Nobel winning chemical engineer associated with the early IPCC; and are testing a completed total-emissions capture electric generating plant. These dumbtards offer the world low CO2 fuel in the form of liquefied natural gas”” and offer the technology to develop native sources of this fuel. What will these dumbtards think of next?”””
Basalt provides the mineralogy as the Icelandic CO2 sequestration project CarbFix tested 3 years ago.
It seems every 3 to 5 years, somebody waves a hand and says, Look! A miracle! (Details to be worked out…..uh, eventually.) For now, the best way forward is still solar, wind, and energy storage. But we will also need plants that can survive the damage we are already doing to the climate. In California, for example, it doesn’t help if plants are being damaged by smoke and ash from the fires.
It seems every 3 to 5 years somebody waves a hand and says Look! A miracle! (Details to be worked out…..uh eventually.)For now the best way forward is still solar wind and energy storage. But we will also need plants that can survive the damage we are already doing to the climate. In California for example it doesn’t help if plants are being damaged by smoke and ash from the fires.
American dumbtards pollute per capita 3x to5x other advanced nations and they need to be stopped Even with violent means, if necessary
American dumbtards pollute per capita 3x to5x other advanced nations and they need to be stopped Even with violent means if necessary
American dumbtards pollute per capita 3x to5x other advanced nations and they need to be stopped
Even with violent means, if necessary
It seems every 3 to 5 years, somebody waves a hand and says, Look! A miracle! (Details to be worked out…..uh, eventually.)
For now, the best way forward is still solar, wind, and energy storage.
But we will also need plants that can survive the damage we are already doing to the climate. In California, for example, it doesn’t help if plants are being damaged by smoke and ash from the fires.
Can you produce industrial amounts of hydrogen, other than the reformation of natural gas as the feed-stock? NG is the source of hydrogen for agricultural nitrate fertilizer synthesis. Perhaps if Gen 4 nuclear power was tolerated, hydrogen from water might make engineering sense.
Per capita versus per unit GDP. The transportation methods feasible in each location account for much of the differential of per-person emission. The American ‘Texas’ is larger than France. The agricultural prime areas are on average 2000 kilometers from coastal cities of either Atlantic or Pacific.
Americans do not need to shut down a province months ahead of time to host an Olympics venue, due to opaque air. Rainfall over American soil does not enrich farmland with heavy metals washed from the air. The export portion of agriculture probably should be curtailed to reduce nitrates in rivers. Can the world then sufficiently up-rate their farming practices to avoid famine?
The American “dumbtards” have already established a 25 year downtrend in CO2 emissions, now matching their emissions of 1992. An American conglomerate teamed with a Nobel winning chemical engineer associated with the early IPCC; and, are testing a completed total-emissions capture, electric generating plant. These dumbtards offer the world low CO2 fuel in the form of liquefied natural gas, and offer the technology to develop native sources of this fuel. What will these dumbtards think of next?
Basalt provides the mineralogy, as the Icelandic CO2 sequestration project CarbFix tested 3 years ago.
The hydrogen on the sun has been contaminated by deadly thermonuclear waste – if you stand out in the sun long enough, you’ll get cancer off it.
‘…developing countries the main source of the problem.’
Nonsense – the average American is responsible for twice as much carbon dioxide emitted as a Frenchman, nearly three times as much as a Chinese, four times as much as an Indian or a Swede, seven times as much as a Brazilian, and over ten times as much as somebody from the Congo.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/co2-emissions-per-capita-ranking/
And here is my math:
A. Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities
= 32,000,000,000 tons per year
Fraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks)
= 43%
Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere
= 13,760,000,000 tons / year
Amount of Magnesite required (2x the weight of CO2)
= 28,000,000,000 tons per year (approximate)
Density of Magnesite
= 3.1 specific gravity
= 193.5 pcf
= 5,224.5 pcy
= 2.6 tons per cy
Volume of magnesite required
= 10,769,000,000 cy
= 6,676,000 acre*feet
= 10,431 square mile*feet
Area of Massachusets
= 10,554 square miles
Need to cover an area equal to Massachusetts with 1 ft of magnesite annually.
Land area of the earth
= 57,308,738 square miles
Within 5,500 years we will cover the entire land surface of the earth with 1 foot of magnesite.
