Live data from Hacker News

Carbon Removal Technologies

carbon.ycombinator.com

671–680 of 682 posts

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pH shift from adding more alkalinity via silicate weathering shifts the equilibrium to favor more CO2 dissolved as carbonate in the oceans. That is why I do not worry about captured CO2 going back to the atmosphere in less than geological time: the shifted chemical equilibrium will favor more dissolved carbonate. As a small scale example, consider a beaker of distilled water freely exposed to the atmosphere. It d…

Sure but in your example you are adding sodium hydroxide . I agree that after adding say CaCO3 to distilled water containing inorganic carbon (CO2, carbonate ions, ...) the carbon content will have increased after equilibrating with the atmosphere, but not with the claim that the eventual carbon content of the water will be the sum of the original carbon content plus added CaCO3 carbon content... some undisclosed par…

The pH will change only very slightly if you add CaCO3 to distilled water, because CaCO3 is very poorly soluble. I also agree that adding CaCO3 to seawater would not sequester carbon dioxide. But releasing basic metal cations via weathering silicates like olivine will sequester carbon dioxide. The difference is that the starting olivine does not contain carbonate, whereas in your example there is already carbonate in the starting CaCO3.

Schematically:

A) H2O + CO2 H2CO3

Equilibrium favors left hand side, but water exposed to atmosphere becomes slightly acidic from right hand side.

B) Mg2SiO4 + 2 H2CO3 => 2 MgCO3 + SiO2 + 2H2O

Equilibrium strongly favors the right hand side. But the reaction is strongly kinetically hindered with naturally occurring large lumps of rock. This is why it will take a very long time for natural silicate weathering processes to absorb the extra CO2 that humans have recently added to the atmosphere.

C) CaCO3 + H2CO3 2 CaHCO3

Equilibrium favors left hand side, but limestone can be solubilized from right hand side reaction at a low rate (or faster in presence of high CO2/water concentration).

Note that the metal in the silicate of the left hand side of B can be various alkali and alkaline earth metals, but magnesium dominates in olivine.

EDIT: "CO2 Mineral Sequestration Studies in US" by Golberg et al appears to be the best reference to the thermodynamic and kinetic aspects of magnesium silicate weathering that I can easily find outside of a paywall.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1208898

This paper is focusing on a different way to accelerate weathering: apply wet, concentrated, hot CO2 to crushed silicates. The olivine-crushing proposal discussed here on HN takes a different approach to accelerated weathering: crush and disperse larger quantities of silicates, but do not try to heat or pre-concentrate the CO2. Just let the ambient conditions of the atmosphere and oceans work on crushed rock (this is still far faster than natural weathering).

The key takeaway from this paper is on pages 3 and 4: magnesium silicate carbonation is exothermic (thermodynamically favored). Once magnesium silicate reacts with CO2, it would take more energy to undo the reaction and put that CO2 back in the atmosphere.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but in your example you are adding sodium hydroxide . I agree that after adding say CaCO3 to distilled water containing inorganic carbon (CO2, carbonate ions, ...) the carbon content will have increased after equilibrating with the atmosphere, but not with the claim that the eventual carbon content of the water will be the sum of the original carbon content plus added CaCO3 carbon content... some undisclosed par…

The pH will change only very slightly if you add CaCO3 to distilled water, because CaCO3 is very poorly soluble. I also agree that adding CaCO3 to seawater would not sequester carbon dioxide. But releasing basic metal cations via weathering silicates like olivine will sequester carbon dioxide. The difference is that the starting olivine does not contain carbonate, whereas in your example there is already carbonate in…

Following back on your comments from the Mars colony thread...

Olivine weathering is so energetically favorable from that paper that, if you put enough of it into a sphere, and feed it enough pure CO2, it's actually a usable thermal energy source.

You can "burn" it like coal, except that it "burns" CO2 instead of oxygen.

To relate back to Mars, you can probably do similarly absurd things with the perchlorates in the soil there. You can "burn" perchlorates in a reducing atmosphere of e.g. methane from the sabatier process, and end up with salt and an explosion.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pH will change only very slightly if you add CaCO3 to distilled water, because CaCO3 is very poorly soluble. I also agree that adding CaCO3 to seawater would not sequester carbon dioxide. But releasing basic metal cations via weathering silicates like olivine will sequester carbon dioxide. The difference is that the starting olivine does not contain carbonate, whereas in your example there is already carbonate in…

Following back on your comments from the Mars colony thread... Olivine weathering is so energetically favorable from that paper that, if you put enough of it into a sphere, and feed it enough pure CO2, it's actually a usable thermal energy source. You can "burn" it like coal, except that it "burns" CO2 instead of oxygen. To relate back to Mars, you can probably do similarly absurd things with the perchlorates in the…

You can "burn" it like coal, except that it "burns" CO2 instead of oxygen.

That is a bit optimistic :-)

The potential energy per gram of mass is much lower than for coal burning in Earth's atmosphere -- worse, the kinetics are so sluggish that you would need a very large vessel with good insulation to build up a useful temperature differential.

