While searching through articles from Frontiers, I found the
article titled "An Overview of the Status and Challenges of CO2 Storage in
Minerals and Geological Formations"
We have heard a lot lately about the climate crisis and
ideas on how to prevent it. According to the Paris agreement, all countries
should reduce CO2 emissions so that in 2100 the world temperature would rise by
only 2°C, which is the most optimistic scenario. In the above article, the
authors describe the method of CO2 storage in minerals and geological
formations. Most of the carbon dioxide contained in the atmosphere must,
unfortunately, be constantly stored, only a part can be converted into e.g.
fuel. Carbon dioxide storage technology is constantly being studied on a
laboratory and experimental stage. "Globally, coal mineralization in these
rock types has a sequestration potential of up to 60,000,000 GtCO2 if the
resource is economically available and ultimately completely saturated with
carbon dioxide."
There are different methods of coal mineralization: (1)
ex-situ, where the source of alkalinity is transported to the CO2 capture site,
grounded to small particles and combined with CO2 in a high temperature and
pressure reaction vessel, (2) surficial where diluted or concentrated CO2
reacts with a source of alkalinity on the surface (e.g. mine tailings, smelter slag) and (3) in situ, where CO2 carrier fluids circulate in
subsurface porosity in geological formations.
Such CO2 storage methods are long-term and non-toxic, and
can also help mitigate health and environmental hazards in specific contexts.
In addition, because CO2 is converted to a stable carbonate form, it is the
safest storage mechanism in terms of minimizing leakage.
- What do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
- Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
- What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
1.What do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteI heard about storing CO2 underwater on the ocean bottom where the preassure is so big that CO2 will be there in solid state. I don't know if this project working, but the idea was similar to author approach.
It's hard to answer. I think that nowadays any idea is better than nothing, but I'm little confused about storing it. We have to remember that (only) storing cost will be huge (in article author said that more or less 5-30$ per tone)! If we calculate how many tons of CO2 we produce (everyone who is interested could check it yourself on http://ziemianarozdrozu.pl/kalkulator) every year then this cost is enormous.
Maybe better solution will be to plant tree everywhere? The cost will be lower and solution need only some free space in cities.
2.Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
I think that it is possible, but we need our state of mind. We consume too much, waste everything and don't think globally. Technology nowadays is good enought to build very punctual public transport. Moreover we have application which show us where the bus is and about what time he will arrive. Of course-bus isn't perfect solution but I think that public communication improvement is an only solution for big reduction of CO2 production.
3.What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
I think that nature could prevent climate change if only we will help. Technology should focus on alternatives source of energy. The rest is only balanced development. If we destroy one forest, we should plant a new one somewhere. The situation is dramatic solely because of us...
I agree that we brought the disaster on ourselves. Planting trees is one of the most sensible options to capture CO2 from the atmosphere. Unfortunately, I heard from someone that for planting to really help, we should reforest an area equal to two Americas! Switching to alternative energy sources is necessary, but large corporations find it unprofitable. It is sad to see that all world decisions are made from the perspective of money, not good for the environment and people.
Delete...and what's more ridiculous, the money are worthless if we poison the whole water...but only a small part of people care!
Delete1.What do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteHonestly I was struck by this idea, I believe that these are several steps forward in the fight against global warming and the cleansing of the planet. Unfortunately I do not know where else to store CO2. But I’m happy with the idea that this is all moving forward. But the kbolek comment prompted me that it really would be very expensive. I think that in order to combat emissions, we need to look for many different ways. but this one I would not rule out. In my opinion, if the state obliges enterprises to store CO 2 depending on their emissions, then enterprises themselves will look for opportunities to reduce their emissions, switch to green energy, or simply pay for cleaning. I recently saw an article that developed a mechanism that replaces the work of trees, but to plant just trees in the city I think is a very good idea, since trees help withstand heat and make air cleaner
2.Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
I think it's possible. But most of the world is polluted by individual countries such as China and India. Of course, we can all transfer from cars to bicycles, stop eating beef, or stop using airplanes, but this will not help in comparing how much CO2 is produced in China or India. I think that it is necessary to impose sanctions on countries that emit a lot of carbon dioxide
3.What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
Alternative energy sources, financing of environmental projects, sanctions against countries that do not want to implement the climate agreement, even military intervention. I think the world spends too much on military craft and on social payments, instead of spending on the environment. I am against new taxes, but I do not see the point of spending so much on the military.
