These days, many experts are saying that we’re not going to be able to stop climate change just by decreasing emissions. To dig our way out of this hole, they say, we’re actually going to need to take carbon dioxide out of the air.

The first instinct has been to bury the CO2. Just pump it into the Earth and try and forget how ashamed we are of these massive quantities of CO2. But a new breed of entrepreneur has sprung up, saying "If we have this CO2, why don't we do something useful with it!?"

Obviously, we've got to get rid of all that carbon, but if folks can make some money and lower the cost of sequestration while they're doing it...then that's just icing on the cake. So here are five of the ways in which people are hoping to make bank with the millions of tons of CO₂ that are pumped out of coal plants and into the atmosphere every day.

Feed it to Algae, and then Turn the Algae to Fuel
You may know that biofuels can be made from algae. You may also know that algae thrives on carbon dioxide. A company called GreenFuel Technologies has put two and two together, and is using captured CO₂ to grow algae, which will then be made into biofuels. But they aren't the only ones working on it. There are dozens of startups working to create different techniques and algal strains that will allow them to maximize carbon capture and minimize costs. Earth2Tech recently had a writeup on 15 of the top algae biofuel startups. Of all of the techniques listed hear, algae farming with CO₂ is probably the most mature technology, and the first fuel-producing plants are already going online. And, of course, we don't have to worry about ever running out of a market for biofuels. As long as we're creating CO₂ by burning fuels, there will be a place to burn biofuels.

Turn it into Plastic
Recently the American Chemical Society saw a proposal to use captured CO₂ to produce polycarbonate plastics, like those used in CDs and DVDs. The idea is to take carbon dioxide emissions, and instead of sequestering them in the ground, trap them in resilient products. This approach makes sense, but because it relies largely on sequestering carbon in disposable products, like plastic forks and water bottles. So, basically, we'd be sequestering carbon every time we threw away plastic. Landfill sequestration seems like a pretty wasteful way to go to me, but it's certainly better than the alternative. But even with the amount of disposable plastic we consume in the world, we would have plenty of CO₂ left over if all of it was turned to plastic.

Make Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda)
Joe David Jones, CEO of Skyonic, has created a process that captures CO₂ as it exits power plant smokestacks and mixes it with sodium hydroxide to form baking soda. This process, called SkyMine, also removes heavy metals and dangerous pollutants and coverts the CO₂ into sodium bicarbonate. Baking soda has a variety of uses on the commercial market, and this process could help make carbon capture more economically viable. Even if the baking soda is not sold, because it is solid it is immensely easier to store it in old mines or landfills than it would be to sequester gaseous CO₂ beneath the ground. The real question is whether the world can produce enough sodium hydroxide to keep the process going.

Calcium Carbonate
A company called Carbon Sciences has a new process called GreenCarbon, which, at the base of things, turns carbon dioxide into useful stuff. The GreenCarbon process mixes the CO₂ with crushed calcium minerals, one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust. The end result is calcium carbonate, an industrial chemical that's used in thousands of applications, from PVC to paper to toothpaste and, in its pure form, as wall board and chalk. Because calcium carbonate is used in just about everything, there’s a huge market for it, and depending on the quality, it can sell for hundreds of dollars a ton. The question remains, though...is there enough of a market? The CEO of Carbon sciences says yes, but we're skeptical as a single coal plant could produce millions of tons of calcium carbonate per year.

Convert it Directly into Fuel
Sandia National Laboratories is working on creating fuel directly from CO₂ without any pesky biological intermediaries like aglae. The carbon dioxide would be super heated to around 1,200 C and mixed with water to create various hydrocarbons of the sort we're already burning in our cars. All of that heat, of course, is energetically expensive, but Sandia is hoping to use leftover heat from nuclear or utility-scale solar thermal power generating plants. The process basically reverses combustion, and is only economically viable if the energy can come from cheap, clean sources. The good news is that it can be scaled much more easily than algae production, which requires thousands of acres of space to soak up the CO₂ from one coal plant.

In Conclusion
There's no one solution to this problem. We'll probably start out pumping most of it underground, while turning a good portion of it into fuel. But I expect that, in the next 20 years, power producers start having to pay the true costs of releasing CO₂, techniques for creating useful products with that CO₂ will multiply. Depending on where coal plants are and what resources they have around them, project planners will have to figure out what the most economically viable thing to do with the CO₂ is. If there's a lot of calcium deposits around, they'll be creating calcium carbonate, but if there's a lot of sun and ample space, maybe algae farms will pop up around the power plant.

