1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Atmospheric CO2 removal technologies?

  1. Jun 24, 2015 #1
    Are there any legitimate candidates for technologies that might provide inverse leverage over atmospheric CO2 levels? Super trees, Algae towers, I don't know, anything at all?

    I'm just asking about atmospheric control technologies, not about climate change per-se.

    of course the wiki has some stuff...
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2015
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 24, 2015 #2
    Any technology which could be capable of significantly altering CO2 levels globally would have to applied on a massive scale and would take a very long time to be effective.
    Think about it - although CO2 level is rising and human activity is highly likely to be contributing factor, it has taken nearly 200 years of industrialisation for the changing level of CO2 to become a matter of serious concern.
    On a global scale as would be required, I think it's likely that some kind of bio engineering would be more effective than something like chemically processing air.
  4. Jun 24, 2015 #3
    Yeah, clearly it's a scale problem. Makes it seem like a cross between a "vast long plan" and some... things is required. I'm just wondering if there is thought to be any chance of an effective and feasible combo, any conceptions.
  5. Jun 25, 2015 #4
    Despite being an engineer and having an interest in this I have found that the easiest and best approach is reforestation.
    The russian taiga frozen all winter comes alive in the summer and replenishes the earth's oxygen content by 1/3rd !!
    Zero capital.zero maintainance.
    Other than that compounds which absorb CO2 and release them when heated are the most promising.
  6. Jun 26, 2015 #5
    I assume you mean that 1/3 of the oxygen that was depleted over the winter is replenished (a tiny fraction of the atmosphere's total oxygen content).
  7. Jun 26, 2015 #6
    Man I remember that quote verbatim from BBC's Planet Earth. i would assume that they do not lie.
  8. Jun 26, 2015 #7
    The compounds you are referring to are these oceanic phytoplankton type compounds (that capture CO2 then sink and decay at depth to form methane hydrate?) Or is there something else.

    Could super dense "phytophlankton corrals" be used to crank up that cycle - without destroying the chemistry of the ocean?

    Probably this should have been in the "Earth" forum. I didn't even see that forum. Sorry. If the mod wanted to move it?
  9. Jun 26, 2015 #8
    So, you really believe the total oxygen content of the atmosphere is replenished by 1/3??? Please to some research and report back.
  10. Jun 26, 2015 #9
  11. Jun 26, 2015 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    More phytoplankton can mop up more CO2, but the requirement for two critical doses of iron about one week apart limits phytoplankton production.

    There is a natural iron cycle in seawater that involves phytoplankton, which are eaten by krill, that are in turn eaten by whales, that kindly provide the faecal iron on a regular basis. To have more phytoplankton therefore requires proportionally more krill and whales.

    There is a critical tipping point situation here in that higher dissolved CO2 can block the iron cycle. Krill require a low dissolved CO2 in order to form their exoskeleton.
  12. Jun 26, 2015 #11
    Bio engineering is a fascinating idea, but it can't exactly be said to be 'safe', in the sense of being fairly confident of the outcome.
    Reforestation and probably greening of deserts are both possible and safe.
    I am less sure about engineered super-plankton in the sea, but it could work.
  13. Jun 26, 2015 #12

    jim hardy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Mother Nature is able to push CO2 down smartly every growing season.

    I assume she uses solar powered photosynthesis.


    I'm downright cynical about sequestration , those huge compressors will be powered by carbon and the process consumes about 10% of a whatever power you're making.

    http://www.kbr.com/Technologies/Process-Technologies/CO2-Compression-and-Sequestration/ [Broken]

    This link might interest you....
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  14. Jun 26, 2015 #13
    I'm talking about scrubbing with amines or metal hydroxides. Though they get degraded really fast. I read somewhere that were trying to create new scrubbers with what else- carbon nanotubes.
  15. Jun 27, 2015 #14
    Haha no I don't believe that. Of course its the regeneration of used O². It is largest forest in the world and does contain almost a 3rd of the world's trees.
  16. Jun 27, 2015 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is usually easier to free Mother Nature than to do her job for her.
    Every which growing season? The graph "Recent Monthly Mean CO2 At Mauna Loa" clearly shows an annual cycle.
    I would have expected the CO2 use to be more or less constant with both hemispheres alternating production.
    CO2 seems to rise during the Northern winter while the Southern Ocean is absorbing CO2 during the Southern summer. Why?
  17. Jun 27, 2015 #16
    Yeah that Mauna Loa graph is pretty cool. Haven't seen that before. I would want to make sure and factor out prevailing wind, though I think that's pretty doable in Hawaiii, If I recall. I do remember being struck by just how ridiculously nice the air is in Hawaii. Could have sworn I could smell the O2. :-p. Even if the prevailing wind is part of that graph, still pretty interesting.

    Yeah, huge complicated gas to gas separators on coal power plants, to my thinking just aren't going to happen. I'm prepared to be surprised but just holding your thumb up to that idea, especially the compression and injection process, gives pause. Capital investment up front is just massive.

    I have to admit, I find the phytoplankton idea a bit comforting. Seems like, if things did get desperate enough, that could be a Hail Mary lord help us lever. Not sayin they will, (they either will,or won't) but it's always a good idea to scan the room for exits. Even if you don't know exactly where they go. The catalysis process, iron seeding, seems like something a few big boats could do, with some tough boats to protect them.

    If it was a game of "Risk" and I was Indonesia (at risk of getting drowned), I would be outfitting my navy to do it, if nothing else just to get some leverage on the big CO2 countries.

    At least one link re: risk to pacific island nations.
    http://www.worldbank.org/content/da...AP/Pacific Islands/climate-change-pacific.pdf
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2015
  18. Jun 27, 2015 #17
    I met a guy who was involved with this on the utility side. Very interesting dude. One of those probably-genius types that only ever is filthy dirty. He was working on the pilot, or had. We had lunch in the cafeteria at a different plant (I would love to have seen the project). He could have been any big dirty rigger. Someone had given me the impression he had really been the one to figure out the scale and cost problem in the context of the project. Tarps and ditches was how, not domes and pipes, as I recall. He mentioned how the lab guys were thinking of it as a science project, when really it was a farm. I asked him how well it worked, what removal efficiency was possible. He said something like "whatever you want".


    I had wondered whatever happened
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2015
  19. Jun 27, 2015 #18
    By far, most of the land mass and vegetation is in the northern hemisphere.
  20. Jun 29, 2015 #19
    The New e-gas and e-diesel projects in Germany, use atmospheric CO2.
    It takes like 20 lbs of CO2 to make a single gallon of diesel, so the curve that made
    burning hydrocarbon fuels bad, makes the synthetic version good.
    If we move to making all fuels from scratch, it will not make CO2 go down, it just will not rise much ether.
    The technology kills many theoretical birds.
    Photovoltaic solar power, is great except for it lacked storage, so the energy was not available when needed.
    In addition when we get a large number of solar roof installs, the grid load will become difficult to balance.
    Storing all the surplus electricity as man made hydrocarbons, will store the energy for future use, as well as sequester
    vast amounts of CO2.
  21. Jul 1, 2015 #20


    User Avatar

    If anybody tells an investor, whatever you want, the investor will turn his back and gently walk away.
    The main issue with CO2 sequestration on an industrial scale is the same that green veggies experience. Plants capturing 1 mole of CO2 require around 120 moles of water or worse (google the transpiration ratio). There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the other gases (400ppm or 1 in 2500). Any chemical or physical process of CO2/air separation will be strongly hampered by this low yield condition.
    The ideea of fuel from CO2 is nice and rather old, yet impractical to say the least.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook