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) 
crosspatch says:
“Make as many small purchases as possible. Buy as many small items as possible and insist on a paper bag”
In my town you pay 15 cents tax per paper bag and plastic bags are against the law.
And I remember not that long ago when they were hollering about how we had to switch from paper to plastic to save the environment. (plastic didn’t hurt the trees)
Take the met Office yearly maximum and minimum data for England 1910 to 2009 and find the difference for each year. Plot the result and look for a reducing difference as would be the case if the CO2 increase over that period had any heat retaining properties. Can’t find any increaseing pattern there. Try averaging over each decade. Here is the data.
1909 to 1918 7.8°C
1919 to 1928 7.8°C
1929 to 1938 7.6°C
1939 to 1948 7.9°C
1949 to 1958 7.6°C
1959 to 1968 7.3°C
1969 to 1978 7.5°C
1979 to 1988 7.4°C
1989 to 1998 7.6°C
1999 to 2009 7.6°C
The worst year in the data was 1968 at 6.93°C. The best year was 1925 at 8.78°C.
Well carbon sequestration is more accurately defined as Oxygen sequestration. Well that is unless, they are proposing to remove the oxygen fromt he carbon before sequestering the carbon.
Come to think of it, why would you want to sequester all that good chemical fuel.
Does anybody kknow of another abundant fuel for chemical energy production besides Hydrogen and Carbon. What esle could we burn to get chemical energy ion massive quantities.
I thought that CO2 was highly soluble in H2O, in fact CO2 is the major contaminant if otherwise pure water. If you leave 18 megohm DI water out for any length of time, the pH won’t remain at 7.0 for any amount of time, due to Henry’s law, and CO2. So doesn’t rain wash out a lot of CO2. So the hotter it gets, and the more atmospheric water vapor we get to form noctilucent high clouds that warm the planet even more, the rain from those clouds should wash out a lot of CO2. Come to think of it, the rain comes mostly from lower clouds. Maybe you don’t even get hail from the Nocticlouds.
I would guess that carbon recovery from the atmosphere is at least as silly as hydrogen recovery from the ocean.
Of course, the extent of our troposphere, where most of our energetic weather occurs, appears to be determined by the properties and dynamics of *water vapor*. This region appears to end at an altitude where the atmosphere literally runs out of steam. It appears to me that radiation and reflection from water molecules (or molecular aggregates) should be the primary cooling agent for this region of the atmosphere.
I understand that the atmospheric cooling effect of CO2 by thermal radiation is restricted to those layers in the atmosphere above the stratosphere.
Water appears to have an unusual electrically self-attracting molecule that goes through its solid-liquid-gas phase transitions at much higher temperatures than CO2 does. I would think that evaporating and condensing water vapor would alter the thermal energy spectrum of the atmosphere from that predicted by simple thermodynamic theory.
It seems to me to be a no-brainer to run agricultural crop waste through a wood gasifier, use the combustion heat for various farm-related energy needs, and put the resulting biochar into the soil to lock up 50% of the carbon (without oxygen) and slowly release beneficial nutrients for thousands of years to come.
Do a web search on terra preta, biochar, wood gas, etc.
What is more worrying than the headline is what the fools would do if there were a viable system available.
Taking CO2 levels as 7000ppm 600,000,000 years ago and 280ppm yesterday (geological yesterday). I know 600,000,000 years is too short a time to form any firm conclusions but that could mean that the Carbon cycle is not much of a cycle at all.
A quick back of the envelope calc might suggest that life as we know it will end in about 16 million years or so (100ppm CO2). Mankind may well have doubled that expectancy with his evil ways, but even so.. a blink of a geological eye.
You can just see the big green button (marked -4C) and a finger belonging to one of the “carbon pollution” idiots poised to start the machine Planet saved. Champaign corks pop in the background.
(as a reminder to the “carbon is pollution” choir) The very base of the global food chain…
Carbon Dioxide + Water + energy from the sun —becomes–> sugar and oxygen
Some biochar and terra preta resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
http://www.philipcoppens.com/terrapreta.html
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/research/terra%20preta/terrapretamain.html
http://deltafarmpress.com/management/terra-preta-unearthing-agricultural-goldmine
Kelvin Vaughan
”
1909 to 1918 7.8°C
1919 to 1928 7.8°C
1929 to 1938 7.6°C
1939 to 1948 7.9°C
1949 to 1958 7.6°C
1959 to 1968 7.3°C
1969 to 1978 7.5°C
1979 to 1988 7.4°C
1989 to 1998 7.6°C
1999 to 2009 7.6°C
”
Dear kind Sir,
You have to understand that throwing observed reality into the mix will surely upset the collective fragile mindset that is the climate communist hippie population and can result in a flatulent reaction from involuntary releasing of the collectively consciously tensed ring formed escape valve also known as the frightened vegan’s bowl syndrome. All I’m saying is stand clear. :p
TonyG says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:53 am
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
Did they ever stop to think that trees remove CO2 from the air? Once you go to Princeton you stop knowing that? I mean really.
