Technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

The Virgin Earth Challenge is a prize of $25m for whoever can demonstrate to the judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate.

Among the 11 shortlisted organizations are:

• biochar (Biochar Solutions, Black Carbon and Full Circle Biochar)
• carbon capture, particularly from ambient air (Carbon Engineering, Kilimanjaro Energy and Climeworks)
• enhanced weathering (Smart Stones)

Above three technologies (biochar, carbon air capture and enhanced weathering) have great potential to help out with carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere. To combat global warming, further technologies should be considered, such as in Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Arctic Methane Management (AMM).

How effective each technology is in one area is an important consideration; importantly, each such technologies can also have effects in further areas.

Further areas

Global warming is only one out of multiple areas where action is required; an example of another area is the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica; effective action has already been taken in this area, but the growing hole in the ozone layer over the Arctic shows that further action is necessary.

A safe operating space for humanity is a landmark 2009 study that identifies nine essential areas where sustainability is stressed to the limits, in three cases beyond its limits.

The inner green shading represents the proposed safe operating space for nine planetary systems. The red wedges represent an estimate of the current position for each variable. The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already been exceeded. From: A safe operating space for humanity, Rockström et al, 2009.

Areas and applicable technologies

The table below shows these nine areas on the left, while technologies that could be helpful in the respective area feature on the right.

As said, each of technologies may be able to help out in multiple areas. As an example, by reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, biochar and carbon air capture can also indirectly reduce carbon dioxide in oceans and thus help out with ocean acidification. Enhanced weathering could additionally reduce carbon dioxide in the oceans directly, thus presenting itself even more prominently as a proposal to achieve sustainability in this area.

Similarly, algae bags located in the mouth of a river could help out in multiple areas. They could produce biofuel and thus help reduce aviation emissions, while in the process catching fertilizer runoff, thus reducing emissions of nitrous oxide (the largest ozone-depleting substance emitted through human activities in a 2009 NOAA study) and also reducing depletion of oxygen in oceans.

Implementing the most effective policies

Policy support for such technologies is imperative. Just like some technologies can help out in several areas, some policies can cover multiple areas. As an example, a policy facilitating a shift to cleaner energy can both reduce greenhouse gases and aerosols such as soot and sulfur. Sulfur reflects sunlight back into space, so reducing sulfur emissions results in more global warming, but conversely global warming can be reduced by releasing sulfur over water at higher latitudes.

How many different policies would be needed to support such technologies? What are the best policy instruments to use?

Traditionally, government-funded subsidies and standards have been used to contain pollution, sometimes complemented with levies and refundable deposits; this can also work for chemical pollution. Standards have also proven to be effective in reducing the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer, while - as said - policies could at the same time also be effective in other areas, in this case reducing the impact of CFCs as greenhouse gases.

However, standards don't raise funding for support of such technologies, while taxpayer-funded subsidies make everyone pay for the pollution caused by some. Hybrid methods such as cap-and-trade and offsets are prone to corruption and fraud, which compromises their effectiveness. Local feebates are most effective in facilitating the necessary shifts in many areas.

Two sets of feebates

To facilitate the necessary shift away from fuel toward clean energy, local feebates are most effective. Fees on cargo and flights could fund carbon air capture, while fees on fuel could fund rebates on electricity produced in clean and safe ways. Fees could also be imposed on the engines, ovens, kilns, furnaces and stoves where fuel is burned, to fund rebates on clean alternatives, such as EV batteries and motors, solar cookers and electric appliances. Such feebates are pictured as yellow lines in the top half of the image below.

Support for biochar and olivine sand could be implemented through a second set of feebates, as pictured in the bottom half of the image below. Revenues from these feebates could also be used to support further technologies, as described in the paragraph below.

Further technologies should be considered for their effectiveness in specific areas, including:

• release of oxygen to help combat methane in the Arctic and to help combat loss of stratospheric ozone
• use of plastic sheets to capture methane
• use of radio waves to enhance methane decomposition
• diversion of water from rivers to avoid warm water flowing into the Arctic Ocean
• release of aerosols over water at higher latitudes
• surface & cloud brightening to reflect more sunlight back into space

Further reading:

Feebates
Biomass
Carbon Air Capture and Algae Bags
Enhanced weathering
Oxygenating the Arctic
Ozone hole recovery
Enhanced methane decomposition
Desalination
Vortex towers could vegetate deserts
Carbon-negative building
LEDs: When will we see the light?
Thermal expansion of the Earth's crust necessitates geo-engineering
Towards a Sustainable Economy
The way back to 280 ppm

From the start of 2012, the European Union (EU) wants airplanes entering or leaving its airports to join the EU ETS. Years ago, the European Council decided that including aviation in the EU ETS was the best way to reduce the climate impact of aviation, and the European Commission insists that bringing aviation into the EU ETS was the most cost-efficient and environmentally effective option to control aviation emissions.

