Combining Policy and Technology

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 by Rockström et al. It identifies nine essential areas where sustainability is stressed to the limits, in three cases beyond its limits.

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.

1. Climate Change		CDR: biochar, carbon air capture, enhanced weathering, algae bags, EVs, renewable energy, clean cooking & heating, LEDs, etc. SRM: surface and cloud brightening, release of aerosols AMM: methane capture, oxygen release, river diversion, enhanced methane decomposition
2. Ocean acidification		enhanced weathering
3. Stratospheric ozone depletion		oxygen release
4. Nitrogen & Phosphorus Cycles		algae bags, biochar, enhanced weathering
5. Global freshwater use		desalination, biochar, enhanced weathering
6. Change in land use		desalination, biochar, enhanced weathering
7. Biodiversity loss		desalination, biochar, enhanced weathering
8. Atmospheric aerosol loading		biochar, EVs, renewable energy, clean cooking & heating, LEDs, etc.
9. Chemical pollution		recycling, waste management (separation)

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

Professor Schuiling proposes olivine rock grinding

Dutch Professor Olaf Schuiling has been working on rock grinding for many years. Remember the Virgin Earth Challenge, launched early 2007 with the promise to award $35 million to the best method to remove greenhouse gases? Schuiling said: Let's grind more rocks! Last thing Schuiling heard was that he was among the final ten contenders.

Schuiling's method is simple. Crush olivine rock to small pieces and it will bind with carbon dioxide. This process - called weathering - happens in nature but takes a long time. Crushing and grinding olivine rock will speed up the process and is therefore often called enhanced weathering. It works best in wet tropical countries, but can be done everywhere around the world.

Schuiling proposes to cover beaches, levees and railway tracks with the material, and proposes olivine to be added to building materials like pavement and concrete. It can also be added to soil and water. Adding olivine can fertilize the soil and improve its ability to retain water, and can work well in combination with biochar and other ways to increase organic carbon in the soil. When added to the sea, it can reduce acidification, and stimulate growth of diatoms and other forms of biomass in the sea.

This is a win-win solution, Schuiling says, as it helps grow more food, while combating global warming. To add another win, it can also produce drinking water that is healthier than rain water. Schuiling recommends cities to build olivine hills, to remove carbon dioxide from the air while filtering water.

There's is a video with more background, in Dutch with English subtitles. Also have a look at this poster.

Comments

What works best is implementation of feebates that put in place combinations of local financial incentives and disincentives, as illustrated by the image on the right.

Energy feebates, working in a parallel yet complimentary way, can clean up energy supply within a decade, while feebates as pictured above can continue to bring carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere back to 280 ppm, as well as bring down carbon dioxide levels in the oceans.

Rock grinding should be part of a comprehensive policy that also includes replacing fuel with renewable energy and support for biochar. The latter is also discussed in the posts Biochar and The Biochar Economy.

As the above diagrams try to show, biochar and olivine sand can be combined in soil supplements, to help bring carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere back to 280ppm. Rebates could be financed from fees on nitrogen fertilizers, livestock products and Portland cement.

Enhanced weathering is possible with other types of rock, but more easily done with olivine. The paper Olivine against climate change and ocean acidification includes the map below with the global distribution of dunite massifs. By removing their lateritic overburden, the underlying dunites (rocks that consists of > 90% olivine) can be mined. 

As the image on the right shows, there's no need for long distance transport. One dot often represents several dunites and olivine is available in abundance at many places across the globe.

The benefits are great and this looks like one of the most economic ways to bring down carbon dioxide levels. 

The energy can come from wind energy, which is clean, price-competitive and available in abundance in many places. Rock grinding, the transport and distribution can be largely automated, and take place predominantly at off-peak hours, while wind energy can be supplied very economically at off-peak hours.

Olivine sand can also be combined well with biochar, as soil supplement. Have a look at the post the Biochar Economy.

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

The Biochar Economy

The Biochar Economy offers a sustainable alternative to economic systems that fail to sufficiently take into account care for the environment and concerns for global warming.

Biochar is one of the products of pyrolysis, an oxygen-starved method of heating up biomass to (also) produce renewable energy.

The Australian Government plans to award carbon credits for the application of biochar to soil, for biochar's ability to abate greenhouse gases. As part of the Carbon Farming Initiative $AU2 million will be provided for a Biochar Capacity Building Program. This in addition to $AU1.4 million that is already being invested in the National Biochar Initiative as part of the Climate Change Research Program.