Seems to be an issue with Universities in general. Has me quite concerned for my children.
It has me greatly concerned also, the total lack of reading comprehension (or even reading at all!)
A committee of very smart people is assembled to study the feasibility of a chemical method of extracting CO2 from the air and further concentrating it for sequestration.
They write a report giving their findings, entitled “Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals”. The first paragraph explicitly states what they are considering:
“In systems achieving direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide (CO2), ambient air flows over a chemical sorbent, either liquid or solid, that selectively removes the CO2. The CO2 is then released as a concentrated stream for disposal or reuse, while the sorbent is regenerated and the CO2-depleted air is returned to the atmosphere.”
No one on here has discussed this instead they’ve gone of on irrelevant tangents about plants or using such a system to clean up flue gas (mentioned in the report but not what was being considered). The conclusion was that a DAC approach would not be practical and explicitly mention the much more economical approach of cleaning up flue gases and “terrestrial biological strategies: 1) afforestation, reforestation, and other measures that store additional carbon on the land, and 2) capture of CO2 from bioenergy facilities, such as biomass power plants”.
Please learn to read!
Phil. says:
May 10, 2011 at 4:47 am
Catcracking says:
May 9, 2011 at 4:24 pm
“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?
I’m sure they have, however that was not what the report was about, try reading
Phil,
Sorry Phil you are the one who is not reading the links I provided.
There is a pilot plant that has been built and has operated. Just look at the links I provided.
I agree that the concept may not be economic but that was not my point or the message of the quotes I provided for the article.
As you said Phil, Please learn to read!!
If you read the links you would have learned that this invention does exactly this:
“In systems achieving direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide (CO2), ambient air flows over a chemical sorbent, either liquid or solid, that selectively removes the CO2. The CO2 is then released as a concentrated stream for disposal or reuse, while the sorbent is regenerated and the CO2-depleted air is returned to the atmosphere.”
Listen to this jamoke:
“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.
This guy wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit him on the a… nkle.
Capturing and sequestering CO2 would at least be arguable [but still never cost-effective] if there was any evidence showing that CO2 causes global damage. But there is no such evidence, and not for lack of trying to find it.
CO2 at current and projected concentrations is a harmless trace gas. Further, its rise is largely responsible for the increase in agricultural productivity. Since CO2 is both harmless and beneficial, more is better. And to the extent that CO2 may contribute to a slightly warmer, more pleasant world, its rise is desirable.
To the one-third of the planet’s population that exists at subsistence levels, the additional CO2 is all good. But the self-serving grant hogs with both front feet in the public trough don’t care about those living on the edge of starvation. Instead, they care about getting their cut of taxpayer loot from the constant demonization of “carbon,” and adding to their bragging rights for having another worthless study in their CVs. If they had private sector jobs in the real world, they would feel like the rest of us do when we see our tax money wasted on these “carbon studies.”
Phil,
Please look up “context”, and then understand that I was not commenting directly on the article but was, rather, making a general comment prompted by yet another comment.
Yes, it veered off-topic a bit. That happens.
Phil
Ever heard of irony, commonly known in the antipodes as ‘taking the piss?
Try various brands of humour if you don’t think irony fits. And I’d be the first to admit that some attempts at humour here fall a bit short, but your own utter lack of perspective is showing.
Please tell us all, if you can, why all of these really clever and highly educated people are wasting taxpayers’ time and money on a non-problem, then let us guess what flavour Kool-aid you like best.
And if you can’t spot sarcasm from your lofty perch, I can’t help you. 🙂
RE: Phil (May 10, 2011 at 1:06 pm)
No one on here has discussed this instead they’ve gone of on irrelevant tangents…
I believe, for many here, spending national treasure to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is an irrelevant tangent as the need to do this appears to be based on an unfounded fear.
If CO2 were as dangerous some think it is, the increase from 280 ppm to 390 ppm concentration should have increased ground temperatures from 287 deg K to 399 deg K, while in fact there has only been a global temperature increase of about 0.8 deg K since the period from about 1870 to 1900 according to data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK.
I think it more likely that some over-zealous, uncontrolled biological plan to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere might actually succeed in causing global CO2 plant starvation.
1DandyTroll says:
May 10, 2011 at 1:06 pm
You have to understand that throwing observed reality into the mix will surely upset the collective fragile mindset that is the climate communist hippie population and can result in a flatulent reaction from involuntary releasing of the collectively consciously tensed ring formed escape valve also known as the frightened vegan’s bowl syndrome. All I’m saying is stand clear.
Oh dear that will be the begining of another bout of Tornados. (Chaos theory.)
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.
In other words, become a Luddite and live off the grid.