From the Princeton news website
Technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are unlikely to offer an economically feasible way to slow human-driven climate change for several decades, according to a report issued by the American Physical Society and led by Princeton engineer Robert Socolow.
“We humans should not kid ourselves that we can pour all the carbon dioxide we wish into the atmosphere right now and pull it out later at little cost,” said Socolow, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering.
The report, issued by a committee of 13 experts, was co-chaired by Socolow and Michael Desmond, a chemist at BP. The group looked at technologies known as “Direct Air Capture,” or DAC, which would involve using chemicals to absorb carbon dioxide from the open air, concentrating the carbon dioxide, and then storing it safely underground.
[The full report is available from the American Physical Society.]
In essence, the committee found that such a strategy would be far more expensive than simply preventing the emission of the carbon dioxide in the first place.Making optimistic assumptions about initial DAC technologies, the committee concluded that, from the evidence it had seen, building and operating a system would cost at least $600 per metric ton of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere, for a system that could work today. Building a system big enough to compensate for the emissions of a 1,000-megawatt coal power plant would require 30 kilometers of equipment. In comparison, removing carbon dioxide from the flue gas of a coal-fired power plant would cost about $80 per ton.
As a result, the group concluded, DAC is not likely to become worthwhile until nearly all the significant point sources of carbon dioxide are eliminated.
“We ought to be developing plans to bring to an end the carbon dioxide emissions at every coal and natural gas power plant on the planet,” Socolow said. Beyond using electricity more efficiently, options are to modify plants so their emissions are kept from the atmosphere or to shut them down entirely and replace them with low-carbon alternatives, he said.
“We don’t have to do this job overnight. But the technologies we studied in this report, capable of removing carbon dioxide from the air, are not a substitute for addressing power plants directly,” Socolow added.
The possibility of using DAC has arisen in policy discussions that contemplate a so-called “overshoot” strategy in which the target level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is exceeded and then reduced later through use of some air capture technology.
In its report, the group noted that, “No demonstration or pilot-scale DAC system has yet been deployed anywhere on earth, and it is entirely possible that no DAC concept under discussion today or yet to be invented will actually succeed in practice. Nonetheless, DAC has entered policy discussions and deserves close analysis.”
Socolow noted that while the contents of the report serve as a warning against complacency, the experience of developing the report offers grounds for optimism. “The message of hope is that smart scientists and engineers are getting more and more interested in energy and climate problems,” Socolow said.
“The committee that worked on this problem included both senior researchers and researchers starting their careers, and both industry experts and academics,” he continued. “The review process elicited contributions from thirty to forty others. Everyone was a volunteer. Leading this project convinced me that scientists and engineers are poised to provide many creative strategies to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change.”
The DAC assessment began when it was authorized by the American Physical Society’s Panel of Public Affairs in 2008. Socolow’s first co-chair was William Brinkman, who was then a senior research physicist at Princeton and now directs the Office of Science at the Department of Energy. They convened a meeting of experts at Princeton in March 2009, but then Brinkman’s move to Washington required him to step down from the group. Socolow continued the project, first with co-chair Arun Majumdar, who stepped down to direct the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy initiative, then with Desmond.
Socolow co-directs Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative, leads the Siebel Energy Grand Challenge, and is an associated faculty member of the Princeton Environmental Institute and the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment.
=================================================================
The APS report is here: Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals Report (2.4 MB) 
I guess these experts need to be reminded that plants have been doing DAC for a long time… at very high efficiency. My guess is that if the folks at BP wanted to make this technology viable… they would. Instead, it seems that they’d rather create a carbon tax system, where they can still afford to pay for their pollution, while their competitor’s cannot.
I disagree, Doctor. Firstly, since mankind puts so little CO2 in comparison to all sources, then it doesn’t matter which CO2 you capture. Secondly, why would we want to? You begin to play God with the natural forces of earth, and you will create a real catastrophe.
I suppose chlorophyll based methods were not considered for a reason that I must have overlooked while reading the post.
Why in the world would you want to remove plant food from the atmosphere?
We humans should not kid ourselves that we need to pull out any CO2 we “pour” into the atmosphere.
Jeesh.
And plants the world over rejoice at the news.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
I’d be glad to show Schultz an existing CO2-removal plant. They’re all over the place, small and large factories. I’ll bet Schultz has a CO2-removal plant operating near his own house, maybe even IN his own house! Ack! Invaded by enemy operations!