Carbon credits constitute just one way to support biochar. Ultimately, carbon credits are typically paid from profits on fossil fuel, which are scheduled to decrease over time. To develop more lasting support for biochar, alternatively policies should be considered.

The idea behind the "Biochar Economy" is to try to embed biochar production into as many processes as possible, as pictured on above image, from open source ecology.

In carbon-negative 'Biochar Economies', biochar is proposed to also act as a kind of local 'gold standard' for local currency supply. Biochar-based currency could strengthen local economies and shield them not only from the volatility of global currency fluctuations, but also from the danger of global warming causing the entire global financial system to collapse, as discussed back in 2007.

Biochar-based local currencies go well together with three types of local feebates: 

• Energy fees, imposed on polluting fuel and the equipment and appliances used to burn the fuel, to fund rebates on local clean energy programs.
• Fees on polluting cement, livestock products and nitrogen fertilizers, made payable in local currency, funding rebates on locally-produced biochar and olivine added to local soils.
• Local rates that incorporate feebates, i.e. higher fees the lower the soil's carbon content, with rebates for soils with the highest carbon content.

Since pyrolysis of surplus biomass can produce renewable energy, it can benefit from local energy feebates as pictured below. 

In addition, soil supplements that include biochar can benefit from feebates as pictured below. 

These policies will avoid emissions and effectively take greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. 

These policies will also create local employment and investment opportunities without having to borrow money elsewhere, and will increase local standards of living and health, as well as increase the quality and value of the land. 

All this can be achieved though mechanisms that work in parallel and are often complementary, e.g. pyrolysis of forest waste can stimulate forest growth, avoid termite infections and reduce the risk of wildfires; furthermore, when pyrolysis provides power that replaces the practice of burning firewood and fossil fuel to power lighting and cooking, this will also reduce the risk of lung infections.

To increase demand for the local currency, rebates on local clean energy programs and soil supplements could be paid out in local currency. Furthermore, a community can call for local rates and fees on products such as fuel, polluting cement, livestock products and nitrogen fertilizers to be paid in local currency.

Much crop is now used to grow feed for livestock ― less livestock could free up land that could be used to produce food & wood, and the associated organic waste. Furthermore, such feebates can avoid soil erosion and deforestation, and instead result in more vegetation, thus further increasing the amount of biomass available for pyrolysis.

Below are some further ways pyrolysis can be integrated in the local economy:

• Pyrolysis of biomass is an excellent way of handling organic waste, while producing useful products such as biochar, biooils and gases such as hydrogen. Biooil and hydrogen can be used to power aviation and shipping.  
• Bioasphalt^® is a type of asphalt made from bio-oil. According to its manufacturer, it can save energy and money, since it can be mixed and paved at lower temperatures than conventional asphalt. 
• Apart from burial of biochar to enhance soil fertility, biochar can also be used to manufacture a range of products, including vehicle bodies made of carbon fiber and capacitors. 
  
  A team at Stevens Institute of Technology has designed, fabricated, and tested a prototype supercapacitor electrode made from biochar. The team demonstrated biochar's feasibility as an alternative to activated carbon for supercapacitor electrodes. Currently, supercapacitors use activated carbon. The team estimates that biochar costs almost half as much as activated carbon, apart from being more sustainable. 
  
  Supercapacitors can be used to power electric buses. Ultracapacitor buses by Sinautecus have been operational in the Greater Shanghai area since August 2006, as mentioned under this post on electric bus systems.

More reading at:

Feebates

Biochar

Biomass

Vortex towers could vegetate deserts

Carbon-negative building

Towards a Sustainable Economy
Comprehensive Plan of Action

Carbon-negative technologies

The image below, adapted from Negative Emissions Technologies report by Duncan McLaren (version 2, 2011), pictures a number of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods. 

For further discussion of biomass use, see the post Biomass; for further discussion of policy issues, see The way back to 280 ppm and Towards a Sustainable Economy. 

The way back to 280 ppm

Concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 394.97ppm 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?

Emissions cut 80% by 2020,
Sam Carana, March 18, 2008

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 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 enhanced 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 as pictured above 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 Portland cement.

A range of methods to remove carbon dioxide would be eligible for funding under such feebates. 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 enhanced 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.

