Why aren’t we spending more money on it?
David W. Keith, a physicist at the University of Calgary, reviews some of the technologies for air capture of carbon and notes that there is not a single government program devoted specifically to that purpose. Dr. Keith estimates that less than $3 million per year in public money is currently being spent on related research, even though it could potentially be a bargain. He writes:
[Early] estimates suggest that air capture will be competitive with technologies that are getting large R.&D. investments. For example, the cost of cutting CO2 emissions by displacing carbon-intensive electricity production with roof-mounted solar photovoltaic panels can easily exceed $500 per ton of CO2. Yet even skeptics suggest that a straightforward combination of existing process technologies could probably achieve air capture at lower cost. And the fact that several groups have raised private money for commercialization suggests that there are investors who believe that it is possible to develop technologies to capture CO2 from air at costs closer to $100 than $500 per ton of CO2.
When I wrote about Richard Branson’s $25 million prize for figuring out how to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, I wondered if governments and other entrepreneurs would follow his example (and if we would someday have nanobots gobbling up carbon dioxide). So far, I guess, the answer is no, but perhaps Dr. Keith’s article will stimulate some interest.
Don’t count on it. It doesn’t give them enough control over our lives, or force us to tighten our hair shirts sufficiently.
[Sunday evening update]
Things seem to have gotten a little off track in comments. Let me restate the question, to get more useful responses. Given that the people currently running the country think that atmospheric CO2 is a problem, and given that we are currently spending much money to address this (wind, solar, other non-nuclear “green” tech, etc.), why are we not spending a higher proportion on this? I contend that I have already described why. The collapse of the Soviet Union having (at least temporarily) given socialism a bad name, the socialists have taken over the environmental movement, and are using it as a Trojan Horse for their (non-environmental) collectivist agendas. I’m looking for alternate explanations from the usual defenders of the watermelons. I’m also looking for plausible ones, but I don’t expect to see them.
Touché!
Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
Bio-char allows the sequestration of carbon with less oxygen. Bio-char is also a superb soil enhancement.
From wikipedia:
Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. The resulting charcoal-like material is a form of carbon capture and storage.[1] Charcoal is a stable solid and rich in carbon content, and thus, can be used to lock carbon in the soil. Biochar is of increasing interest because of concerns about climate change caused by emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG). Carbon dioxide capture also ties up large amounts of oxygen and requires energy for injection whereas the biochar process breaks into the carbon dioxide cycle, thus releasing oxygen as did coal formation hundreds of millions of years ago. The atmosphere would be rebalanced more quickly this way.
Yes, we should be doing much more to sequester carbon.
Why aren’t we looking at H20 capture technologies, to scrub the largest greenhouse gas out of the air?
Won’t someone think of the children?
Atmospheric scrubbing will cause the value of my carbon credits to plummet. That ALONE is enough reason not to suport it.
http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com/
Why aren’t we looking at H20 capture technologies, to scrub the largest greenhouse gas out of the air?
Won’t someone think of the children?
I hope you realize how stupid you’re being there.
I find carbon capture technologies particularly silly – more CO2 greatly increases the bioproductivity and biodiversity of the planet. The planet has been naturally and irreversibly sequestering carbon for billions of years, and for the benefit of all life on this planet that needs to stop. Regulating global temperature via CO2 is also particularly expensive.
If we want to lower the sea level then deploy a number of ~kilometer diameter parachutes in the warm currents that erode the the glaciers, a one off investment of a couple of billion dollars will stop the estimated sea level rises.
The other thing I would favor would be to get desalinization a little cheaper then replant all the deserts. Use all the CO2 for good, turn Austraila, the Sahara and the American deserts into farmland and forest. This would take a lot of pressure off natural habitats.
And the oceans – a tenth the bioproductivity of land – what a waste of solar energy and bioproductivity. Fix that and the Earth could carry twice as many species.
