There is another form of in situ mineralization method that you missed. Mineral accretion through electrolysis. This is currently used to repair damaged coral reefs or to create new ones. Each site can store hundreds of tones of co2 in the form of calcium and magnesium carbonate. It can be done at a negative cost, as the areas where it is done become marine nurseries that help reverse diminishing fish stocks. These improved fish stocks can then be carefully managed to create a sustainable fishing industry. Having a sustainable fishing industry, helps reduce the need for an ever increasing growth in the production of land based meat. Again, in turn helping the environment.
Enhanced weathering is the way to go. Focus on pinelands and rice paddies and other acidic soils. Dump GT of ultra maffic rock powder. I was both a farmer and a petroleum geologist so I can say the following: (1) spreading stuff on fields costs $$$- better to do it large quantities on small areas that are acidic and leave it to break down over time and (2) insitu will not work. Basalt is a very low porosity facies. You can store very small quantities in fractures but they will quickly mineralize and then you are basically trying to frac an ultra tight rock. This will only work in very specific locations with fractured basalt. I reckon that if coal can be mined, shipped around the World, powdered and burned in boilers for $100/t than ultra maffic rock can be surface quarried and powdered for a similar cost. Permanently storing carbon through enhanced weathering for $150/t is the best solution there is. This is a geological problem it requires a geological solution.
@@handlethejandal maybe for agricultural lands you would prefer to use grantic source rock to reduce this risk. I think in pinelands of the American SE or deforested tropical soils prior to reforestation that would be less of a concern. The problem with ocean weathering is oceans are already basic. Lickens excrete formic acid to precipitate weathering of granite and it exponentially accelerates the breakdown of chemical bonds.
It sounds like reaching the target quantity of sequestered CO2 is going to require multiple industries and many groups all contributing together. So it's not a question of finding the one and only way to accomplish things. Every little bit that can be contributed is needed. I'm currently in development of a capture method. The trouble I'm having is scale. The process I'm part of could theoretically solve climate change, but might take a few trillion to do so. That would be fine with me, but I don't have a few trillion laying around. I might be wrong on the numbers, it might cost an order of magnitude less than that. If it does, then all the better. : )
@@StrengthInSpirit I generally support open-source sharing of information, but at this time I'm not ready to give it all away and it would need more of an explanation than I'm willing to spend time summarizing today. Sorry about that. If you have an email I can send you a little about it though.
The twin aspect of carbon sequestration in my view is called: ENERGY. If it ends up being that we have to reverse the chemical process being done for the last few centuries (C+O=CO2+energy), then we might need amounts of energy orders of magnitude above what we have today. That is what we sould be putting resources into right now: RESEARCH (instead of aberrations such as wars).
Making artificial limestone is good because it finds use as a building material & several agro compounds. This 2ndry product will help offset the cost of retrofitting gear for carbon capture.
Esse ativo mineral so sera regulado quando tiver 2 mercados na bolsa de valores e bancos . Para operar as emissoes conforme o andar da economia e da biosfera .
Regarding Geothermal in the last section, The price and locations have changed due to the ability to cheaply 'bore' through rock and especially near plants that use fossil fuel which will be used to provide the actual conversion of heat to electricity at a very low cost and its available 24/7 over the life time of the earth. Also, it can be set up in all parts of the world - major change, So actually there will be almost no need for fossil fuels, bios, etc, except to wheel out an old gas guzzling 4,5 or 6 litre for 'show' purposes from time to time :P
☝️ ocean liming is the only way that I foresee us making a dent. My understanding is that ocean liming is net negative so we can start it today without carbon CCS at the lime factory. Down the track we can improve the process with CCS and electrification of the process with low emissions generation. Also has the political benefit that willing and able countries can fund it and we don’t have to argue with developing countries about decarbonisation as urgently as we do at the moment. There is not much chat about this tech. Fe ocean seeding gets more airtime but looks like a non-starter due to the risk of algae blooms and subsequent anoxic oceans.
Each of our air-conditioners move tons of air everyday during the summer months, so I think we could fit them all with C02 filters and the CO2 could be taken with our trash each week. After the CO2 is picked up they can use whatever works best to permanently trap it.
Enhanced weathering of mining waste (containing calcium, magnesium and iron) is a no brainer. Especially when a lot of mining waste isn’t toxic. And of that which is… A lot what makes mining waste toxic (e.g Pb) is becoming valuable to extract, and besides Australia & Africa has plenty of very hot, very unpleasant deserts, where very little of value lives (far better to hamper the lives of scorpions than the entire planet). I think this carbon capture technology is just waiting, for the right kind of Carbon Credit investor.
This needs WAY more views
There is another form of in situ mineralization method that you missed. Mineral accretion through electrolysis. This is currently used to repair damaged coral reefs or to create new ones. Each site can store hundreds of tones of co2 in the form of calcium and magnesium carbonate. It can be done at a negative cost, as the areas where it is done become marine nurseries that help reverse diminishing fish stocks. These improved fish stocks can then be carefully managed to create a sustainable fishing industry. Having a sustainable fishing industry, helps reduce the need for an ever increasing growth in the production of land based meat. Again, in turn helping the environment.
