Carbon Dioxide Removal
Here’s another entry into our discussion of the viability of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, so as to mitigate climate change caused by greenhouse gases. The conversation began with my ridiculing the idea of huge fans (powered by energy that has to come from someplace) with CO2 traps in them, as pictured here.
Senior Energy Analyst Glenn Doty writes: (Though this idea is hype at best), superstructure buildings in heavily congested cities do offer a real possibility. If the building has a combined air-handling system, with multiple intakes and a central duct, then you can – without much additional capital – tap into that central air duct. The air flowing through that duct might have 5 times the concentration of CO2 as seen in the global average. If you set up a CO2 trap on that central duct, you’d rather quickly reduce the average CO2 level in the building to perhaps as little as double the global average…
I’m extremely reluctant to challenge Glenn on matters like this, but I point out that, assuming that the radius of the atmosphere is 8 kilometers above a sphere that’s 6400 kilometers in radius, its volume is 4pi/3 (6408^3 – 6400^3) = ~ 4 billion cubic kilometers. I don’t know how much air passes through these ducts each year, but I’d be astonished to learn that it’s significant in comparison.
LOL!
Craig,
I never said that the development would be significant in terms of climate change. I thought it could be significant in terms of urban farming, which I believe will be a large growth industry over the next century.
🙂
But no, I’m not suggesting this will change the trajectory on greenhouse gas forcing. Of course it won’t
I can see a future in which the huge and rapidly growing Asian supercities would have clusters of buildings surrounding a single 80-story tall skyscraper farm, which would need millions of tons of CO2 per year, and would harvest that CO2 from separators installed in the nearby buildings.
As in all cases, in order to judge the effectiveness of a technology in mitigating global warming, you need only look at the direct economic effectiveness on an individual consumer… If it is economically viable enough to become disruptive, it would move the needle on global emissions. If not, then not. The urban farm would require either a level of profitability that could support the separation systems, or it would require subsidies from the businesses in the buildings that experience the air separation… But assuming that such a model works, you’d see hundreds of them across the world within a century of their viability. That will help, just not much.
😉
Craig and Glenn,
Glenn is obviously a supporter of the Urban Canopy movement, which I also support. Glenn might also be a fan of the interesting architectural movement started in the 60’s by Paolo Soleri (1919- 2013.
You both seem to share a confidence and assumption Carbon Removal technology is of no significance and will never become viable. Neither of you advance any real insight or knowledge apart from relaying on vague and very old information. This leads me to believe your opinions are borne of a desire for this technology to fail based not of factual analysis, but to protect other agenda.
Why ?
I’m afraid the answer is obvious. Like many ideologically committed environmental advocates and supporters you are pursuing an agenda of which the environment plays only part.
You seek a “social revolution”, where environmental issues are only an excuse to pursue a much larger agenda. Your ‘crusade’ needs ‘ evil villains’ (capitalist polluters) and ‘noble environmentalists’ (leftist, anti-corporate, anti-materialist, vegetarians etc).
The idea that environmental pollution created by the rise of industrialized technology energy requirements may be resolved by the implementation of remedial technology, with only a minimum of disruption to the status quo, must be alarming and distressing for those looking forward to an exciting ‘social revolution’. The idea all those “evil Villains’ with not be receiving their well deserved comeuppance, and nirvana will be postponed must be unbearable news.
Such blinkered thinking prevents you exploring the myriad possibilities offered by rapidly developing technologies designed to mitigate, capture while reusing carbon and other harmful emissions.
I have no idea if this technology will prove valuable or not, but a lifetime of experience has taught me not to dismiss any technology at an early stage without continuous, careful examination and research.
When I was still at at school in bleak post war Britain, a popular saying was “you’ll no more do that, than fly to the moon” ! Flying to the moon had been deemed impossible for centuries hence the emphasis on the folly of attempting the seemingly impossible.
On July 20, 1969, I stood in the ruins of the ancient city of Hue in Vietnam, reporting on the massacre of more than 5500 civilians by the communist PAVN/VC insurgents, when Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. The irony of mankind achievements did not escape me.
As a Schoolboy I looked forward to leaving the shabby, decay of post war Britain and flying to Australia for my holidays. Australia was a bright, sunny, optimistic land of plenty where I was given a 1956 American Ford Customline convertible car by my step-father. This vehicle only 10 years earlier had been factory fitted with a small ‘Bakelite’ turn-table record player in the dashboard enabling 45rpm records to be played .
At the time this was considered the height of sophistication and greatly enhanced my social life ! By 1969 the Philips radio cassettes player had become a standard extra in every luxury new car sold, making the turn table obsolete and quaint.
Carbon removal, sequestration and conversion technology is still at an early stage of development, but the speed and depth of research is beginning to gather pace. What is odd is opposition from a curious alliance of ideologues, confused environmentalists, lobbyist for Wind and Solar, etc.
If Japanese and Indian scientists and engineers can make their technology work, the potential could be sensational. Like all technologies Carbon removal technology may go through many transformations and evolution before becoming truly viable, but that doesn’t mean any serious or scientifically minded person should remain always adamantly judging these technologies by the performance of a 2011 prototype.
Converting CO2 into cheap fuel is theoretically possible and considerable research is being conducted into this promising technology.
At some stage, every serious environmentalist must take the time to pause and consider exactly what are their true objectives and priorities.
Persuading governments of industrialized nations to set aside .5 or even 1% of GDP to fund reliable, proven technology to reverse the effects of climate change is vast more politically acceptable than agreeing to an unacceptable “social revolution’.
Craig,
I spoke too soon ! Obviously a number of eccentrics have become attracted to the need for this type of technology.
I’ve just been referred a client from an otherwise sensible Venture Capital Fund seeking underwriting for a start-up with some sort of ‘carbon from air’ recovery technology, able to be added to wind turbines.
My first thought was to laugh, but then I thought I should practice what I preach and send the idea for proper scientific and engineering preliminary analysis. If as I suspect, the idea is valueless, confirmation would be worth the small expenditure outlay for piece of mind.
So far I’ve been fortunate not to reject a concept which later became a huge success. In this business it’s so easy to suddenly find yourself in company with Erik Sandberg-Diment who in 1985 wrote an article in the New York Times, on laptops.
” The laptop computer is becoming a forgotten fad ! From now on, airplane tray tables will hold beers and cocktails instead of computers.
Too heavy, expensive and with impossible to improve battery life. The limitations come from what people actually do with computers, as opposed to what the marketers expect them to do. On the whole, people, especially the young, don’t want to lug a computer with them to the beach or on a train to while away hours they would rather spend reading the sports or business section of the newspaper.
Somehow, the microcomputer industry has assumed that everyone would love to have a keyboard grafted on as an extension of their fingers. It just is not so. The idea of even smaller computer type device without a large keyboard will never become a reality, and those touting such items are merely preying on the gullible”.
Sound familiar ?
Innovative technology is very much a numbers game, the trick is knowing which will set off the chain reaction to success !:)