Forget global warming per se, instead focus on bioproductivity, biodiversity and economics, and I suspect the problem of global warming will get subsumed.
I hope you realize how stupid you’re being there.
Check the batteries in your sarcasm meter.
> how to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
i think things known as “plants” do this.
Unless you do it with biochar, sequestering CO2 sequesters oxygen too. You really wanna do that?
I’m with Pete on the effects of CO2. There’s probably nothing we can do about sea level rise on a global scale. Just do civil engineering on long lived coastal infrastructure and when it reaches the end of its economic life move it somewhere else. I promise you’ll be able to out run the rising waters.
Rand asks: Why aren’t we spending more money on it?
One reason is that we have one major political party still arguing that atmospheric CO2 isn’t a problem. The sooner the GOP stops denying the existence of the problem, the sooner the argument can move on to being about the best way to address that problem.
I’d say give Waxman-Markey credits to companies that capture CO2, and if carbon capture is more cost effective the money will follow.
One reason is that we have one major political party still arguing that atmospheric CO2 isn’t a problem.
Nope.
That’s a mindless and partisan comment, but it’s not a legitimate reason.
There’s probably nothing we can do about sea level rise on a global scale.
Actually lowering sea level is one of the cheapest options – string a fishing net with fabric filling in all the squares between Greenland and Iceland stopping the currents that melt the polar area. Rough calculations suggest it might cost a few billion and lower sea levels by something like a meter or two a century. Maybe similarly dam the bearing strait too for a few hundred million (google Diomede dam). Ocean currents carry rather a lot of heat around the place, a very small effort can have a very huge effect.
Note have to actually stop the surrounding glaciers from melting, increasing the polar ice cap will not low sea levels directly – will change albedo and cool surrounding areas.
Why aren’t we spending more money? Because it’s easy to reduce carbon output. The cost of reducing carbon is bounded by the cost per kwh difference between coal and nuclear power plants. That’s in the $5-10/ton of coal range. By the way, to get from 6 billion tons of CO2 from the US to 5 billion tons (the 1990 output) is a reduction of about 1 ton of coal per person. 300M*44/12. With a phase-in period long enough to build a nuke, reducing greenhouse gas back to 1990 levels is a non problem.
“Why aren’t we spending more money on it?”.
Maybe because atmospheric CO2 isn’t really much of a problem? Given the lack of data, the expansion of the ice sheets, and the utter absence of rising sea levels anywhere (subsiding sand bars don’t count, they do that regardless), why spend money on a non-problem?
“Maybe because atmospheric CO2 isn’t really much of a problem? Given the lack of data, the expansion of the ice sheets, and the utter absence of rising sea levels anywhere (subsiding sand bars don’t count, they do that regardless), why spend money on a non-problem?”
We’ve got you pegged, Jason. You’re a . . . Republican . . . now, aren’t you?
“You’re a . . . Republican . . . now, aren’t you?”
Maybe he’s just smart.
given that we are currently spending much money to address this (wind, solar, other non-nuclear “green” tech, etc.), why are we not spending a higher proportion on this?
I would argue that very little of the “green” tech spending to date has been targeted at reducing CO2 emissions (instead it’s been for energy independence, economic development, global competitiveness, etc.). Waxman-Markey, if it passes, will be the first federal attempt to deal with greenhouse gases. And Waxman-Markey uses a carbon trading scheme precisely so the government does not have to pick winning technologies, but can let the market search for solutions.
It should also be noted that the solar, wind and biofuel industries have been around a while, and have lobbied the government for their technologies for decades. The CO2 scrubbing “industry” is a tiny newcomer by comparison. Expecting it to get as much federal money as the solar business would be like expecting Armadillo Aerospace to immediately get as much government money as Northrop-Grumman.