Enhanced weathering is the way to go. Focus on pinelands and rice paddies and other acidic soils. Dump GT of ultra maffic rock powder. I was both a farmer and a petroleum geologist so I can say the following: (1) spreading stuff on fields costs $$$- better to do it large quantities on small areas that are acidic and leave it to break down over time and (2) insitu will not work. Basalt is a very low porosity facies. You can store very small quantities in fractures but they will quickly mineralize and then you are basically trying to frac an ultra tight rock. This will only work in very specific locations with fractured basalt. I reckon that if coal can be mined, shipped around the World, powdered and burned in boilers for $100/t than ultra maffic rock can be surface quarried and powdered for a similar cost. Permanently storing carbon through enhanced weathering for $150/t is the best solution there is. This is a geological problem it requires a geological solution.
How do you deal with the elevated Ni and Cr in ultramafics? I can see that being a sticking point
@@handlethejandal maybe for agricultural lands you would prefer to use grantic source rock to reduce this risk. I think in pinelands of the American SE or deforested tropical soils prior to reforestation that would be less of a concern. The problem with ocean weathering is oceans are already basic. Lickens excrete formic acid to precipitate weathering of granite and it exponentially accelerates the breakdown of chemical bonds.
It sounds like reaching the target quantity of sequestered CO2 is going to require multiple industries and many groups all contributing together.
So it's not a question of finding the one and only way to accomplish things. Every little bit that can be contributed is needed.
I'm currently in development of a capture method. The trouble I'm having is scale. The process I'm part of could theoretically solve climate change, but might take a few trillion to do so. That would be fine with me, but I don't have a few trillion laying around.
I might be wrong on the numbers, it might cost an order of magnitude less than that. If it does, then all the better. : )
HI! May I ask what could be your solution? I am also in the process of developing such a company to fight climate change. Greetings from Canada! :)
@@StrengthInSpirit I generally support open-source sharing of information, but at this time I'm not ready to give it all away and it would need more of an explanation than I'm willing to spend time summarizing today.
Sorry about that.
If you have an email I can send you a little about it though.
The twin aspect of carbon sequestration in my view is called: ENERGY. If it ends up being that we have to reverse the chemical process being done for the last few centuries (C+O=CO2+energy), then we might need amounts of energy orders of magnitude above what we have today. That is what we sould be putting resources into right now: RESEARCH (instead of aberrations such as wars).
Can it be introduced in the schools to the future generations?
so what should co2 be 200 ,400, what should it be
Nature isn't growing but the need for it is, they need to just let it grow up
Making artificial limestone is good because it finds use as a building material & several agro compounds. This 2ndry product will help offset the cost of retrofitting gear for carbon capture.
Esse ativo mineral so sera regulado quando tiver 2 mercados na bolsa de valores e bancos . Para operar as emissoes conforme o andar da economia e da biosfera .
Regarding Geothermal in the last section, The price and locations have changed due to the ability to cheaply 'bore' through rock and especially near plants that use fossil fuel which will be used to provide the actual conversion of heat to electricity at a very low cost and its available 24/7 over the life time of the earth. Also, it can be set up in all parts of the world - major change, So actually there will be almost no need for fossil fuels, bios, etc, except to wheel out an old gas guzzling 4,5 or 6 litre for 'show' purposes from time to time :P
great!
Rita Solari Inko-Tariah
Greetings from Nigeria
Reduction of carbon emission is still the way to go
Nice vid!
Problem is ... there is no climate emergency and we are in a CO2 famine ... th-cam.com/video/RLnQo8l-BHc/w-d-xo.html
Rita Solari Inko-Tariah from Nigeria
So maybe making the oceans less acidic so the ocean water can absorb more carbon from rain water 🤔
☝️ ocean liming is the only way that I foresee us making a dent. My understanding is that ocean liming is net negative so we can start it today without carbon CCS at the lime factory. Down the track we can improve the process with CCS and electrification of the process with low emissions generation.
Also has the political benefit that willing and able countries can fund it and we don’t have to argue with developing countries about decarbonisation as urgently as we do at the moment.
There is not much chat about this tech. Fe ocean seeding gets more airtime but looks like a non-starter due to the risk of algae blooms and subsequent anoxic oceans.
Definitely we need to solve economics first, to decarbonization of the planet
Each of our air-conditioners move tons of air everyday during the summer months, so I think we could fit them all with C02 filters and the CO2 could be taken with our trash each week.
After the CO2 is picked up they can use whatever works best to permanently trap it.
Enhanced weathering of mining waste (containing calcium, magnesium and iron) is a no brainer. Especially when a lot of mining waste isn’t toxic.
And of that which is…
A lot what makes mining waste toxic (e.g Pb) is becoming valuable to extract, and besides Australia & Africa has plenty of very hot, very unpleasant deserts, where very little of value lives (far better to hamper the lives of scorpions than the entire planet). I think this carbon capture technology is just waiting, for the right kind of Carbon Credit investor.
plant more crops, duh!
So you can eat the crops and return the carbon to the atmosphere via your lungs and b*tt? Permanent storage dude
That should really work. But the target to achieve is humongous I thing.
What's with the creepy, mysterious music? Is this witchcraft? I'm out.