On November 2, 2011, a majority of countries in the U.N. International Civil Aviation Organization adopted a declaration describing the EU directive as inconsistent with applicable international law and urging the EU to refrain from including flights by non-EU carriers in the EU emissions trading system.

Late last month, EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard told a conference in Brussels in advance of the UN Climate Change conference in Durban, South Africa, later this month, that “innovative schemes” were the way forward. The EU wants to get shipping and aviation “involved in the UNFCCC”, she said, adding that these two sectors, plus the carbon market, were key to future climate funding.

Stefan Agne, from the European Commission's Climate Action directorate, said the EU would prefer a global scheme to tackle emissions from the shipping sector, but noted that it was “necessary for the EU to take the first steps to make things happen”. He insisted that any unilateral action was “not meant to be the end result of the debate, but to trigger the process in other countries”.

Do you have any suggestions as to how to break this deadlock?

Kyushu University in Japan has developed a wind lens for wind turbines.

When placed around a wind turbine, it can significantly increase output, by 2 to 5 times.

It can also improve safety and reduce acoustic noise and Doppler radar interference.

The Wind Lens creates strong vortices and produces low pressure region behind the turbine, increasing pressure difference that helps the wind flow into the Wind Lens.

Two mid-size (100 kW with wind speed 12m/s) wind-lens turbines have been built at Ito campus of Kyushu University (image right).

The University Team wants to build an 500 MW off-shore sea-floating wind farm with an output of 500 MW, equivalent to a nuclear power plant.

Hexagonal bases will be used, making it easier to link together and enlarge the bases. The interior space can also be used as a fishing ground.

Related posts by Sam Carana
More Wind Power
Clean Energy Standard?
Superb Grid

Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan earlier this year, the Japanese government is turning to renewables to supply its energy needs. The government has passed a bill, which will subsidize solar energy, with a target of producing 28 gigawatts (GW) by 2020. A nuclear facility produces about 1 GW annually. At the end of last year, the Japanese produced about 3.68 GW from solar.

The subsidies are costly. Commercial consumers presently pay just under 14 yen per kilowatt hour (kWh), and the price will jump to about 20 yen for renewable energy - somewhat higher for solar, due to a feed-in tariff. All-in-all, the average Japanese household can be expected to pay an additional 180 yen per month for renewable energy (about $9.36).

The subsidies are scheduled for the next 15 years. The cost of the renewable energy subsidies may seem high, but try and keep in mind the cost of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. In reaching this decision, the Japanese are charting a similar course as Germany, and other European nations, following Fukushima.

For more information:

Japan Spurs Solar, Wind Energy With Subsidies for Renewables

One of the criticisms you almost invariably hear, when discussing electric vehicles (EVs) is that there will be no net difference in carbon emissions, if large numbers of drivers switch from gas cars to EVs. Critics charge that carbon emissions will simply be released by coal power plants instead of tailpipes.

The coal emissions critique of EVs is fallacious on several counts, but here I will focus on one reason why gas cars and EVs will not be equivalent in carbon emissions: those interested in buying EVs are also likely to be interested in solar energy to power them. Manufacturers of EVs are already aware of this, and as a result, you see the electric car makers teaming with solar companies to create solar systems designed for electric cars.

Ford is teaming up with SunPower to offer a solar energy charging station, which will provied enough charge to power the EV for about 1,000 miles annually.

General Motors has partnered with Envision Solar to provide solar charging stations for the new Chevy Volt.

It should also be noted that retailers, such as Walgreens and Wal-Mart, are making plans to install electric charging stations in their parking lots. Think of Wal-Mart and Walgreens as the new Exxon and BP (minus the pollution).

Ford, SunPower Want to Plug Homes, Electric Cars into Solar Energy

Solar EV charging for the Chevy Volt

Walgreens Expects to Become Nation’s Largest Retail Host of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

Going greener: Wal-Mart plans new solar power initiative

Dear Friends,

President Barack Obama will decide as early as September whether to light a fuse to the largest carbon bomb in North America. That bomb is the massive tar sands field in Canada’s Alberta province. And the fuse is the 1,700-mile long Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport this dirtiest of petroleum fuels all the way to Texas refineries.

I am writing you now because the Keystone XL Pipeline is a climate and pollution horror beyond description. From August 20th to September 3rd, thousands of Americans – including Bill McKibben, Danny Glover, NASA’s Dr. James Hansen and many other scientists and signatories – will be at the White House, day after day, demanding Obama reject this tar sands nightmare. Given the high stakes, many protestors will engage in peaceful civil disobedience, day after day to make their voices heard. Already the attention this event is getting will likely make it the biggest act of civil disobedience in the climate movement’s history.

