A new international study has shown how a variety of commercial uses for CO2 could see up to 10 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide sequestered each year.
Led by UCLA and Oxford University, the research examined 10 separate industrial applications for CO2, including synthetic fuels and chemicals, concrete, products from microalgae, enhanced weathering, forestry and biochar. It was found that each of the methods could on average capture around 0.5 gigatonnes, while a high-end scenario would see around double that sequestered, with a theoretical cost of under $100 per tonne. Around 37 gigatonnes of CO2 were emitted globally in 2018 and this figure is rising by around one per cent each year.
Direct action: Carbon capture gears up for climate battle
MIT carbon capture works at atmospheric concentrations
“Greenhouse gas removal is essential to achieve net zero carbon emissions and stabilise the climate,” said Cameron Hepburn, director of Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and Environment and one of the lead authors of the work, published in Nature.
“We haven’t reduced our emissions fast enough, so now we also need to start pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Governments and corporations are moving on this, but not quickly enough. The promise of carbon dioxide utilisation is that it could act as an incentive for carbon dioxide removal and could reduce emissions by displacing fossil fuels.”
The approach to adopting the different techniques is likely to vary significantly, with commercial considerations dictating which methods come to the fore initially. For certain types of plastic, using CO2 as a feedstock can be more profitable than using hydrocarbons, as well as being greener. Conversely, the economic case for techniques such as weathering is more difficult to make, so incentives will be trickier to devise. According to the researchers, there is no ‘magic bullet’, and a multi-pronged approach will be needed to remove the requisite levels of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
“I would start by incentivising the most obvious solutions – most of which already exist – that can act at the gigatonne scale in agriculture, forestry and construction,” said study co-author Emily Carter, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the UCLA Samueli School of Engineering, as well as the university’s executive vice chancellor and provost.
“At the same time, I would aggressively invest in R&D across academia, industry and government labs – much more so than is being done in the US, especially compared to China – in higher-tech solutions to capture and convert carbon dioxide to useful products that can be developed alongside solutions that already exist in agriculture, forestry and construction.”
OK …but I’m still not sure I feel completely comfortable with meddling with the atmosphere on a global scale.
It would be undoing some of the existing meddling.
We’re increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Any efforts to limit or even reduce this, would be a huge step forward!
I think the reality is that if humanity is around for long enough, admittedly a somewhat unlikely scenario, then meddling with the atmosphere is exactly what we need to do, not least to head off future ice ages as well as the current warming.
Or…..we could plant some trees!
A multi-pronged approach is definitely the way forward but these technologies will only help if the products made using CO2 pulled from the atmosphere don’t just release it straight back into the air again when used. e.g. synthetic fuels.
This is a noble attempt to redress the mess we have made and are continuing to make. One of the big obstacles is that this world’s desire for heat and power are so easily obtained through comfossil fuels where the ‘waster product’ is CO2. It takes energy input to ‘drive’ CO2 back into plastics or other organic matter. It will need green energy to do this; trees are quite good at this, but slow!
Always liked the bio-char approach. Pyrolysis of 10% of crop waste, stems etc, and bury the resulting charcoal by ploughing it into the field thus massively improving the soil.
This approach has several benefits:
1. Once you get it going the run off from a batch can pyrolyse the next batch so little carbon based fuels are needed.
2. The improved soil needs less fertiliser.
3. It is relatively low tech and we can start tomorrow.
Unfortunately I have no idea how much CO2 this would bury if we rolled it out across the UK.
Some studies show CO2 increases followed global warming but were not the cause of it so we will not stop global warming by capturing CO2. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis. It is necessary for life. It is necessary for the survival of the human race. With an increasing world population we should be looking to secure our food sources not reduce them. CO2 scientists need to be heeded in this discussion. Climatologists are looking at a very complex situation with less historical data available than is needed for an accurate grasp of the facts. Engineers rely on these folk for facts, not misinformation. Engineers are too brilliant a resource to squander. More facts lead to better planning and to better outcomes. Engineers are ready. Where is the proof global warming is a direct result of global CO2 increases?
Better uses of engineers : Water management (including flood prevention and irrigation), greening barren land (less dust, less heavy rains in some parts of the planet, more ice on the polar caps – as per hydrometeorology studies, and more food), desalination projects… just to name a few projects.
The climate has never been “stable” so why should we attempt to do it ourselves?
We know virtually nothing about what impacts on the climate we already have and until we do we should leave well alone.
Pollution is another matter entirely and should be tackled where necessary but Co2 isn’t a pollutant.