I have not heard of this mechanism replacing the work of trees. It sounds very interesting. As for China and India, I read in one article that the climate is really so bad not because of their rapidly growing markets, but it is the result of the industrial revolution. All pollution that is currently in the atmosphere is pollution produced over a hundred years by western countries. That is why I think that everyone should be equally responsible for environmental changes and jointly ensure that no country exceeds CO2 production standards. I agree with you that most of the money spent on the army should go to environmental protection.
Delete1. What do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteI've never heard of this idea before, but it seems very interesting. The first thing I thought about was the cost of such a project, as others have already mentioned, it would be an unimaginable cost. "In order to meet the 2°C target of the Paris agreement, 125 GtCO2 has to be removed from air and permanently stored by 2100. The cheapest storage methods with large capacity cost roughly $7–$30 per ton of CO2. Storage of a total of 125 Gt CO2 would result in a capital input of approximately 1–4 trillion dollars in total and 10–50 billion dollars per year until 2100." In that case, I think that we should continue to try to reduce emissions and not catch the gases that we have already produced.
2. Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
I very much hope that we can do this. Unfortunately, despite the fact that this subject is becoming more and more important among scientists, I think that many ordinary people are still not aware of the threat we are posing to our planet. In order to do this, each of us needs to change his or her habits and views in order to stop damaging the condition of our planet.
3. What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
I think we should focus on natural energy sources. Taking it from the sun will make it possible to eliminate the gases emitted by coal-fired power stations, which, unfortunately, are the largest source of energy in our country. I am also a supporter of building nuclear power plants, I recently watched a mini-series on the netflix "Inside Bill's Brain: Decoding Bill Gates" and there in the third episode is presented what current designs of power plants look like, which are resistant to all possible disasters.
I like the idea of investing in nuclear power plants. Many people after the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters are afraid of nuclear energy. However, I don't know a more efficient form of Energy production than this one. If it is possible to create power plants resistant to everything, we should invest in them. As for changing people's views about the environment, it will definitely be a long and tedious process. Few people realize how bad it really is and how our even small actions can help improve the global climate.
DeleteStoring CO2 in general seems like temporary measure. I'm not an expert or even gave it a deeper thought but wherever it will be stored the capacity of the storage will be limited and there is always a change of leakage. The massive leakage of CO2 sounds catastrophic.
ReplyDeleteProbably it won't be possible to limit the rise of temperature to 2°C. I'm not sure if there is any agreement in the scientific community to what extent human activities affect climate changes and what part of them is a natural process. But I'm also skeptical when it comes to limitation of CO2 emission. China or India are still developing economies and imposing any limitations in industrial sector there seems impossible.
Development of new energy sources should contribute to decreasing climate footprint (I'm not sure about preventing the climate change though). And probably the best solutions should be inspired by science fiction like fusion reactors or maybe mysterious crystals from other planets.
Pumping out CO2 to the outer space also seems appealing to me.
I am glad that you raised the topic of CO2 leakage. I agree that CO2 storage in any form is a finished process and there may always be some leakage. I also read that cutting down trees that naturally accumulate a lot of CO2 in themselves is disastrous because massive felling of trees releases unimaginable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Ideas straight from sci-fi sometimes seem the best and in our time it is not so difficult to implement them. I really like the idea of sending CO2 into space.
