mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Stoning Carbon
Can Climate Alchemy Save the Planet?

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) may be the climate tech pipe dream, and scientists just took CCS a big step forward by demonstrating a novel new way to sequester captured carbon. CCS works by taking carbon dioxide—a greenhouse gas—out of the atmosphere and somehow storing it, thereby severing the link between CO2 emissions and rising global surface temperatures. If we were able to cheaply deploy this on a commercial scale, we could puncture the rising panic over our planet’s changing climate with one technological fix. Unfortunately, CCS isn’t scaling well, and at the moment is too expensive to talk about it as a viable solution.

Besides cost and scaling, critics have also pointed to the shakiness of the second half of this two-step process: the sequestration. Up until now, most of the focus has been on storing captured CO2 underground, but that option raises worries over potential leaks. Now, as the New York Times reports, a group of scientists in Iceland has discovered that when CO2 is injected in solution into basalt rock, it mineralizes, or turns to stone:

In 2012, they pumped about 250 tons of carbon dioxide, mixed with water, about 1,500 feet down into porous basalt. The CO2 was laced with a radioactive isotope and there were other compounds in the water that helped the researchers trace its spread into the rock. […]

The scientists found that about 95 percent of the carbon dioxide was converted into calcite. And even more important, they wrote, the conversion happened relatively quickly — in less than two years. “It’s beyond all our expectations,” said Edda Aradottir, who manages the project for the utility, Reykjavik Energy. Rapid conversion of the CO2 means that a project would probably have to be monitored for a far shorter time than a more conventional sequestration site.

Now, the caveats. This was a relatively small-scale test conducted in a basalt-rich region of the world. Scaling this sequestration option up to global levels would require a lot of water (to dissolve the CO2 into) and a lot more favorable rock formations. Moreover, it’s expensive: the lead author of a study of this Medusa-like test released in the journal Nature this week said this sequestration method could cost twice as much as storing the greenhouse gas in old wells. We don’t need to tell you that doubling the cost of an already too-expensive process is moving in the wrong direction. Finally, this only addresses one half of the CCS conundrum—we would still need to develop ways to efficiently “harvest” CO2 from our planet’s atmosphere in massive quantities.

Still, this is exciting progress. Scientists have pointed out that the project is scalable if we look to our seabeds, where there’s plenty of water and basalt. Costs can come down over time as researchers and interested companies iterate and innovate new approaches to the problem. Climate change is a real and growing problem, but it isn’t one to which we need to resign ourselves. If there’s one thing our species does well, it’s solve problems, and that’s exactly what this Icelandic team has just demonstrated.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Fat_Man

    An utter waste of time and effort.

    • Angel Martin

      I hope it is only that resources are wasted. Fooling around with something on a macro level when all the interactions are not understood can have devastating results. Like monkeys in a nuclear power station control room.

      Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign

  • Blackbeard

    We already have some great tools to reduce GHG emissions (nuclear, hydro, and as a bridge fuel, natgas) and the Greens furiously oppose them all. If this works they’ll oppose it too.

    This is not about reducing emissions, the Greens have other, deeper, goals.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Plants have been starving for a couple of million years and the problem has been growing worse. The recent anthropomorphic increase in Carbon Dioxide from about 285 ppm to 400 ppm has increased plant growth by over 15%. Since plants are at the bottom of the food chain, this means 15% more life off all kinds, and a significantly greener Earth.

    • Jim__L

      Could you cite a link here?

  • Andrew Allison

    I stopped reading the quote at “carbon dioxide mixed with water”. How can a source be so unutterably ignorant, oops — it was the NYT from which we should expect no better.
    As to CSC, the Laws of Thermodynamics mandate that the sequestration needs external energy (as in sunlight upon plants). It also occurred to me that the additives might be acting as a catalyst, which would accelerate the reaction but not diminish the amount of energy required. We may, possibly, find a more carbon-efficient way of sequestering CO2 than photosythesis, but meanwhile, plant, Baby plant.

  • Jim__L

    If I recall correctly, the weathering of granite into kaolinite takes CO2 out of the atmosphere as well — one source I read presented this as one of the primary ways of doing so.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service