For further discussion, also see Towards a Sustainable Economy

Biomass

Traditionally, biomass has been used in four ways:

 1. For industrial purposes (shelter, building materials, furniture, utensils, etc)

 2. Burning (for domestic energy use such as heating, lighting and cooking, and for land clearance) 

 3. Conservation (left on land or added to soil as compost, to enrich soil and biodiversity, avoid erosion, etc.) 

 4. For food (including livestock feed, while using fertilizers and with waste dumped in landfills or sea)

In the light of rising costs of fossil fuel and climate change concerns, other uses are considered, specifically: 

 5. Low-footprint food (reduced meat and reduced use of chemical fertilizers, with waste processed)

 6. Commercial combustion in power plants, furnaces, kilns, ovens and internal combustion engines

 7. Burial 

 8. BECCS (Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture & Storage)

 9. Biochar (Pyrolysis resulting in biochar, syngas and bio-oils)

10. Biochar + BECCS (Biochar + Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture & Storage)

Table 1. Comparison of methods to process biomass (Energy and Carbon)

	Combustion	Burial	BECCS	Biochar	Biochar + BECCS
Energy - year 0	1.0	-0.1	0.8	0.5	0.5
Carbon - year 0	-0.1	1.0	0.8	0.5	0.9
Energy - out years				0.4	0.4
Carbon - out years				0.5	0.5
Total	0.9	0.9	1.6	1.9	2.3

Above table by Ron Larsen, from this message, shows five methods to process biomass, rated (with 1.0 being the highest score) for their ability to supply energy and for their ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere.  

Above table shows that each way to process biomass waste has advantages and disadvantages:

 6. Combustion may seem attractive for its supply of energy, while having negative impact due to emissions 

 7. Burial can minimize emissions, but it doesn't provide energy, in fact it costs energy

 8. BECCS can score high on immediate energy supply as well as on avoiding carbon emissions

 9. Biochar scores well regarding immediate energy supply and emissions, with additional future benefits

10. Biochar + BECCS has all the benefits of biochar, while also capturing and storing pyrolysis emissions

The table below also incorporates above-mentioned traditional use of biomass, while using a wider footprint, i.e. with scores not only reflecting the ability of the method to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but also looking at emissions other than carbon.

Table 2. Comparison of ten uses of biomass (Energy and Footprint)

	Energy - year 0	Footprint - year 0	Energy - out years	Footprint - out years	Total
Industrial	-0.1	0.1			0.0
Burning	1.0	-1.0			0.0
Conservation		-0.2			-0.2
Food		-0.3			-0.3
Low-footprint food					0.0
Combustion	1.0	-0.1			0.9
Burial	-0.1	1.0			0.9
BECCS	0.8	0.8			1.6
Biochar	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.5	1.9
Biochar +BECCS	0.5	0.9	0.4	0.5	2.3

Biochar gets its positive "out years" scores for increasing vegetation growth over time, as it improves soil's water and nutrients retention, while also reducing the need for chemical fertilizers. 

These qualities of biochar are also helpful in efforts to bring vegetation into the desert by means of desalinated water, as proposed by a number of scientists. A study by Leonard Ornstein, a cell biologist at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and climate modelers David Rind and Igor Aleinov of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, all based in New York City, concludes that it's worth while to do so.

They envision building desalination plants to pump seawater from oceans to inland desert areas using pumps, pipes, canals and aqueducts. The idea is that this would result in vegetation, with the tree cover also bringing more rain -- about 700 to 1200 millimeters per year -- and clouds, which would also help reflect sunlight back into space.

This would not only make these deserts more livable and productive, it would also cool areas, in some cases by up to 8°C .

Importantly, vegetation in the deserts could draw some 8 billion tons of carbon a year from the atmosphere -- nearly as much as people now emit by burning fossil fuels and forests. As forests matured, they could continue taking up this much carbon for decades.

The researchers estimate that building, running, and maintaining reverse-osmosis plants for desalination and the irrigation equipment will cost some $2 trillion per year.

Links
Forest a Desert, Cool the World - ScienceNow Daily News
Ornstein et al. 2009 in press - Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Animations of 10-year average precipitation anomalies - Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming - Springerlink
Sahara Forest Project
Green machine takes root in Jordan
Afforestation - bringing life into the desert - Sam Carana
Vortex Towers could vegetate deserts - Sam Carana
Biochar - Sam Carana