In any case, we'll see an entire economy spring up around actually using our societies primary waste product. And not only is that just good policy, it's a gigantic economic opportunity.

Comments (22)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Magnus H. , April 20, 2008

What would be the environmental effect on the areas where CO2 is pumped into the ground? It sounds kind of scary to me, but then again, I haven't done research on that area. So what does happen when the CO2 is sequestered underground?

The energy problem
written by Alejandro , April 21, 2008

You've mentioned that you'd need energy to convert the CO2 back into fuel, which would use left over heat energy from power plants.
The same problem is present in converting CO2 into plastics, baking soda and calcium carbonate, as carbon is a relatively inert chemical to my knowledge. At the very least, we will need to take into account the energy that goes into production of the other chemical reactants. We'll need to plan carefully where all this energy comes from and whether the extra heat energy from power plants will be enough... Until then, my bets are on algae :-)

...
written by Greg Hoke , April 21, 2008

Craig Venter suggests we use genetic engineerng to create bacteria to convert CO2 into biofuel at coal fired power plants. He claims that this will revolutionize the petrochemical industry. I don't think I'm being a Luddite when I point out that converting CO2 into fuel would not help reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We currently release about a million years worth of fossilized carbon every year. Can anyone explain how it's going to help global warming if we continue to burn coal at increasingly prodigious rates by converting the CO2 to biofuels? I count Venter as one of the good guys, but I think he (and this article) are missing something when they urge us to "feed it (CO2 from coal fired power plants) to algae (or bacteria) and convert it to fuel." This only delays the ultimate release of massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. I'm for locking the CO2 into PVC pipes and baking soda. If clams can make shells (and ultimately limestone), why not use genetic engineering to create algae and bacteria to convert the CO2 into building material?

Here is the link to the youtube video with Craig Venter's TED talks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo

...
written by Andrew , April 21, 2008

I like the idea of using CaCO3 to trap the CO2. I also just realized there are lots of marine organisms that are really good at making calcite. Oysters anyone?

...
written by jake3988 , April 21, 2008

alejandro: The same problem is present in converting CO2 into plastics, baking soda and calcium carbonate, as carbon is a relatively inert chemical to my knowledge
====================

Carbon is known for its ability to form bonds with just about everything.


What we're doing is simply making carbon dioxide reusable. Nothing in any of these methods will the CO2 actually be taken out of the atmosphere.

We need to store it. What's the best way? TREES!!

Replant our forests.

...
written by Adrian , April 21, 2008

Hey thanks for the great blog, I love this stuff. I don’t usually do much for Earth Day but with everyone going green these days, I thought I’d try to do my part.

I am trying to find easy, simple things I can do to help stop global warming (I don’t plan on buying a hybrid). Has anyone seen that www.EarthLab.com is promoting their Earth Day (month) challenge, with the goal to get 1 million people to take their carbon footprint test in April? I took the test, it was easy and only took me about 2 minutes and I am planning on lowering my score with some of their tips.

I am looking for more easy fun stuff to do. If you know of any other sites worth my time let me know.

...
written by Kate , April 21, 2008

"Refuse" comes first. Then "Reduce". Then "Recycle" as a last resort. Hopefully we can do the first two soon so we don't have to do the last resort option at all. Great to read your posts as usual.

...
written by Joe Belowme , April 21, 2008

There's an easier solution...plant more trees.

well, we are trying to eliminate fuels!!
written by isaac Segura , April 22, 2008

Polycarbonate leaks Bisphenol, a chemical that damages the endocrine system in humans (it's banned in Canada), PVC is the worst plastic on earth, and making more hydrocarbons creates the same fuels that create this whole mess,(octanol =gasoline=petrol). I thought that we we trying to eliminate fuels and go with renewables like wind, heat and sunlight.
So we are left with baking soda and algae.

...
written by CMDC , April 22, 2008

Biochar is a modification of the tree option. Black carbon is in fact, fairly chemically inert. The resevoir time for biochar is on the order of thousands of years, as opposed to decades or possibly centuries for trees. Plus for biochar we can use faster growing crops to accumulate large amounts of immobile carbon quickly. Sources on the web are sadly lacking; I've learned about it primarily through research at my university. If there's any interest I'd be happy to provide more information.

