Is there a possible way to scrub carbon from the atmosphere on a planetary scale?

[doubleminus]

Stop building over 600 new coal burning power plants

[Martin_Hyde]

@wolfpup

@Martin_Hyde

At the end of the day there’s virtually no man-made initiative we’re likely to scale up in our lifetimes that is going to move the needle anything as close to reducing carbon emissions from power generation, transportation, and heavy industry.

Only if you assume “our lifetimes” are very short, like we all have something terminal. The fact is that we’re already well on the way to electrifying automobiles. And here in Ontario we got rid of the last coal-fired plant years ago, and more than half our power is nuclear, and most of the rest is from renewable sources. Today.

Do you need to re-read my post that you’re quoting? I’ll repeat it in bold: there’s virtually no man-made initiative we’re likely to scale up in our lifetimes that is going to move the needle anything as close to reducing carbon emissions from power generation, transportation, and heavy industry.

Are you confused by what I said or are you confused as to whether coal-fired power plants and electric cars fall into the categories of “power generation” and “transportation” ?

[PastTense]

Yes, Martin, your language is confusing. I might have phrased it as “At the end of the day there’s virtually no other man-made initiative we’re likely to scale up in our lifetimes that is going to move the needle nearly as much as reducing carbon emissions from power generation, transportation, and heavy industry.”

[Martin_Hyde]

I would agree it was phrased a little awkwardly, but I don’t think it was phrased in a way that a logical first reading of it would derive the exact opposite of the written meaning, which appears to have happened with wolfpup.

[wolfpup]

Yes, I misinterpreted your post. My apologies. What I said was correct but obviously not a pertinent reply now that I understand what you meant. Some have been trying to advance the idea that both natural and engineered carbon capture and sequestration techniques may alleviate the need for serious mitigation, but I agree with you that this would barely move the needle compared to essential emissions reductions, as I said up in post #5. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Martin_Hyde]

All good–I think my phrasing was weird and would’ve been improved with quick proofreading on my part but was missed until it was too late. I just didn’t think it was so weird as to have the opposite of its intended meaning.

[Chronos]

To be honest, I kind of zoned out before the end of the long sentence. If you stop reading before the “as close to”, then it looks like you’re saying that there’s nothing we can do at all, rather than nothing we can do better than that.

[MrDibble]

@Do_Not_Taunt

The trick here is to mine something like olivine, grind it up into something like a sand to increase the surface area, and then distribute it widely to weather over years instead of millennia. A ton of olivine can ultimately draw down roughly a ton of CO2, so at ~40 GT of CO2 emissions annually, that’s a whole lot of hard-rock mining just to break even.

The real trick would be to already be mining that olivine and throwing it away, as happens in kimberlite diamond mines and some platinum and chromite mines like the Bushveld in South Africa or the Stillwater in the US.

[Ruken]

@MrDibble

@Do_Not_Taunt

A ton of olivine can ultimately draw down roughly a ton of CO2, so at ~40 GT of CO2 emissions annually, that’s a whole lot of hard-rock mining just to break even.

The real trick would be to already be mining that olivine and throwing it away

I’ve been told that emissions from energy for comminution of mafic rocks is a barrier here. But yes, coupling it with other viable processes helps the economics.