It’s a bit more complex than what Doctorpat wrote. There are different cement chemistries, but several of them rely on CaO, so you get the CO2 released when you make them. The common cement indeed reabsorbs CO2 when it sets, but in practice, I doubt it reabsorbs 100% of what was emitted. Other chemistries such as hydraulic cement may not reabsorb as much CO2, or any at all, depending on how it’s used.
You are correct that the heat can be produced from a different source that doesn’t emit CO2, but the same can be said of today’s power plants and many of today’s factories. Either we need to change the heat source, or we still need to capture that CO2.
The cement that reabsorbs CO2 when it sets is actually interesting, because if we capture the CO2 from its production, then it becomes a CO2 sink. In other words, it lets us capture CO2 from the atmosphere as it sets. And we use a LOT of cement.
Right, right.
But what I’m saying is; that the CO2 production is not coupled to the cement itself.
Any source of heat would do. An (renewable)electric kiln, a solar kiln, etc.
It’s equivalent to saying that bauxite refining produces CO2 (because it takes a lot of power). When it really depends on what energy source you are using.
It just seems a little misleading for people who don’t understand this.
Just like everyone else, I probably divided by something that I should have multiplied by or so. Maybe converting between years and 72 days. (Why go for 72 days? What does that mean? It isn’t a round number of weeks or days or months or anything that I can think of.)
Cement factories have 2 sources of CO2
1. The CO2 that is given off when the lime is heated CaCO3 →becomes CaO plus CO2
2. The CO2 that is given off by the huge amount of fuel that is burned to produce the heat to decompose the thousands of tonnes of CaCO3.
You do, as you observe, reabsorb the first lot of CO2 when the cement sets and the reaction reverses. But the second lot of CO2 is over and above that, and doesn’t get reabsorbed.
I’ve seen the Cement-Factories-Produce-CO2 statement before, and it puzzles me.
Wouldn’t the amount of CO2 absorbed by the cement when setting, exactly counter the amount released when it’s produced?
Our farming practices also put CO2 into the air, since we cut down the crops and remove them, rather than letting their roots go deep into the ground and the extra biomass be churned into the dirt, where carbon can be stored for years. Agriculture is responsible for nearly half of our carbon emissions. Vehicles are a sizable fraction, but less than agriculture/forestry. Not many people are aware of that.
Hard to do source control on that, although planting cover crops for the off-season, instead of tilling, letting it sit fallow and spraying for weeds, would be a very good first step. It also requires less artificial fertilizer.
CO2 is not the main driver of climate, but in a balanced system, a minor driver can become the critical input.
Warmer weather, and with it shifts in precipitation and rising sea levels, is not necessarily a bad thing for nature.
But it will be a change for humans, so we’ll have to give up farming in some areas and start it in others, we’ll have to move cities inland or provide expensive storm barriers (probably just abandon Miami). In the meantime, insurance companies are already assuming it will happen to some extent and trying to build it into future projections. It will be a very expensive change for us.
The assumptions are that A) CO2 is the main driver of climate; and B) warmer weather caused by enhanced CO2 is a bad thing. Neither has been demonstrated.
I’ve visited friends in Barbados. Frankly, another Barbados would be just dandy!
There are a bunch of stationary CO2 sources other than power plants: cement factories, chemical plants (e.g fossil fuel cracking to make syngas), etc. These will still produce CO2 even if we phase out all fossil fuel power plants. But the CO2 stream from these isn’t much harder to capture than from a power plant, and certainly much easier than extracting it from the air.
Ground transportation can be largely electrified. Large shipping too. There were proposals for nuclear-powered container ships. There was some work on seawater batteries. In a couple decades or so batteries may be good enough to electrify air travel too. And I can imagine chainsaws and the like working off batteries too, once the batteries improve enough. But then they’re not a major source of CO2 to begin with. The major sources are stationary and transportation.
For capture, I personally like the proposals of ocean fertilization and kelp farming. That seems more scalable than magnesite and the like.
“The problem with this stuff is that the numbers are so far out of human experience that you can be many orders of magnitude out and it isn’t obvious. ”
Or, in my case, a wrong order of operations when I *even* have the units written down to make it obvious what to do….this has not been my week.
And that makes a huge difference, considering that 100 m high area is then reduced to just under 60 km2 per batch, or a little over 1 Delaware @ 1 m height per batch. MUCH more feasible, even though it’s still not.
Thank you for highlighting my errors.
There is a problem with capturing emissions at the source.
