Biochar should be scalable, we have the timber resources. It creates power and can be done with timber waste.
Is it geoengineering or bioengineering scale? Probably not. But I think the most attainable answer is to at least let the trees do the carbon air capture part, which seems to be the hardest bit.
Here is a carbon removal solution that removes atmospheric pollutants, including methane. The concept is not "way out there" as it uses existing technologies combined in a new way. A slurry of ferric chloride powder in bio-oil could be pumped by floating wind turbine power up an umbilical tethering hose to a boomerang-shaped aerostat where it could be sprayed, ignited and flared to generate nanoparticulates of the salt. This same chemical is widely used to remediate waste water. In sunlight, it acts as a highly effective photocatalyst that oxidises pollutants to CO2 and water using chlorine and hydroxyl radicals. Released at 500-2000m altitude over remote ocean it would be dispersed, mainly latitudinally in the troposphere, by winds, vertical turbulence and thermals, being rained out harmlessly in under a fortnight. Others have estimated that current atmospheric methane levels might be reduced by half with using less than 10% of the annual ferric chloride production of 2.6Mt.
Quico- The Newton makes a great analogy here. A series of 15% improvements don't take us to an iPhone.
I love this: "Why spend the $50 it takes for electrified heavy trucking to prevent one ton of carbon dioxide if that same $50 can buy you five tons of removals?" That potential CDR funding exists already.
I challenge you on the $10 / ton target. It's got to be $1 / ton...or less.
To make a meaningful climate impact, no matter what happens in the energy transition, we need to remove 50 to 100 billion tons of CO2 per year. Emissions today are 40 Gt / year. Use the round number of 100 billion tons.
What is the maximum budget realistically available for that CDR in this decade's economy? Certainly not the whole Pentagon budget of $1000 billion. Ten percent of it, maybe? That's $100 billion per year. That could happen if corporations really wanted to--like they want to develop new solar and EVs in that cost range. I would say that's the maximum.
$100 billion divided by 100 billion tons is $1 / ton. That's the target. Anything above $1 / ton CO2 is fantasy, in terms of making a climate impact. Ten dollars per ton means we can slow global warming by 10%. That does not get me or others excited. One dollar per ton means we can give our children a safe CO2 level and safe climate in a few decades. That's exciting.
How has CO2 been removed at large scale for less than $1 / ton? Let's study the 18 billion tons that were removed after the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption. That just happened naturally, without any engineering or spending.
There's a clue in there, if anyone wants to look at it. Let's start with what's been done, and learn from there. That's where we'll find that beginnings of an iPhone.
As I have argued for the last 15 years, large scale ocean based algae production is the most plausible path to carbon mining at scale, with the prospect of converting CO2 into useful commodities at climatic scale. A 7F strategy can focus on fuel, food, fertilizer, fabric, fish, forests and feed, all produced through photosynthesis. Hydrothermal Liquefaction can become a key technology. Only the world ocean has the area, resources and energy required to stabilise the climate. The Climate Foundation has done good work toward oceanic algae production with its Marine Permaculture program, but the whole topic suffers from fragmented incoherence of vision and unjust barriers to entry.
"Cheap carbon removal will do the same thing." Subjunctive mood seems appropriate here.
Biochar should be scalable, we have the timber resources. It creates power and can be done with timber waste.
Is it geoengineering or bioengineering scale? Probably not. But I think the most attainable answer is to at least let the trees do the carbon air capture part, which seems to be the hardest bit.
Here is a carbon removal solution that removes atmospheric pollutants, including methane. The concept is not "way out there" as it uses existing technologies combined in a new way. A slurry of ferric chloride powder in bio-oil could be pumped by floating wind turbine power up an umbilical tethering hose to a boomerang-shaped aerostat where it could be sprayed, ignited and flared to generate nanoparticulates of the salt. This same chemical is widely used to remediate waste water. In sunlight, it acts as a highly effective photocatalyst that oxidises pollutants to CO2 and water using chlorine and hydroxyl radicals. Released at 500-2000m altitude over remote ocean it would be dispersed, mainly latitudinally in the troposphere, by winds, vertical turbulence and thermals, being rained out harmlessly in under a fortnight. Others have estimated that current atmospheric methane levels might be reduced by half with using less than 10% of the annual ferric chloride production of 2.6Mt.
Quico- The Newton makes a great analogy here. A series of 15% improvements don't take us to an iPhone.
I love this: "Why spend the $50 it takes for electrified heavy trucking to prevent one ton of carbon dioxide if that same $50 can buy you five tons of removals?" That potential CDR funding exists already.
I challenge you on the $10 / ton target. It's got to be $1 / ton...or less.
To make a meaningful climate impact, no matter what happens in the energy transition, we need to remove 50 to 100 billion tons of CO2 per year. Emissions today are 40 Gt / year. Use the round number of 100 billion tons.
What is the maximum budget realistically available for that CDR in this decade's economy? Certainly not the whole Pentagon budget of $1000 billion. Ten percent of it, maybe? That's $100 billion per year. That could happen if corporations really wanted to--like they want to develop new solar and EVs in that cost range. I would say that's the maximum.
$100 billion divided by 100 billion tons is $1 / ton. That's the target. Anything above $1 / ton CO2 is fantasy, in terms of making a climate impact. Ten dollars per ton means we can slow global warming by 10%. That does not get me or others excited. One dollar per ton means we can give our children a safe CO2 level and safe climate in a few decades. That's exciting.
How has CO2 been removed at large scale for less than $1 / ton? Let's study the 18 billion tons that were removed after the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption. That just happened naturally, without any engineering or spending.
There's a clue in there, if anyone wants to look at it. Let's start with what's been done, and learn from there. That's where we'll find that beginnings of an iPhone.
https://climaterestoration.substack.com/
As I have argued for the last 15 years, large scale ocean based algae production is the most plausible path to carbon mining at scale, with the prospect of converting CO2 into useful commodities at climatic scale. A 7F strategy can focus on fuel, food, fertilizer, fabric, fish, forests and feed, all produced through photosynthesis. Hydrothermal Liquefaction can become a key technology. Only the world ocean has the area, resources and energy required to stabilise the climate. The Climate Foundation has done good work toward oceanic algae production with its Marine Permaculture program, but the whole topic suffers from fragmented incoherence of vision and unjust barriers to entry.
Great piece!