“Leading this project convinced me that scientists and engineers are poised to provide many creative strategies to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change.”
What about the risks of dangerous CO2 starvation for plants? Doesn’t look like they took that into consideration.
Despite multiple requests for comment, calls to flora remained unreturned at time of publication.
Wouldn’t curtailing deforestation in Amazonia or home fire burning in Africa create a net carbon sink without all the chemicals and technology? Instead of storing containers of CO2 in the ground, why not store it in leaves and wood? Seems like a less expensive way to go. A dense rain forest looks like a feasible DAC to me.
Sounds like yet another King Canute dream.
These guys suffer from a serious lack of imagination.
Indeed, heavier-than-air machines would never fly. Admittedly, birds can do it, but they are kept afloat by a special bird-spirit, don’t they?
Airborne carbon dioxide would never be turned into construction material by self-replicating molecular machines using sunlight. Admittedly, trees can do it, but they are animated by a special tree-spirit, don’t they?
Molecular nanotechnology is surely crap.
We need to do away with the DOE that Jimmy Carter started. I understand there are now several thousands of people working there. The whole purpose of the DOE was to ween us from Mideastern oil. That really worked. Notice the people in this article that now work for the DOE. I won’t go on.
The group looked at technologies known as “Direct Air Capture,” or DAC, which would involve using chemicals to absorb carbon dioxide from the open air, concentrating the carbon dioxide, and then storing it safely underground.
We’re currently doing that using the chemical chlorophyll to absorb carbon dioxide from the air, concentrate it, and store it in grain elevators. The whole process is powered by renewable sunlight, except for the storage part. It’s also sustainable, because we convert the stored CO2 to alcohol, which we then burn in our cars and return to the atmosphere, completing the carbon cycle.
If only there were a natural or biological process that could draw CO2 from the atmosphere and complex it into a solid form. If only that natural process, could be come more efficient as the CO2 concentrations increased, we could have a negative feedback.
If only…
Psst – PLANT CORN…
I love this stuff… the level of naive innocence demonstrated by alleged intellectuals is staggering…
What a pile of horse manure. Utter bollocks and a waste of time. Hello, the biosphere has been greening.
Anthony, I’ve just discovered something dramatic: global warming is dead – or at least the MSM have dropped it dead like Osama been lying.
I’ve posted the relevant graphs on my blog: http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/
This is not a shock. Removing 400 parts per million of anything from anything is going to be difficult! Fortunately, Nature (the mother, not the magazine) has got us covered. “As usual”, I might add…
Best,
Frank
We’re doomed I tell ye!!
DOOMED!!!!!
Woe unto ye, all mankind – the doom is upon us!!!
Pray for a miracle ye human polluters, ye feeders of plant life, ye sceptics and warmists alike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED! – I tell’ee!
My pepper plants are sprouting. I expect my honorary PhD from Princeton in the mail any day now…
I know of a neat little device to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Who knows, maybe plants will be a viable option. I require endless grants and a cushy corner office to research this idea further.
“In its report, the group noted that, “No demonstration or pilot-scale DAC system has yet been deployed anywhere on earth, and it is entirely possible that no DAC concept under discussion today or yet to be invented will actually succeed in practice. Nonetheless, DAC has entered policy discussions and deserves close analysis.”
I wonder if they have seen these photo’s and other info below?
http://globalthermostat.com/
http://www.marcgunther.com/2010/12/21/a-global-thermostat/
http://www.chichilnisky.com/pdfs/Global%20Thermostat_pilot%20unveiling%20photos.pdf
Cut down a tree. Turn it into paper. When you are done with the paper, convert it into a slurry and pump it into an old coal mine and press it with the same tech you would used for “rammed earth” construction. Collect the squeezed out water for re-use on the next batch. Easy.
When you are done, all the carbon you extracted from the mine is back in the mine.
Not considering flora as a candidate CO2 remover is an idea so stupid that only an intellectual could believe it.
I’ve designed and built personal breathing apparatus that have CO2 scrubbers, deep diving undersea equipment with CO2 scrubbers, helped engineer the Space Station CO2 scrubber-stripper as a NASA contractor, and I developed a mechanical (non chemical) CO2 scrubber for running an auto engine at 100% EGR. But if you ask me how to remove CO2 from atmospheric air, the answer is obvious: plant trees, or grow crops, and make charcoal to bury (possibly in an old coal mine 🙂 ). That is, if the assumption is correct that removing atmospheric CO2 is desirable.