There are energy uses like electricity generation where we could capture the emissions at the source, but it is also easy to replace fossil fuels with non-fossil energy sources like nuclear. The energy uses that are really hard to do with non-fossil energy are mobile devices like airplanes, cars, chainsaws, where it is also really hard to capture the CO2.
It makes the most sense to replace fossil fuels where it is easy & maybe schemes like biochar, ocean iron fertilization, magnesite creation can scale up enough to absorb the remaining emissions.
The problem with CO2 removal schemes is the scale, and how dilute the CO2 is in the atmosphere.
We’re emitting ~35 billion ton/year of CO2, and that rate is probably still increasing. Air density is 1.2 kg/m^2, and CO2 is ~400 ppm of that, so ~0.5g/m^3. You’d need to process 7e16 m^3 or 70 million cubic km of air per year just to match that emission rate.
It makes more sense to cut emissions as much as possible, and capture the remaining emissions at the source. The stuff already in the atmosphere will gradually get absorbed by plants etc.
To finish the calculation, 3e10 m^3 is 30 cubic km, or a cube about 3 km on a side. I’m not sure how you got to your Barbados sized chunk..
I know you’re being sarcastic, but those who think you aren’t are welcome to go to the Sun and try getting the hydrogen from there. Better go at night.
(Pro tip: Jupiter may be easier)
Average depth of the ocean floor is 3.7 kilometers. So that means you could make a Barbados sized seastead every 27 days, if you built the island like a single vertical pillar of rock. A quick google search of what magnesite looks like tells me that these would be very attractive islands, if a little lacking in vegetation and beaches.
There is heaps of free hydrogen available on the Sun. You are just part of the conspiracy to conceal this fact to support your imperialistic fascist communist Jacobin illuminati anarcho-monarchial paymasters.
I’m on to you.
Global Adjustments Services Private Limited is an expatriate services company that provides support for relocation to India and cross-cultural services, helping …
You multiplied by the density of MgCO3 instead of dividing.
The denser the material, the smaller the block of the same weight, so you divide by density not multiply.
So instead of multiplying (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) * (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3) = 2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3,
Divide to get (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) / (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3) = 3.0 x 10^10 m3 MgCO3,
The problem with this stuff is that the numbers are so far out of human experience that you can be many orders of magnitude out and it isn’t obvious. If we were calculating the weight of a dog or something and you get an answer of 1 million tonnes, then you stop and think “That is probably not quite right.”
OK. MOST people would realise something was wrong with their million tonne dog answer. Of the people who I have to deal with at least 90% of them would not say “Million tonne dog. I used my calculator so it is correct.” 80% at least. On a good day.
Pt. 2
——————————–
CO2 in 2017 = 4.5 x 10^10 tonnes
9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3 = (4.5 x 10^10 tonnes CO2) * (2 tonnes MgCO3 / 1 tonne CO2)
9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3) * (1000 kg / 1 tonne)
2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) * (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3)
27,000,000 km2 MgCO3 = (2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3) * (1 / 10,000 m) * (1 km2 / 1,000,000 m2)
5,326,027 km2 per batch = (27,000,000 km2 MgCO3) * (72 days / 365 days batch)
Which is 69% of an Australia and much more feasible, but again that’s still 10 km high. Bringing that height down to 100 m puts the surface area at just over 1 Earth (532,607,739 km2).
But yeah, that error would do it.
Goodness gracious…I have to do this in two parts because I mislabeled something, deleted the comment, and tried to repost it but with Vukkle, you can’t post a comment which was similar to another comment….what in the hell.
Pt. 1
————————-
I knew I should have went to bed instead of satisfying my curiosity….found my error: I saw 510.1 million km2…and thought m2….yikes!
I also had slightly different numbers as well:
CO2 added to the atmosphere in 2017: 45 billion tonnes
Rate of CO2 removal via magnesite (MgCO3) capture: 2 tonnes MgCO3 :: 1 tonne CO2
MgCO3 density: 2980 kg/m3
Duration of production per batch: 72 days
I knew I should have went to bed instead of satisfying my curiosity….found my error: I saw 510.1 million km2…and thought m2….yikes!