...
written by CMDC , April 22, 2008

Ahh, I forgot to address how this can generate cash. Black carbon (of an appropriate partical size) is an excellent soil ammendment. It weakly bonds with nutrients, preventing them from washing out with water but allowing crops to absorb them actively. Adding biochar can reduce the amount of fertilizer needed, reducing fertilizer runoff and farm costs. It could also improve water infiltration in clay soils, which would be very useful in flood control measures. Infiltration offsetting is already big money, and I anticipate the market will only increase with the emergence of more erratic weather patterns.

...
written by Kent Ragen , April 22, 2008

Great post! Has anyone seen projections on how close these carbon sequestration techniques can get us to 350 ppm?
Kent
www.ecounit.com

Interesting...however what next!
written by Cris , April 22, 2008

How about we all start using green products!

...
written by Ken , April 22, 2008

I like the idea. A lot of energy is focused on prevention, but simply taking CO2 out of the atmosphere may solve a lot of our problems while preserving our high quality of life.

I agree with other posters that renewable energy should be our first priority. However, we are somewhat kidding ourselves if we think that this will solve our problems completely. All options need to be on the table to solve the global warming problem in the most economical and sustainable fashion.

...
written by TRaK , April 23, 2008

This is just a scheme for big coal to be able to hand down the carbon and not have to pay for the cost. Commentator Greg Hoke seems to be the only one who gets it. When taken from coal, CO2 is still FOSSIL carbon. We need to get away from that. CO2 has to be pulled out of the atmosphere and not out of the ground. Why is this not totally obvious ????

C02 Bioreactor
written by Frebird , April 24, 2008

Check out what GreenShift is doing. GreenShift's CO2 Bioreactor reduces greenhouse gas emissions while creating an additional feedstock for renewable fuel production. Watch the video: http://www.greenshift.com/tech...media=true

Carbon (dioxide!)
written by Alejandro , April 24, 2008

Jake3988, I meant "carbon dioxide is relatively inert" rather than "carbon is relatively inert"! :-) But yes, trees are the way to go, they've worked for centuries, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Mr.
written by Sridhar.Iyer , April 26, 2008

the said ideas are really encouraging , I do have a suggestion which could possibly also add to this list.

How about using sprinklers in the air whcih would react with CO2 & possibly reduce CO2.

How about desalinating the sea water ( this has a cost attached) and pumping across the arid lands across the globe . this would retake out the additional water from the sea ( sea level rising could be avioded/reduced). this also adds to the water level on the ground and ensures that these lands could be utilised for culitvation whcih would again reduce the CO2 plus address the food crisis.

Dear learned professors/ scientists please share with me if this would work

...
written by Darrin , April 28, 2008

One of the best CO2 re-use options I have seen is the injection into subterannean oil / gas wells to help with the extraction of residual fuels that cannot be recovered using conventional pumping techniques.

...
written by Stevegong , April 28, 2008

Feed it to Algae: In fact it's using the Sun power as the energy of this chemical reaction. It's the only one that sounds reasonable to me.

Turn it into Plastic: I don't know how much CO2 could a folk contain. who can tell me? Thanks.

Make Sodium Bicarbonate: are these sodium hydroxide free of energy consumption?

Calcium Carbonate: In my knowledge, most of the Calcium on earth is already present in the form of Calcium Carbonate.

Turn it into fuel: this will cost energy and if the energy is from coal power plants, it will produce more CO2 than it can reduced, because there will always be an efficiency less than 100%.

Solve the CO2-problem like nature has al
written by Olaf Schuiling , April 29, 2008

Natural weathering of Mg- and Ca-silicates by CO2 and water has always been nature's solution to keep the CO2 of the Earth's atmosphere within reasonable limits. Weathering takes place at the surface of rocks, so if we want to use the same process to capture more CO2, we must provide more rock surface. This can be done by crushing the rocks, and spreading the powder over land, preferably in tro;ical countries where the reaction goed faster. The best rocks are dunites, which contain a high proportion of the mineral olivine. These rocks are abundantly available in many countries on each continent.
Trees? Nice idea, but when I see those forest fires, I always think "was that the tree that you bought to offset your CO2-debt?"

How to sequester carbon For Ever?
written by frisbee , May 02, 2008

Can any of the five options make the initial carbon emission being sequestered for the next hundreds or thousands of years? Even after the in-between product has been (economically) used?

If not it’s only a short in between solution and will not answer the problem. It will just postpone it a little.

As far as I understand none of the options stated can contribute. Anyone Who Can Prove Me Wrong Here? Please do so!

Write comment

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

Add Comment