DeleteWhat do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteA similar method is used for other untreated waste (Yes CO2, we can call it waste). You can use incineration for this. Some types of charcoal produced by pyrolysis can also absorb carbon dioxide. Since this material is very stable and does not decompose for at least a century, it can be used to remove part of the CO2 from the atmosphere. Pyrolysis, where a wood (or other biomass) is converted into carbon, is a slow combustion in the presence of a small amount of oxygen. During this process, in addition to heat, combustible gases are released which can be used as further fuel. The resulting porous charcoal is an excellent adsorbent of chemicals, including carbon dioxide. The result is a fuel which, instead of emitting carbon dioxide, absorbs it. Charcoal would be used as a fertiliser to improve soil properties. In addition to absorbing CO2, charcoal in the soil absorbs calcium and magnesium, preventing them from being washed away. This would not be a new application, as the pre-Columbian Indians already did in the Amazon basin.
Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
I don't think the temperature's gonna change. Even the United Nations admits that even if all the countries in the world fulfilled their promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the global temperature will still rise by at least 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century. Donald Trump, when he withdrew from the Paris Accord in June 2017, said it was only for the benefit of other countries, not Paris. And yet without the participation of the USA and China with a global limit of every second, it is impossible to lower it. Additionally, Germany is only theoretically limiting its CO2 emissions. Because they practically make creative accounting out of it.
What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
The solution already exists and is nuclear technology. If all precautions are observed, it is perfectly safe. The only problem is nuclear waste. The solution is to send them into space. Flights into space are becoming cheaper and cheaper. I hope that eltoina and spacex will solve this problem one da
I have not heard of such a way of absorbing CO2 as pyrolysis. It has a lot of advantages and could be widely used. As I said before, I am also in favor of nuclear energy. Toxic waste is not that difficult to store. It’s just a matter of adequate protections. I also have doubts about the temperature rise by only 2 ° C. Companies and national governments see too much interest in the current form of the economy, primarily the coal economy, to change something.
Delete1. What do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteThe methods are cool. But I will try to traditionally incorporate a different view. I read recently that global warming is a fake. Don't you get the impression that it's such a filling of money? Because sometimes I have exactly such impressions. Don't they "Everyone" poke us colloquially saying "a bottle"?
2. Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
Of course! How I know life - and I got a few springs ;-) - some EU regulations will force us to do so. The chairman of the council ... I will not mention his name ... he will ratify the provisions that will enable us to do so. :-D
3. What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
We must take care of ourselves as people to prevent climate change. In "Little Bear in New York" - this's a fairy tale for children - it's perfectly shown how we want to take over the Arctic, which causes the world temperature to rise. Maybe you just have to go to your head and stop cutting down forests, melting glaciers and swimming with the Titanic, who wanted to destroy the iceberg - but luckily it must have failed - a joke.
I think, seriously, that we are the people who cause big changes in the climate. Of course, I dare to suppose that it will be reflected in our hiccups, I just hope that this hiccup is in a few years. It's a pity that our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will then state that not my grandfather, grandmother, great grandfather, etc. I would have a fantastic ocean to surf. And now the beach - a wild beach, but ....
Sometimes I also think that the label "ecological" etc. is a fake and people want to make money on it. Unfortunately, in our time people want and can earn on absolutely everything. Even animal or environmental protection organizations are a kind of corporation. Even if they do something good, a large part of the funds go not to save the world but to their payments. That is why I think that we should simply educate people that even small gestures can contribute to improving the global climate. Buying bamboo products, not plastic. Yogurt in a jar, not plastic etc.
Delete1. What do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteIt’s difficult to say something about this topic because I’m not a expert in this field. I think that every method that can help reduce CO2 is worth our attention. This methods mentioned in article are very interesting and we will see what researchers do next. Unfortunately I have never heard about other ways to store CO2 but I searched Internet and found this article
https://www.carbonbrief.org/world-can-safely-store-billions-tonnes-co2-underground
In the above article is about methods to store CO2 underground.
2. Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
I think it will be a hard task to meet the conditions. Today ones countries fight with CO2 and others do nothing. There are no cooperation between countries. We must believe that people will see before their eyes and realize that the good of our planet is more important than money. In Poland many people use old coal stove and produce CO2 to atmosphere. Why they do that? To answer this questions we have to understand the financial conditions of families. They don’t have money to buy a new eco friendly solutions. In winter when is cold they want have warm in home and use everything that in low cost produce heat. Another reason is that they don't know that they are poisoning themselves and others. All people in the world need to change their behawior and work together for better live on Earth.