You'd also need to concentrate perchlorates from the Martian soil before they would sustain combustion with methane. Assuming that was done, though, perchlorates plus hydrocarbons will combust with vigor.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following back on your comments from the Mars colony thread... Olivine weathering is so energetically favorable from that paper that, if you put enough of it into a sphere, and feed it enough pure CO2, it's actually a usable thermal energy source. You can "burn" it like coal, except that it "burns" CO2 instead of oxygen. To relate back to Mars, you can probably do similarly absurd things with the perchlorates in the…

You can "burn" it like coal, except that it "burns" CO2 instead of oxygen. That is a bit optimistic :-) The potential energy per gram of mass is much lower than for coal burning in Earth's atmosphere -- worse, the kinetics are so sluggish that you would need a very large vessel with good insulation to build up a useful temperature differential. You'd also need to concentrate perchlorates from the Martian soil before…

I think the analysis I saw was that it's energetic enough that the entire mining + grinding + "burning" process is energetically favorable. Which I found pretty astounding, but I think that points more to the incredible efficiency of mining and industrial processes than anything.

I think that was also at elevated temperature in a carbonic acid solution, so basically the fastest possible "weathering".

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#675
post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grassfed does not necessarily lead to more methane production, it depends on the mix of grass and secondary vegetation, on the grain mix being compared to, and on potential supplements. https://prairiesoilsandcrops.ca/articles/volume-1-3-print.pd...

Ah, you're right, it is a nuanced question. Perhaps more importantly: as mentioned in the (admittedly large) publication I cited, the rearing time for grassfed cattle is about 3x longer than factory farmed cattle, so the net methane output is considerably larger.

I should acknowledge it was more of a caveat than a correction to be honest. Concentrated livestock farming has on the face of things significant efficiency advantages which can make compelling points, yet the infrastructure and resources to maintain more intense systems is easily ignored.

Taste can often be regarded as ephemeral, while fast fattened livestock can be discerned to taste different and are considered inferior in most food celebrating cultures.

There is a possible health factor involved with grass fed (or mixed prairie for better) beef and dairy accumulating a markedly different spectrum of omega oils, which are debated inconclusively, but also formally studied and theorized to be superior for human consumption.

A focus on the strength of methane emissions seems increasingly common in discussions and magazine articles, while the long developed advice from the IPCC is that CO2 demands priority because methane clears naturally in a decade or so, and requires less action to avoid than CO2 output which takes much longer to clear.

My understanding of IPCCs focus on CO2, is that while methane reduction presents an opportunity to buy a few years time, the priority is to convince action on the hardest problem which has been created, is worsening rapidly and much harder to clear.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but in your example you are adding sodium hydroxide . I agree that after adding say CaCO3 to distilled water containing inorganic carbon (CO2, carbonate ions, ...) the carbon content will have increased after equilibrating with the atmosphere, but not with the claim that the eventual carbon content of the water will be the sum of the original carbon content plus added CaCO3 carbon content... some undisclosed par…

The pH will change only very slightly if you add CaCO3 to distilled water, because CaCO3 is very poorly soluble. I also agree that adding CaCO3 to seawater would not sequester carbon dioxide. But releasing basic metal cations via weathering silicates like olivine will sequester carbon dioxide. The difference is that the starting olivine does not contain carbonate, whereas in your example there is already carbonate in…

Do you know where I can find reaction rate constants? I tried the NIST reaction kinetics database, but H2O + CO2 -> H2CO3 is not even listed... I have implemented chemical reaction simulations before (gillespie and normal differential equations), the hard part is not the theory of simulating reactions but knowing how to determine the needed reaction rates for small inorganic reactions...

I read the paper you referenced, but it does not really add much? The key takeaway you refer to is probably the exothermic reaction enthalpy... we were discussing equilibria before this, so while a profound one, it is still a plattitude to point just at the exothermic nature as if at equilibrium all matter will be in the lowest energy state. It's still ~300K out there...

Somewhat less of a plattitude is to look at such a reaction and pretend we have a 2 level system (i.e. no other reactions occuring, no substep reactions). Let's take reaction number 2 on page 4 you mention:

1 / 3 Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + CO2 → MgCO3 + 2 / 3 SiO2 + 2 / 3 H2O + 64 kJ/mole.

So lets call the energy of the "excited" LHS(left-hand-side)-state E1 and the RHS-state E0 the ground state.

Now to make a physical calculation we need integral numbers of molecules so I multiply both sides with 3:

Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 3CO2 → 3MgCO3 + 2SiO2 + 2H2O + 192 kJ/mole.

(The enthalphy per mole of reactions tripled because a single new reaction now converts 3 times the reagents as the original reaction)

So the LHS is 192kJ / N_avogadro higher in energy than the RHS for the specified number of molecules.

So for a simple 2 level System the partition function is Z = exp(-beta E_lhs)+exp(-beta E_rhs), from here on I will write B for beta...

