• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

World’s first “negative emissions” plant has begun operation—turning CO2 into stone

In hushed tones, climate scientists are already talking about a technology that could pull us back from the brink.

It’s called direct-air capture, and it consists of machines that work like a tree does, sucking carbon dioxide (CO2) out from the air, but on steroids—capturing thousands of times more carbon in the same amount of time, and, hopefully, ensuring we don’t suffer climate catastrophe.

Three companies—Switzerland’s Climeworks, Canada’s Carbon Engineering, and the US’s Global Thermostat—are building machines that, at reasonable costs, can capture CO2 directly from the air. (A fourth company, Kilimanjaro Energy, closed shop due to a lack of funding.)

Over the past year, I’ve been tracking the broader field of carbon capture and storage, which aims to capture emissions from sources such as power plants and chemical factories. Experts in the field look at these direct-air-capture entrepreneurs as the rebellious kids in the class. Instead of going after the low-hanging fruit, one expert told me, these companies are taking moonshots—and setting themselves up for failure.

Climeworks just proved the cynics wrong. On Oct. 11, at a geothermal power plant in Iceland, the startup inaugurated the first system that does direct air capture and verifiably achieves negative carbon emissions. Although it’s still at pilot scale—capturing only 50 metric tons CO2 from the air each year, about the same emitted by a single US household or 10 Indian households—it’s the first system to convert the emissions into stone, thus ensuring they don’t escape back into the atmosphere for the next millions of years.

More at the link.

Carbon capture me if old.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Even at $50 per metric ton of capturing emissions, if we have to capture as much as 10 billion metric tons by 2050, we are looking at spending $500 billion each year capturing carbon dioxide from the air. It seems outrageous, but it may not be if climate change's other damages are put in perspective—and that's what these startups are betting on.
God I hate it when they do this. $500 billion is pittance for this. The US could find 150 billion for a contribution by turning over our couch cushions
 

mlclmtckr

Banned
Fuck yes, build these everywhere, build giant crop-circle looking installations in the desert. Build shit that can be seen from space.
 

Guevara

Member
I kind of hate this because it just means we'll never learn to conserve and protect our planet, we'll just keep thinking technology will save us.
 
I kind of hate this because it just means we'll never learn to conserve and protect our planet, we'll just keep thinking technology will save us.

That's technology's role. You think we'd come as far as we already have without it?

But the price tag on this will only help guide to more and more green energy initiatives. It's a win-win.
 
I kind of hate this because it just means we'll never learn to conserve and protect our planet, we'll just keep thinking technology will save us.
We are going to needs these plants in order to stop the worse of Climate Change. Conserving and protecting our planet can only do so much.
 
Although it’s still at pilot scale—capturing only 50 metric tons CO2 from the air each year, about the same emitted by a single US household or 10 Indian households—it’s the first system to convert the emissions into stone, thus ensuring they don’t escape back into the atmosphere for the next millions of years.

bqUPglym.png


Jokes aside, this seems like a great idea. It'll take years, if not decades to get everyone on the same page regarding reducing emissions (and for countries who are already on board to hit their emissions targets) so at the very least this could help buy some time.
 

mlclmtckr

Banned
I kind of hate this because it just means we'll never learn to conserve and protect our planet, we'll just keep thinking technology will save us.

don't worry we will still have Peak Oil and a water crisis and desertification to look forward to
 

Blader

Member
I kind of hate this because it just means we'll never learn to conserve and protect our planet, we'll just keep thinking technology will save us.

Conservation methods help us keep from getting to the edge again, but we need tech like this to pull us back from the edge first.
 

Sesha

Member
I kind of hate this because it just means we'll never learn to conserve and protect our planet, we'll just keep thinking technology will save us.

We have way more problems than just CO2 emissions, so conservation is still necessary.
 

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
Knowing humanity we'll just dump the stones into the ocean and cause ourselves a who knew slew of issues.
 
I kind of hate this because it just means we'll never learn to conserve and protect our planet, we'll just keep thinking technology will save us.

This is a form of conservation. Why does it matter if a carbon filter is at the plant level or on a more macro scale?
 

Akuun

Looking for meaning in GAF
This is really cool technology if they can make it work at scale.

Where do we put all that stone though?
Sell it as coal to be burned back into the atmosphere.

Seriously though, I wonder what they can do with the stone. Maybe make bricks or gravel out of it or something.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
I kind of hate this because it just means we'll never learn to conserve and protect our planet, we'll just keep thinking technology will save us.

I mean, technology is going to save us. The question is how bad do we make it before tech saves us, and how much tech can compensate.

university-of-manchester.jpeg


By that projection we're still getting into midcentury at best before we hit negative emissions, so by 2100 we're still going to be facing greater challenges then we are now in regards to sea level rise, more unpredictable weather, greater heat stress across much of the globe, etc.

The only question I have is whether off-gassing of carbon is an issue long-term, and whether you can make that stone into something for actual use besides just filling in old mines or landfill. I'm guessing most capture tech is going to do what the plant does and just inject it underground.
 
I kind of hate this because it just means we'll never learn to conserve and protect our planet, we'll just keep thinking technology will save us.

This is conservation. It's basically recycling.
Why does it matter if technology is being used?
We should be developing more types of technology to help recycle materials.

This is really cool technology if they can make it work at scale.


Sell it as coal to be burned back into the atmosphere.

Seriously though, I wonder what they can do with the stone. Maybe make bricks or gravel out of it or something.
Gotta pay for it somehow. /s
 
So it looks like they’re not converting it to stone somehow, but rather storing it inside of basalt rock in the ground. So the “where to put it” problem isn’t a problem. We’re just putting it in all of the natural basalt deposits.
 
This tech sounds amazing. It’s such an ingenious means of tackling the problem

"Carbon dioxide is a very fine gas. These plants are a SCAM made up by DEMOCRATS who want to take your money!" #MAGA

/s
You joke, but that’s literally a right/denier argument against climate change. That plants need CO2 to live so having so much CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
I know people have been talking about carbon recapture for a long time. Is this the first feasible execution? It seems pretty early days and it's difficult for me to disentangle the marketing style boasts from the actual execution report.

Can someone walk me through how we solve the storage problem. The CO2 is captured into a water stream which is injected deep underground, which causes the rock in the underground to mineralize quickly. Okay. But does this change the structural stability of the ground we're injecting into? Does it affect soil quality? Does the volume of the rock increase? Will we eventually, in places where this is occurring at scale, have mountains of mineralized rock we need to store?
 
That's technology's role. You think we'd come as far as we already have without it?

But the price tag on this will only help guide to more and more green energy initiatives. It's a win-win.

Technology's role is to conserve resources by maximizing/optimizing the resources available. Its job isn't opposite conservation, it IS conservation.
 

Croatoan

They/Them A-10 Warthog
I kind of hate this because it just means we'll never learn to conserve and protect our planet, we'll just keep thinking technology will save us.

"FUCK We are saving the world the WRONG WAY!"

Absolutely ridiculous.
 

EGM1966

Member
I kind of hate this because it just means we'll never learn to conserve and protect our planet, we'll just keep thinking technology will save us.
The only answer long term is technology. The planet (and everything living on it) will be toast in the long run when Sun reaches end of its stellar life.

While of course the principle of conservation should be pushed this isn’t the right way to look at using science: we accomplish everything as a species with technology (be it a blunt object or an Airbus).
 
Top Bottom