I also had slightly different numbers as well:
CO2 added to the atmosphere in 2017: 45 billion tonnes
Rate of CO2 removal via magnesite (MgCO3) capture: 2 tonnes MgCO3 :: 1 tonne CO2
MgCO3 density: 2980 kg/m3
Duration of production per batch: 72 days
————————————————————-
CO2 in 2017 = 4.5 x 10^10 tonnes
9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3 = (4.5 x 10^10 tonnes CO2) * (2 tonnes MgCO3 / 1 tonne CO2)
9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^10 tonnes MgCO3) * (1000 kg / 1 tonne)
2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3 = (9.0 x 10^13 kg MgCO3) * (2980 kg/m3 MgCO3)
27,000,000 km2 MgCO3 = (2.7 x 10^17 m3 MgCO3) * (1 / 10,000 m) * (1 km2 / 1,000,000 m2)
5,326,027 km2 MgCO3 per batch = (27,000,000 km2 MgCO3) * (365 days / 72 days / batch)
Which is 69% of an Australia and much more feasible, but again that’s still 10 km high. Bringing that height down to 100 m puts the surface area at just over 1 Earth (532,602,740 km2).
But yeah, that error would do it.
You are going to have to show the math. Because MY math goes like this.
Surface area of Earth is 510 million square km
10 km high gives us 5.1 billion cubic km.
Density of Magnesite = 3 tonnes per cubic meters = 3 billion tonnes per cubic km = 15 quintillion tonnes for the total volume.
Except you said it would take 104 of those, so about 1.5 sextillion tonnes.
If 1 tonne of magnesite captures 1/2 tonne of CO2 that’s 750 quintillion tonnes of CO2.
Total CO2 released in 2017 is 32.5 billion tonnes, which in 72 days (a bizarre unit of measurement) is 6.4 billion tonnes, which is…120 million times too much magnesite.
So you’re out by a factor of 120 million.
However, the point remains that even dropping the total volume of magnesite down by a factor of 120 million, still gives us a block of magnesite 10 km high and 442 square km in area. About the size of Barbados.
Uh! ? Do not worry,American people and people in general are already dumbtards enough you do not need c change to be controlled 🙂
“Because everybody won’t. ”
1) start to do it yourself
2) coerce other people to do it
Then complain
Start doing this and then we will see
Carbon dioxide removal is the best way forward, particularly using the direct air capture method. Climeworks has a method that works, and they’re building a plant right now that they expect to scale, and to allow them to remove one million tons of carbon from the atmosphere every year. If they’re right–if it does scale–we can do a buildout of their plant design coupled with overall reduction of emissions. Eventually, we can reach the point where we’re removing more carbon from the atmosphere than we’re emitting, offering the possibility of not merely stopping climate change, but reversing it.
And this is to say nothing of all the other methods of taking carbon out of the atmosphere, like biochar.
Where do you think the hydrogen comes from?
There are two industrial routes to hydrogen:
1. Various fossil fuel cracking processes. This produces a bunch of CO2 as a byproduct. If that CO2 isn’t captured, it gets added to the atmosphere.
2. Water splitting. This takes just as much energy as you’ll get back from burning the hydrogen, except you actually end up spending more energy than you get back, because of inefficiencies. All of that energy has to come from somewhere, and if you have a clean energy source for that, you may as well just use it directly, and skip the hydrogen.
Depopulation is a bad solution. It’ll either take too long, or require genocide. If you go the genocide route, but cut the wrong part of the population, it can cause other problems like famine and disease with not enough people left with the right skills to man the farming equipment, or provide medical care, or run the factories that make the equipment you need. Even if you do it right, unless you cut the birth rate, it’s only temporary. The population will grow back, with the same problems as before.
The proper solution is lowering our environmental footprint through pollution controls, cleaner energy sources, recycling, etc. We’re gradually getting better at that. As others have mentioned, there are energy conservation and other steps that can be taken by individuals. And lifting the poor out of poverty and giving them a better education would help reduce birth rates. Birth rates are already in decline in the developed world.
Could it be used at the exhaust part of extremely polluting factory? in the exhaust part of vehicule with an easily changed part at determined interval
would there be a way to use the technology by adding easily added CO2 cleaning apparatus to the exhaust of most polluting plants and vehicules; those CO2 remover
would have to be replaced regularly of course but would that work?
/
“100% of the warming seen for the last few decades is created by making adjustments to the actual data that have no physical basis.”
I think you mean “taken into account”, as opposed to “created”. Because a model doesn’t take into account warming, and then is updated to include a more accurate model that thusly warms the previous result, does not mean the warming was simply created with no physical basis.
Gah, my comment got wiped out earlier as well it seems.