If you cannot be there, pass this or a similar message on to friends. This action will be going on for two weeks, but to participate, you should plan to be in DC for three consecutive days between Aug. 20 and Sept. 3 that you can make it to DC, and let the world know just what you think of the tar sands. Click here to sign up: http://www.tarsandsaction.org/sign-up/

If built, the Keystone XL Pipeline would lock America into a future of planet-warming energy dependency. Indeed, Dr. Hansen – America’s top climate scientist – has said that full exploitation of Canada’s tar sands would be “game over” for efforts to solve climate change.

President Obama alone – without input from Congress – has the power to approve or reject the Keystone XL Pipeline. He will decide as soon as September whether to honor his campaign pledge to create a clean-energy economy, or to lock us in as a nation that cooks and distills filthy tar sands for much of our energy. Building this pipeline will be an economic and moral setback for clean-energy sources of all types. This is a line in the sand. The tar sands!

Let me know if you have any questions, thoughts or concerns – I hope you’ll join. This is just too important to stay home.

Cheers,
Sam Carana

Concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 394.97 ppm at Mauna Loa in May — 41% above the 280ppm it had been for thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution started.

Given the dangers of global warming, carbon dioxide needs to get back to 280ppm. Emission cuts alone will not be able to accomplish this, so what more can be done?

Large drops in carbon dioxide have taken place in history, and are attributed to weathering, i.e. rocks breaking down and carbonates being deposited on ocean floors. However, it takes nature many, many years to do this. To make this happen at accelerated rates, carbon dioxide removal methods can be deployed that are typically referred to as mineral carbonation and accelerated weathering.

At first glance, one may suggest implementation of policies such as cap-and-trade or cap and capture to make those who put carbon into the atmosphere pay for its removal. More effective, though, is a combination of two types of feebates, working separately, yet complimentary, to get emissions cut 80% by 2020 and carbon dioxide on the way back to 280ppm.

Many carbon dioxide removal methods are energy-intensive. As long as the energy used is expensive and polluting, not much can be achieved. A rapid shift to clean energy is necessary, which is best facilitated through energy feebates as described in my previous post.

As the number of solar and wind facilities grows, large amounts of clean electricity will become available at off-peak hours, when there's little demand for electricity. This will make such electricity cheap, bringing down the cost of methods such as accelerated weathering, which can take place at off-peak hours. Such energy will also make carbon dioxide removal more effective, since the energy is clean to start with.

Energy feebates can best clean up energy, while other feebates can best raise revenue for carbon dioxide removal. Energy feebates can phase themselves out, completing the necessary shift to clean energy within a decade. Carbon dioxide removal will need to continue for much longer, so funding will need to be raised from other sources, such as sales of livestock products, nitrogen fertilizers and cement.

A range of methods to remove carbon dioxide would be eligible for funding. To be eligible for rebates, methods merely need to be safe and remove carbon dioxide. Methods could remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and/or from the oceans.

Rebates favor methods that also have commercial viability. In case of accelerated weathering, this will favor production of building materials, road pavement, etc. Such methods could include water desalination and pumping of water into deserts, in efforts to achieve more vegetation growth. Selling a forest where once was a desert could similarly attract rebates.

Some methods will be immediately viable, such as afforestation and biochar burial. It may take some time for methods such as accelerated weathering to become economically viable, but when they do, they can take over where afforestation has exhausted its potential to get carbon dioxide back to 280ppm.

On 12 July 2011 the U.K. Government published ‘Planning our electric future: a White Paper for secure, affordable and low-carbon electricity’. Plans to reform energy policy are under debate around the world, e.g. Australia is planning to introduce a carbon tax that doesn't include transport fuels.

Many such policies focus on power plants, at the risk of overlooking the potential for batteries to be charged at off-peak hours and then to feed their surplus power back into the grid when needed most. As you may know, I advocate a comprehensive policy that includes feebates such as fees on fossil fuel and polluting facilities, funding rebates on local transport electrification and clean energy programs.

The image below shows how several fees and rebates can be combined to provide the best local mix of incentives and disincentives, to minimize leakage that would occur with policies that provide either incentives only, or disincentives only, or that focus only on energy, respectively only on facilities and infrastructure that use or produce energy.

Moreover, such feebates can be implemented on a budget-neutral basis, allowing them to be implemented with minimal changes to existing taxes and support programs.

Related posts by Sam Carana:
Feebates - A framework of feebates - key to a sustainable economy
Vehicle to Grid (V2G) - Electric vehicles to power the grid
Vehicle to Home (V2H) - Electric cars to power homes

Toyota has announced that 14 smart houses in Toyota City, Japan, will be included in V2H (vehicle to home) tests.

The houses will charge the batteries of PHVs (plug-in hybrid vehicles) and EVs (electric vehicles) from household electricity, while they will also draw electricity from the motor vehicle batteries to the home (V2H) when needed.