The probability of finding the molecules in the LHS-state is P(LHS)=exp(-B E_lhs) / Z and similar for RHS...

The ratio LHS:RHS at equilibrium is P(LHS)/P(RHS) = exp(-B E_lhs) / exp(-B E_rhs) = exp(-B DeltaE) = exp(-B 192kJ / N_a)

= exp(-192kJ / mole / (N_a k_B T))

since B = 1 / ( k_B T ),

= exp(-192kJ / mole / (R T))

since ideal gas constat R = N_a * k_B = 8.314 J / mole / K

= exp(-192kJ / mole / (8.314 J / mole / K * 300K) )

= 3.7E-34

So the right hand side does indeed look very much preferred

But this calculation assumes not dissolving in water.

This paper does not propose dissolving the resulting mineral carbonate in water, they propose burying it in the same mine the igneous rock was found!

I am still worried that simply dissolving it in surface water of the oceans means the CO2 can be released, or at the very least the CO2 in one of the dissolved species CO2, HCO3- or CO3(2-) are too bio-available... this may sound good, but if it is captured back into the biosphere it will be exhaled again by the organism (or its predator) pretty soon... grass clippings can be considered carbon sequestration, until you feed it to the organisms in your composting heap!

I would love to see numerical simulations of the chemical reactions, it would help sway those of us who understand how to simulate a set of reactions but have insufficient domain knowledge to know which reactions should be kept in mind.

The different competing entities that wish to get sponsored for such activities have a common interest to produce such a model or at least a list of relevant chemical reactions in the ocean and their kinetic rate constants. They could pool their resources to build this model.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pH will change only very slightly if you add CaCO3 to distilled water, because CaCO3 is very poorly soluble. I also agree that adding CaCO3 to seawater would not sequester carbon dioxide. But releasing basic metal cations via weathering silicates like olivine will sequester carbon dioxide. The difference is that the starting olivine does not contain carbonate, whereas in your example there is already carbonate in…

Do you know where I can find reaction rate constants? I tried the NIST reaction kinetics database, but H2O + CO2 -> H2CO3 is not even listed... I have implemented chemical reaction simulations before (gillespie and normal differential equations), the hard part is not the theory of simulating reactions but knowing how to determine the needed reaction rates for small inorganic reactions... I read the paper you referenc…

I see that I could have skipped some of my previous explaining :-)

If you are interested in modeling rate constants and mechanisms, the most interesting work I have come across is the Reaction Mechanism Generator developed at MIT and Northeastern University:

https://github.com/ReactionMechanismGenerator

https://greengroup.mit.edu/reaction-mechanism-generator

https://rmg.mit.edu/

https://web.northeastern.edu/comocheng/

As you may be aware, determining rate constants from calculations is quite difficult even for gas-phase reactions. It's much harder for condensed-phase reactions. I do not have any hope of applying these techniques to olivine weathering at present. There have been quite a few small scale laboratory experiments on olivine weathering. There will be more factors at work in a real near-shore environment: abrasion by sand and wave action, biological activity, varying temperatures depending on the locale. I think that questions of rates need to be answered by field trials now; theory is inadequate and small lab experiments have already been done. But I still contend that this is not "simply dissolving" CO2 in ocean surface waters -- it is an acid-base reaction, with magnesium providing alkalinity.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Errr, citation?

Not quite what you were after, but I saw this Twitter thread that claims (with evidence) that the greenhouse gas contributions of meat and agriculture are overstated: https://twitter.com/fleroy1974/status/1053398265817894914

I was under the impression that guy was paid by like the Belgium meat board or something. I can't find the reference to that right now so might be wrong. (I came across him in another thread where it was discussed)

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of it is I want to support promising geoengineering solutions because I don't think reducing emissions will be enough in the future. In particular spreading olivine on beaches also reduces ocean acidity and gives nutrients to the base of the ocean food chain. We can do both! No need to make a choice. The carbon offsetting schemes in the developing world are currently very cheap because we have all the low hang…

Do you have any carbon offset schemes you recommend? I feel like there are a lot of BS offsets out there.

>Not OP, not my personal recommendation.

Giving What We Can has published an analysis on the topic. You can read it here when the site is up again (it is down for me right now): https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/research/causes/climate-chan...

Tl;dr: Cool Earth is their recommendation.

Re: Carbon Removal Technologies

#680
For anyone who still clings to the weird, blinkered, narcissistic technofix superstition: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity...

Climate breakdown is not a problem worth tackling in isolation, because it is merely one prominent symptom of a general catastrophe. Capitalism will not allow evolved complex systems to continue to exist, because they can either be extracted directly for short-term profit, or destroyed in side-effects (appearing costless to the brutish actuarial mind) of other profit-making activities. Our home (the so-called 'environment', a term we really should abandon) cannot survive our way of life. We have no other home (Mars fantasies aside). Ergo, our way of life must change.

Post reply on HN