The alternative energy industry, in turn, is tiny next to the oil, coal, and gas companies. They have the biggest lobbies, and could make a big push for CO2 capture if they wanted to — and you’d think they’d want to shift the focus from reducing emissions (which translates to reducing demand for their products) to increasing CO2 capture. But the fossil fuel companies are still arguing that CO2 isn’t a problem, which puts them in a poor position to advocate for a particular CO2 abatement technology.
That’s a mindless and partisan comment, but it’s not a legitimate reason.
I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate”; the GOP stance on climate change is a reason why CO2 capture does not get federal money, whether in some ideal universe it should be a reason or shouldn’t be.
Federal spending does not just happen as soon as a company offers a new and improved technology for addressing a problem of national concern. The technology needs to be sold to sympathetic legislators. The GOP’s denial of anthropogenic climate change takes them out of the picture as possible backers for CO2 capture funding. That leaves Democrats who have been working with the “green” energy industry for decades. The Dems could well reason that after all this time they’re finally getting some resources to put towards alternative energy, so now isn’t the time to change direction and bet on a relative unknown. Solar and wind and biofuel aren’t perfect, but they’re established and fairly well understood. Unless the GOP changes tack and starts promoting it, CO2 capture companies will have to spend years lobbying the Dems, just as solar and wind and biofuel companies have.
Jim, the GOP is in the minority for the next year and three months. Try again.
Given…why…?
Students of the budgeting process might see the following: science, engineering, business and results don’t enter into the process except as rationalization–or if they do, often with the wrong sign. It’s folly to try to project good government motives. There’s a simpler answer which isn’t very satisfying. The scrubber lobbyists aren’t as good. New spending requires spending on lobbying, very good press and a grass roots campaign or an independently interested Congressperson.
Jim, the GOP is in the minority for the next year and three months.
They still can, and do, shape legislation, particularly with small-bore items like R&D funding for a particular technology. If they insisted that Waxman-Markey fund CO2 scrubbers, it would — if only so the Dems could claim a bit of bi-partisanship.
“I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate”; the GOP stance on climate change is a reason why CO2 capture does not get federal money, whether in some ideal universe it should be a reason or shouldn’t be. ”
Somehow I remember that Kyoto got voted down in the Senate by nearly a unanimous vote. Of course the whole body wasn’t full of Deniers — there was a sense of “China, you first” at work.
This blaming things on the GOP reminds me of this spin on some revealed Lyndon Johnson conversations about Vietnam. Johnson, it is alleged, knew Vietnam to be a tragedy from the beginning, only he was afraid of being impeached by hysteria ginned up by the Goldwaterites that he was “soft on Communism.” Yeah right, ol’ in-your-bad-breath-zone-twist-your-arm Lyndon Johnson was afraid of the Republican Right Wing.
Maybe the Dems are hesitating to pull the trigger on health care, cap-and-trade, card-check, etc because of the nagging “in your heart you know he’s right” feeling.
“They still can, and do, shape legislation, particularly with small-bore items like R&D funding for a particular technology.”
Let’s see, Hill and Obama had 200 million in earmarks? So if 3 mill is the current budget, that 200 mill would be a lot more without any interference from your dreaded GOP, wouldn’t it? Of course the industry would have to line some Dem pockets…oops.
I expect atmospheric CO2 capture research could get a better reception in Europe. It would be sold as an adjunct for a global CO2 emission control regime. If some country refuses to sign onto the treaty, or signs and overemits, the rest of the world could impose tarriffs that would fund CO2 capture to compensate for the rogue state’s excess emissions.
“…could impose tarriffs that would fund…”
Build the proposal around those words and they will be hooked.
Build the proposal around those words and they will be hooked.
Yes. But I feel dirty now.
The collapse of the Soviet Union having (at least temporarily) given socialism a bad name
Really? Delete “socialism” and insert “communism” perhaps, but most of the rest of the G20 governments are some variety of socialist, especially compared to the US one.
I’d be interested in hearing how Brown, Merkel and, even, Sarkozy aren’t actually socialist in their policies.