3. What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
I think new technologies could help prevent climate changes. We need to use sources that are friendly to natural environment. A good idea is searching for alternative low cost fuel for our vehicles that not produce CO2. Maybe in the future we will used anti gravity vehicles. See link below:
https://www.tajemnice-swiata.pl/antygrawitacja/
I have heard about the methods of CO2 storage underground as well as the capture of CO2 from the atmosphere through a special type of pavement blocks. It is true that people from poorer regions, even in Poland, cannot afford to replace coal-fired furnaces with more ecological ones, but it seems to me less harmful than when someone in these furnaces smokes with plastic or tires, which happens quite often in my area. A poisonous black smoke trail from the chimneys of some single-family homes is the worst part of winter. The idea with anti-gravity vehicles seems very abstract, but such solutions are sometimes the best start to creating something really cool.
DeleteWhat do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteIt's an exciting idea. However, I'm not an expert in that field to say if that would be efficient. I once read a view of sending carbon dioxide into space (https://www.wired.com/2007/06/a-space-elevato/)
Do you think that with the current economy and human activities, we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
Maybe not, but is it not worth to take a shoot?
What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
I would say that the new, clean technology of battery production and energy storage could be a way to develop more of the electric vehicles at affordable prices.
Thanks for the interesting link. I also think you have to try. At least someday we'll tell our grandsons that we tried but failed. Now it's your turn.
Delete1. What do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteI've heard of plans of sequestring CO2 from the air directly into plastics or fuel, but all those are either energetically expensive or work only on small scale. We need to store tens of gigatons per year, just think about all this coal digged up, oil pumped out every day, endless trains full of coal and fuel tanks in the cars filled with gasoline - all of this needs to be caught back. The scale is enormous, geological, so to speak. I think that because of scale, CO2 storage in geological formations is the only sensible way. The potential capacity of storage in basalt cited by authors of article seems enormous.
2. Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
We have to remember why we are burning fossils: to retrieve energy. Free CO2 is in low-energy state, getting it back to other chemical compounds requires supplying energy. So we'd have to produce all energy we need for day-to-day operations, and then even more to capture CO2, all this without emitting additional CO2. That seems very hard, especially when being supervised by accountants whining about numbers.
3. What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
I think if we could capture CO2 into fuels and then release it back, without burning the fossils, that would be a thing. So solar farms could produce hydrocarbons, something like short-cut for photosynthesis. That would be a thing, we could sustain for a long time. Also re-forestration seems like cheap and scalable way to prevent change. And other ways, directly dealing with greenhousing: painting things white, spraying some albedo-increasing agents into upper atmosphere.
I agree that it is difficult to invent methods to help get rid of CO2 from the atmosphere while not generating more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The idea of taking CO2 from the air and storing it in fuel or plastic seems hard to do, considering that when we burn the fuel we would again release CO2 into the atmosphere.
DeleteWhat do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteIm am not an envinonmental specialist, but I think that controlling CO2 in atmosphere is becoming an important issue. Methods that help to reduce or utilize CO2 are surely worth to consider. As it was mentioned in previous comments the main weakness of this method might be its cost and temporariness, because the best long-term solution, in my opinion, is a reduction of CO2 emission.
Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
If we won't change our laws, habits and behaviour, for sure not. The changes needs to be started by govenments, but it seems that in many countries the authorities are not interested in massive law modifications. I hope that ecology will become the most important topis for all humans soon.
What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
All kind of solutions that help to reduce gas emissions, decrease fuel use, eliminate plastic and other materials that cannot be composted. The technology is one thing, but the most important is change in people's mentality.
A 'heated' topic...
ReplyDelete1. What do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
Probably too expensive. I don't know how much Calcuim and Magnesium can we actually spare to fight CO2, but I can imagine there's too much to be 'carbonated'. And the chemical compounds don't come from nowhere.
2. Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
I think we should look for solutions which best serve the interest of humanity, not strive to meet some hypocritical political agreement. We may not be able to precisely predict, if hitting these targets is enough, or if missing really spells doom for our little species.
3. What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
Developing controlled energy-positive nuclear fusion. We could also get cheap, safe Helium for fusion-powered airships, to replace trains, trucks and cargo ships.
1. What do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteIt is a first time when I hear about storing CO2 in mineral and geological formations. I have not been interested in it before. The topic seems to be trendy nowadays because of climate warming and growing problems with our environment. I am not an expert but I suppose that every activity which helps to protect the environment is good approach as you wrote “CO2 is converted to a stable carbonate form, it is the safest storage mechanism in terms of minimizing leakage”. I surfed in the Internet and I found three main ways of storing CO2. They are: in deep geological formations, in deep ocean water and in the form of mineral carbonates. I think I found very interesting short video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C83LCN2G2r0.
2. Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
In my opinion it is possible to limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100. Nowadays, most of international organization and governments most of countries in the world try to reduce proceedings of warming climate but as I wrote not all of countries but most of them. I think, the problem is that such a big country like a India or China produce a lot of wastes, smog and other substances which pollute the environment and they have high impact on the global warming process. To my mind, people should be well educated about the consequences of global warming and the ways of preventing it.
3.What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
As I wrote above, I think that the most necessary is to educate people regarding the climate change and the ways of its prevention. The appliance of technology is essential part of good prevention of global warming nowadays as well. I think that the artificial intelligence will help a lot in process of protecting our environment. When I thought on the answer for your question, I tried to imagine which technology can be applied in the life common people.
We can use renewable energy - power from wind or solar stations. Housing heating and cooling are among the biggest uses of energy so we can make our space more energy efficient by smarter energy management and ensuring adequate insulation of housing. Use of LED lightbulbs reduces energy consumption up to 80 percent compared to conventional incandescents. We can use gas-smart cars, such as hybrids and fully electric vehicles, save fuel and money.
1. What do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that we produce huge amounts of CO2, contributing, inter alia, to the increase of the greenhouse effect. Apparently, already in 2012, the Polish energy company PGE implemented the underground carbon management technology called CCS. Unfortunately, as with any other method, there are some fears of carbon dioxide getting out of the rocks.
2. Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
I believe that this is a possibility, but let's not forget that the vast majority of the economy of our country is based on energy obtained from burning coal. It would be worth investing in modern, less invasive technologies. Develop renewable energy sources. Increase the greening area.
3. What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
First of all, we should start from ourselves. Expand knowledge of ecological education. Try to limit the use of agents containing freons. Do not burn rubbish in domestic central heating furnaces. Take care of land reclamation.
1. What do you think about the methods of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations mentioned by the authors? Maybe you've heard about other ways to store CO2?
ReplyDeleteCO2 storage ideas seem very expensive. It would be worth investing in energy generation technologies that do not produce CO2 - atom, hydrogen, sun, renewable energy sources.
Another option is to use plants that absorb CO2 and can be used in construction. An example would be hemp from which you can build houses.
I once read that a ton of industrial hemp contains 0.445 tons of carbon absorbed from the atmosphere (44.46% of the dry weight of the stem). According to the IPCC, every 12 tons of carbon in biomass is 44 tons of CO2 absorbed. It follows that a ton of collected cannabis trunk corresponds to 1.63 tons of carbon dioxide absorption. With average yields 5.5 to 8 t / ha, it is 8.9 to 13.4 tons of CO2 absorption.
2. Do you think that with the current economy and human activities we have a chance to meet the conditions of the Paris Agreement and limit the rise in world temperature to only 2°C until 2100?
There are many factors to consider when studying climate change.
We do not know 100 percent what the temperature will be in a hundred years or what is the importance of carbon dioxide produced by man. The scientific community is not unanimous on this topic.
3. What do you think technological solutions (even abstract at the moment) could help prevent climate change?
I agree with Andrzej - at the moment energy from the atom seems to be the most reasonable and easiest way to reduce carbon dioxide production.