Nuclear Explosions for Large Scale Carbon Sequestration:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06623
seems more promising, I love that there is more research and interest in accelerated weathering
>(iii) ships moving at ~15 knots are water pumps themselves, overcoming the limitation of high energy demand in AWL
i think there is a flaw in that logic.
Btw, if doing it on ships is that great, why not build(repurpose) large [old] ships/barges by making them solar and/or wind powered and set them just to follow tradewinds and/or to just loiter in the tropical belt, mostly [semi]autonomously.
Good idea and I do not diminish their creativity, findings and methods.
The reason why this and many other CO2 sequestration techniques don't work to solve the carbon pollution problem is that they always measure "gains" on a very narrow context, irl the inputs to the system incur some carbon emissions as well.
If you account for (just off the top my head):
* Grinding the limestone down to dust
* Limestone transport from whenever is sourced to the ships
* Extra weight of limestone on the ship (they say 12 TEU for a 10k container ship, small but not insignificant)
* Any difference in propulsion efficiency due to this change in the fluid dynamics that has to be compensated by ... burning more fuel (but this one could actually be negligible)
You might be emitting much more carbon than the one your system was designed to absorb.
You cannot beat the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Smaht[1] people have been trained to quickly and loudly dismiss perpetual motion machines, but also buy the whole "revert carbon emissions" scam which is proven impossible by the exact same principles.
Btw, this is an accurate litmus test to see if someone actually understands what's going on or if its just another smaht guy parroting back what xi's been told to.
Dirk Pässler (carbon-drawdown.de) did some back-of-the-napkin calculations for their experiments (enhanced weathering of basalt dust on cropland):
> In the end we calculated the actual emissions to be 44,6 tons CO₂, due to the fact that we drove more truck kilometers than we had planned. This is less than 10% of 1217 t basalt’s CDR potential of 509 t CO₂. In summary: The mining and transport emissions are one order of magnitude smaller than the CDR effect, even with 300-500 km transport distances. This will only get better in the future with more green energy, electric trucks and optimized logistics.
Atmospheric CO2 cannot be converted back into hydrocarbons without expending more energy than the fuel originally released in combustion. Atmospheric CO2 can be converted into stable minerals that no longer drive global warming, at an energy cost less than the fuel released when it first burned.
See this chapter from the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage:
In particular, section 7.2.2, "Chemistry of mineral carbonation." The carbonation of magnesium and calcium silicates is thermodynamically spontaneous but kinetically hindered. The kinetic hindrance is why an additional energy input is needed to draw down atmospheric CO2 in less than geological time: the mineral's accessible surface area must increase dramatically for fast silicate weathering. The thermodynamic spontaneity is why the additional energy input can be small compared to the original energy embodied in the fuels that generated the CO2.
All that and who will pay for it? Politicians? They use taxpayers money. Companies? They will pass on the bill to the customers. So in the end same group will experience higher prices. I can't wait for all the poor becoming poorer.
Simple solution to all those. Have sustainably powered collection craft that slowly follow a set path, and have them release the limestone into the sea to build up artificial reefs. The reef and the resulting ecosystem can help improve fish stocks in the ocean and encourage diversity.
Is there any known approach to CO2 sequestration that could reach a scale that would even remotely make a difference for climate change? They either require an enormous amount of energy and/or machinery and/or space.
14 comments
[ 391 ms ] story [ 2023 ms ] threadi think there is a flaw in that logic.
Btw, if doing it on ships is that great, why not build(repurpose) large [old] ships/barges by making them solar and/or wind powered and set them just to follow tradewinds and/or to just loiter in the tropical belt, mostly [semi]autonomously.
The reason why this and many other CO2 sequestration techniques don't work to solve the carbon pollution problem is that they always measure "gains" on a very narrow context, irl the inputs to the system incur some carbon emissions as well.
If you account for (just off the top my head):
* Grinding the limestone down to dust
* Limestone transport from whenever is sourced to the ships
* Extra weight of limestone on the ship (they say 12 TEU for a 10k container ship, small but not insignificant)
* Any difference in propulsion efficiency due to this change in the fluid dynamics that has to be compensated by ... burning more fuel (but this one could actually be negligible)
You might be emitting much more carbon than the one your system was designed to absorb.
You cannot beat the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Smaht[1] people have been trained to quickly and loudly dismiss perpetual motion machines, but also buy the whole "revert carbon emissions" scam which is proven impossible by the exact same principles.
Btw, this is an accurate litmus test to see if someone actually understands what's going on or if its just another smaht guy parroting back what xi's been told to.
1: smaht. smart in appearance but actually dumb
> In the end we calculated the actual emissions to be 44,6 tons CO₂, due to the fact that we drove more truck kilometers than we had planned. This is less than 10% of 1217 t basalt’s CDR potential of 509 t CO₂. In summary: The mining and transport emissions are one order of magnitude smaller than the CDR effect, even with 300-500 km transport distances. This will only get better in the future with more green energy, electric trucks and optimized logistics.
https://www.carbon-drawdown.de/blog/2022-12-14-how-cdr-with-...
See this chapter from the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_chapte...
In particular, section 7.2.2, "Chemistry of mineral carbonation." The carbonation of magnesium and calcium silicates is thermodynamically spontaneous but kinetically hindered. The kinetic hindrance is why an additional energy input is needed to draw down atmospheric CO2 in less than geological time: the mineral's accessible surface area must increase dramatically for fast silicate weathering. The thermodynamic spontaneity is why the additional energy input can be small compared to the original energy embodied in the fuels that generated the CO2.