But basically (after math) it would take a production rate of 104 Earth surface areas every 72 days to keep pace with just the CO2 added in 2017 alone.
Kicker: that 104 Earth SA’s has a layer height of 10 km. So while this seems like a good idea, the numbers say otherwise.
Where does the energy come from to obtain the billion tons of Magnesium?
Just fast track Gen IV nuclear development.
“If this can be developed to an industrial scale then it can help offset global warming. ”
Just how big of an “if” is that? We have a lot of tons of CO2 we’re talking about here. What’s the cost, both economic and environmental, as now you probably have to mine something to get that olivine and such.
Global magnesium production is less than 1 million tons/year (magnesite is magnesium carbonate.). Global CO2 production is ~35 billion tons/year. If we want to reduce CO2, we’ll need to cut it at the source.
Agreed, especially for point 3: it’s amazing how many homes still do not have proper insulation.
Those are all valid. Therefore, nothing else should be done?
You’re not wrong, but I ‘m sort of skeptical towards any idea that starts with “everybody should just ____”. Because everybody won’t.
Also as I understand it, limiting new greenhouse gasses going up to the atmosphere isn’t going to cut it anymore. Even if we somehow got it down to zero today. We need to start fixing the mess that we already made.
Anyways. I agree. More nuclear power, electric cars, everybody living in cities and other places that share and optimize resource use, all that good stuff. But Also YAY! to these kinds of inventions that might reverse the damage that has been done.
We need both.
Solutions to climate changing in a way we don’t like have to start with a physical model of the climate which can predict what will happen without fudging the numbers. 100% of the warming seen for the last few decades is created by making adjustments to the actual data that have no physical basis. It is the creation of people who believe in AGW, not a measured result.
Then a the proper climate needs to be agreed on. Good luck with that.
Cool. There were a dozen or so comments to this article. They all have disappeared except for the first. Nice system. Maybe they’ll randomly come back?
while admittedly the steps you have outlined would be “helpful” it does not fit the medias “the sky is falling” narrative, and as such can not be taken seriously….the fact is that people who are genuinely fearful for their collective futures are much easier to control….and that is the entire purpose of the “climate change narrative…CONTROL AND POWER!!!!
Still use of one ton of the material to remove half a ton of carbon dioxide does not look to make this solution look practical enough to remove significant amounts of carbon dioxide.
Simple cheap and effective solutions to “Climate Change”: LED lights, Pluggable Hybrid Cars, Solar Roofs, Heat pump cooling and heating. We should not feel obligated to dig it all up and burn it.
burn hydrogen for power plants and cars that would solve the entire problem. But the owners of the government will not do that because they don’t make enough money on it.
The real answer is not to store but to recycle CO2…. Global Adjustments has some possibilities in the works.
and 5) Use magnesite to reduce already elevated levels. No brainer!
We can debate whether those steps are enough, but I 100% agree that the solution is as simple as personal responsibility. We don’t need to wait for Paris. We don’t need to wait to convince others. While we do need new technologies over time, we don’t need them to change our personal behavior now, and what we do now really does matter. Drive the speed limit. Turn UP the thermostat in the summer. Wear a sweater in the winter. Choose to spend a little more on energy-saving options like renewable energy providers for electricity. Hang clothes on a clothesline. There are many things. As disclaimer, I am not associated with any company, but I do research in energy analysis as my career.
Bro…
1) i like my truck, i need it for the renovations to my home
2) i dont want to live in an apartment, i want a home for my family
3) i dont have the money for new fancy windows, i make a decent salary, but i’ve got bills to pay and a family to feed.
4) nuclear energy has a ridiculous cost when considering the care for the plants that create the energey, plus where do you dispose of it? Solar, great idea, but it’s again so expensive.
That’s every american’s response to your 4 answers for global warming. Until all of that can be safe and affordable, key word, affordable for the average consumer, let scientists do their thing.
Magnesite is magnesium carbonate. Global magnesium production is less than 1 million tons/year. Global CO2 production is ~35 billion tons/year. If we want to reduce CO2, we’ll need to cut it at the source.
And make sure the emphasis implementing these things is focused on developing countries the main source of the problem.
“De-populate is the only solution “. Starting with you?
De-populate is the only solution
Quick global warming solution:
1) use smaller cars
2) live in reasonably sized apartments
3) do not waster energy (double windows for winter, etc.)
4) nuclear energy and solar
It is a s simple as that !