Toyota is not the only one working on this technology. Yomiuri reports that, in the wake of the tsunami, Mitsubishi provided about 80 electric cars to help out in devastated areas that lacked access to fuel. In response to a survey conducted by the company, many respondents said they wanted "to cook rice."

Mitsubishi has now announced that, by end 2011, it will provide a device to enable the i-MiEV to power home electric appliances to cook rice and boil water. It can also power lights, a heater, a fridge or a washing machines at 100V, although not all at the same time, since a maximum is set at 1,500 watt. 

The i-MiEV's total battery capacity could provide as much power as what an average Japanese home consumes over 1 to 1.5 days. The inverter will enable the i-MiEV to supply power in case of emergencies and will also come in handy when taking the i-MiEV on a camping trip.

Related posts by Sam Carana:
Toyota to launch electric car
The Mitsubishi i MiEV Electric Minivan
What will power your next car?
V2G - Vehicle to Grid
Let electric vehicles power homes!

The following statement was issued by Sierra Club on July 7, 2011. The EV support statement was signed by over 180 organizations. Support (or personalize) President Obama's pledge to get one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We, the undersigned businesses, municipalities, and public interest groups from across the nation, support a strong national electric vehicle advancement program that will increase American jobs, decrease pollution, and reduce our dependence on oil.

Oil Independence

Gasoline prices are unstable and rising. Electric vehicles enable drivers to fill up on stable, domestic electricity at a cost equivalent to approximately 75 cents per gallon. Our nation sends up to a third of a trillion dollars overseas each year to purchase foreign oil, often produced by countries that are unstable or unfriendly to American interests. Foreign oil purchases are also responsible for about 50% of the US trade deficit. As Americans struggle to cope with rising and volatile gasoline prices, vehicle innovation provides real options. Greater independence from oil means an economically stronger and more secure America.

Job Growth

Strong public and private investment in US electric vehicle, component, and battery manufacturing as well as in EV-related infrastructure has been successful in jumpstarting job growth and transforming the US competitive position in the global advanced battery industry. More than 20 different electric drive vehicles will be on the market within the next three years from virtually every major and several new car manufacturers – with electric vehicles and components being built in at least 20 states. Because battery and electric drive technology is also essential to traditional hybrid cars and trucks, advances made for EVs drive forward the whole advanced vehicle industry. Additionally, people are finding new jobs and creating and expanding businesses that install charging stations and new infrastructure that connect vehicles to the electric grid.

Environmental and Public Health Protection

Today, the transportation sector is a significant cause of both global warming pollution and local smog and asthma related pollutants, and car and truck innovation is critical to pollution reduction. Electric vehicles have little or no tailpipe pollution, and when compared to nearly all conventional vehicles on the road today, they are responsible for lower overall emissions of CO2 and many harmful pollutants, even when power plant emissions are factored in. Where utilities provide or individuals choose cleaner power options, EVs can be much cleaner immediately, and with responsible policies and technologies to increasingly clean up our electric sector, all EVs become cleaner over time – ultimately becoming true zero emissions vehicles. EVs provide an important opportunity to address local air quality and climate change.

Across the nation –independently and through federal initiatives—municipalities, businesses, and public interest organizations are already committing local resources to capture these benefits in our communities. But working individually, none of our communities can adopt these technologies on the scale necessary to drive the innovation and cost reductions necessary to make the US a leader in this emerging field. We need a robust national program, in conjunction with local and state programs, that will:

1. Expand national, regional, and local efforts that help attract greater concentrations of electric vehicles in communities across the country. The program should balance assistance to communities ready to test new EV regulatory and business models with nationwide support for cities and states that take serious steps to prepare for EV deployment, including appropriate utility planning and policy.

2. Remove unnecessary bureaucratic and market obstacles to vehicle electrification nationwide through a variety of policies that: bolster nationwide installation of and access to basic charging infrastructure, both at people’s homes and in public places; incentivize the purchase of electric vehicles and EV charging equipment and streamline the permitting application process for EV charging equipment; educate the public about the benefits of EVs and the costs, opportunities, and logistical considerations involved with EV charging infrastructure; ensure appropriate training for workers installing EV charging equipment and for first responders; encourage utilities to provide attractive rates and programs for EV owners and increase off-peak charging; assist in deployment of clean energy, efficiency, and energy management technologies jointly with vehicle charging; and accelerate advanced battery cost reduction by boosting EV use in fleets, in second use, and in stationary applications.

3. Ensure US leadership in manufacturing of electric drive vehicles, batteries and components. Extend support for innovation, commercialization, and manufacture of advanced light and heavy duty electric vehicles and components. Enhance research and development as well as loans and other incentives that leverage and attract private investment in technology development and advanced manufacturing in this sector.

It is critical to act now to capture the energy security, emissions reduction, jobs, and economic leadership benefits of electric vehicles.