Talk:Carbon dioxide removal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 

Article introduction needlessly understates the potential[edit]

It currently says 'This technique can give 1.43 W/m-2 of globally-averaged negative forcing, which is almost sufficient to reverse the warming effect of current levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It is notable, however, that CO2 levels will have risen by the time this could be achieved.'

What the cited paper actually says (section 3.23):

'chemical air capture with storage, using e.g. sodium hydroxide and lime, could potentially generate whatever size of carbon sink societies were willing to pay for, as it is unlikely to be limited by available substrates or land surface area (Keith et al., 2006). Ultimately the amount of CO2 sequestered may be limited by the size of available geologic reservoirs, but their storage capacity is estimated to exceed available fossil fuel resources (IPCC, 2005; 10 House et al., 2006). In the long term, air capture and storage activity appears to have the potential to sequester >1000 PgC and cancel the total emissions from a strong mitigation scenario, i.e. RFfinal ≈ −1.43W/m−2, and more.'

So there's no need to say "air capture can produce amount X of negative forcing, which is almost enough to solve the problem, but by the time we could do this, we'd need to do more". Amount X (1.43 W/m-2) is just a number that Lenton and Vaughan (authors of the paper) came up with to set a specific criterion of strong mitigation. All they are saying is that air capture can meet this criterion they invented - indeed they clearly say it can exceed it, to the point that it should in principle be able to offset the burning of all known fossil fuels; the potential geological reservoirs for storage are that big. Mporter (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, but can probably be better. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Crystal Balling[edit]

There's a lot of crystal ball bullshit in this article. I think it's fair to say that it doesn't meet quality standards. 136.159.117.2 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Another method to separate carbon dioxide[edit]

To sequester carbon (CO2) from the atmosphere it needs to be separated. A few years ago workers at Los Alamos by accident found that they could separate gases with sound waves. They thought it was a new idea and they now have a US patent 6733569 for their method, which is said to consume too much energy to be useful for such things as removing co2 from the atmosphere.

However, in 1935 a Mr. C. W. Banton at the Daniel Guggenheim Airship Institute tested a LOW ENERGY acoustic method of gas separation, and it worked. If perfected it could likely be able to separate atmospheric CO2 at an economical cost. I will gladly send the scanned info (12 pages) to anyone who is interested. contact jesseblenn@gmail.com A good understanding of physics in needed, but it is a simple system.

If it can be made to work a perfect system would be to use wind power in high wind areas like the Tierra del Fuego to do it. The CO2 could be sequestered underground nearby if feasible or if not liquified and sent on gas ships to suitable locations, where it could first be passed through turbines where it would expand for energy generation (cooling the area, how about using to cool buildings in Arabia?) before being sequestered underground.

Here are some excerpts from the report: Daniel Guggenheim Airship Institute, C.W. Banton, 1935

Since the only work required to separate a mixture of non-reactive gases is very small and is only the work against entropy, it would be very desirable if some process could be devised by means of which gases could be separated by supplying only approximately this small amount of energy….The acoustic method of separation described below is an attempt to realice such a process.

When a good adjustment has been reached, the separation may be carried out continuously with dependable results, but the composition of the mixture, temperature, and pressure must remain constant.

A sample of producer gas (from wood chips) was handled with very good results in apparutus of the form described above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.237.156.34 (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Biochar as a CDR methodology?[edit]

This Wiki entry on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) nowhere mentions the word "biochar" - although Biochar is regularly (at least for the last year or so) listed as a CDR methodology.

I'd be glad to write something, but only if the editors agree it appropriate (or might be).

67.190.182.221 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Ronal Larson rongretlarson@comcast.net 303/526-9629; Golden Colorado

Added this and other technologies mentioned in the Royal Society report in my last edit. Nepomuk 3 (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Scrubbing towers[edit]

The discovery channel reported that the scrubbing tower uses fan blades similar to that of room ventilators. I think that this could be improved by using fan blades similar to those found in wind tunnels --> ie 8 foot/16 foot high speed wind tunnel/16 foot transonic wind tunnel. This would decrease power consumption even more. 91.182.16.165 (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Moody Sunburst.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Moody Sunburst.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

updating introduction for links, clarity[edit]

I've been going through the references. A number were broken. Haven't finished yet, but in several cases I was able to find the article that was referenced at a different URL.

After viewing the articles referenced in the introduction, I've also edited the first two paragraphs slightly to better fit with what the articles referenced. The second paragraph, starting "CDR is supported by" was too vague; what was "supported by" supposed to mean in this context? I tried to keep the changes purely editorial -- not substantive. There are substantive changes that I think should be made as well, but I won't do anything about those until I've described them here in talk and given others a chance to weigh in. Agnostic Engineer (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Crushing olivine[edit]

Crushing olivine hasn't been mentioned. Perhaps it's not that effective, but worthy of mentioning nonetheless. See

KVDP (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge to carbon sequestration?[edit]

Since there is a merger proposal but no discussion i create one. The main difference of carbon sequestration and carbon dioxide removal is that CS includes natural processes. Thus CDR should be merged into CS prokaryotes (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge into CS - there's not enough content to require two articles and CS is the more general topic. Jojalozzo 12:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)