CO2 Grouting and Carbon Dioxide Repository

The common view among scientists is that greenhouse gases cannot be avoided entirely, even with high-quality innovations in the near future. Carbon dioxide will be released at all kinds of processes, such as at the manufacturing processes of cement, glass, or aluminum, just to mention a few. In order to still achieve ‘climate neutral’ manufacturing standards, processes, and industries, the only remaining solution is the chemical absorption and repository of greenhouse gases – geo-engineering for ‘negative emissions’ (see post from Apr. 20, 2018 on "Negative Emissions to Reduce CO2 Levels in the World’s Atmosphere"). The repository of carbon dioxide can be carried out in former mines or in exploited oil and gas fields in the oceans, with the included issues though. The technique is called CCS – carbon capture and storage. Critics claim their concerns in the (small) chances of underground leakages with contamination or earthquake like movements in the ground. The World Climate Council, however, has come to the conclusion that without ‘geo-engineering’ the chances to achieve climate neutral economies are slim.

Germany, Europe’s largest CO2 emission country, and Norway, with Europe’s largest storing capacity, have decided to collaborate in order to pump German greenhouse gas emission via pipeline to Norway and store it underground. A pipeline of 900 km (approx. 560 miles) from northern Germany to the city of Stanvanger in the south of Norway is supposed to transport a volume of over 40 Mio. tons of CO2 per year, about 20% of Germany’s yearly emissions. The vision is to catch the emissions right at production sites and to transport them through a complex pipeline system on land, in the beginning via existing gas lines, to the pipe in the sea, in the transition phase with ships, and again on land in Norway to the storage. The Netherlands and Norway are working on similar plans.

The climate change battle isn’t lost yet to humanity, but requires speed and innovations (see post from Feb. 10, 2018 on "Climate Change and Economic Consequences"). Researchers and scientist focus on two pathways to achieve essential solutions:

1. Reducing the CO2 emissions
2. 'Geo Engineering' for 'Negative Emissions'

1. Reducing the CO2 emissions

The World Climate Council (PCC) has become very frank and they only see a glimpse of hope for the planet if the CO2 emissions can be reduced by 45% till the year 2030 and reduced to zero by 2050. Of course, that requires an entire change of the human lifestyle. CO2 naturally exists on the planet. It absorbs long-wave thermionic radiation that otherwise would be reflected back into space. Before, the CO2 was absorbed and a balance existed until humans started to emission just too much of it.

However, technical solutions alone might not make the necessary impact anymore. Humans will have to change their habits in all situations of life.

2.?Geo Engineering for 'Negative Emissions'

Geo Engineering stands for technological interference into nature to attenuate climate change and global warming. Scientists are divisive about its effectiveness, some fear long-term disadvantages and unknown side effects and argue that such reduction of CO2 from the atmosphere can be asn excuse of emission countries to further push back immediate actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the current outlook may require taking the risks. Only a comparably small fraction of the human caused CO2 emissions should remain in the atmosphere. Most of it should be absorbed by the planet's mechanisms by the simple principle of transferring the CO2 from the air into neutralized carbon compounds that cannot immediately heat up the planet any further. Scientists claim that about 10 to 20 Billion tons (30 to 60 Billion pounds) of greenhouse gas emission can be removed from the atmosphere. As a first step, three basic procedures seem to be appropriate: Filtering, increase of biomass, and chemical reactions in air, water, or on the ground. The second step would be the storage or disposal with processes such as isolation of greenhouse gases and then either remain as biomass in the forests, on the soil, or the ocean bottoms, or compressed underground storage. Not each of the first steps can be combined with the second.

CO2 storage / direct air capture: Experiments have been able to suck and filter CO2 directly from the air and either store it underground or transfer it into combustible pellets. Test facilities have been able to decrease the cost significantly. The processes of direct extraction can be progressed to recycle CO2 in form of synthetic fuel mixtures along with the application of solar and wind energy. That way the most contaminating ship and air traffic can be made more ecologically friendly. This entire concept at this point is still very expensive and at current standards probably not able to solve the world's problems, yet. The biggest problems at moment are the high-energy requirements, which current players try to solve by using sources of alternative energy

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) / carbon dioxide removal (CDR): A process that is able to separate CO2 from biomass combined with the storage of the CO2. Plants such as corn, millet, canola, or sugarcane that detract CO2 from the atmosphere during their growth. Later when harvested the remains will be burned and the CO2 directly intercepted and stored. This process is called "negative emissions". Similar to reforestation the usage of agricultural land for just these plants can threaten the feeding of the world's population. For this approach approx. 15% to 20% of the planet's agricultural fields are necessary to achieve a significant outcome. Food prices might increase to an extent that many poor families won't be able to afford basic supplies anymore. Of course, overpopulation is another key problem. However, the agricultural practical experience of many farmers can be changed to a more efficient way to achieve higher output, just using the soil smarter without depletion (see post from Aug. 26, 2017 on "Smart Agriculture: Can Big Data Secure the Food Production?").

Bio-char: Bio-char can be obtained by heating up vegetable garbage under the earth. The char can store CO2 for a long time and help to fertilize the land, and keep it away from the atmosphere. However, agricultural areas are limited after all. The unknown is in what form it can be used as fertilizer and other downside. The usage of bio-char can improve the nutrient content of the soil and so increase agricultural output. Additionally, it remains in the soil for a long time and has the potential to store up to 10% of the world's CO2. Although these approaches probably aren't able to solve the issue, they still can contribute to a path of solutions.

Fertilization of the oceans with ferric sulfate: The only reason for this process is the fertilization of a specific chlorella in the oceans. When growing, this chorella stores a lot of CO2. The problem is that this process also detracts oxygen from the water. Oxygen is one of the basic foundations of marine life. This process would work well in the regions of the Antarctic oceans because there is lesser iron in the water but more nitrate and phosphate, providing perfect conditions for the fertilization effects. The Arctic oceans have the potential to absorb up to 10% of the current CO2 emissions; the entire oceans currently can absorb about 25%. Death chlorella usually sink to the ocean bottom and over a very long decomposition process (a million plus years!) become petroleum or slate. However, with the human induced current emission amounts, the oceans in total might over absorb CO2 with the negative side effect of an increasing acid level of the oceans. No marine life can exist should the acid levels go over the top! The other limitation is the simple fact that the planet's water surface cannot be increased and since the oceans absorb via their surface there is a natural limit. Additionally, the surface water layers can only absorb so much and through currents and tides have to be moved away by other water layers that can also absorb only so much ... an ongoing cycle. Over several thousand years the oceans are able to absorb between 75% and 95% of the human induced CO2. It just takes too long to solve current challenges.

Basalt or lime rock: Basalt is nothing else than cooled lava and can be found around the world and on its submarine grounds. It is able to absorb and store huge amounts of CO2 and can be stored underground by developing bicarbonate. Iceland alone has the storage potential for over 400 megatons (that is 881,849,048,739,520 pounds!) in their underground basalt rocks, that is ten times of the world's current annual CO2 emissions. This process even correlates positively with increasing temperatures and goes slower with lower temperatures, creating a natural climate balance, but one that requires a lot of time. Problematic are the excessive (and expensive) mining processes that are required for basalt. Nevertheless, according to scientists' calculations, this method has the potential to absorb up to 30% of the CO2 emissions. This method also works in colder water temperatures.

Increase of rock decay: Naturally the chemical process of rock decay divests approx. one billion tons (approx. 2 trillion pounds) of CO2 from the planet's atmosphere, which is a bit less than 2% of the human induced emissions. The distribution of iron silicate over certain areas of the planet can increase this process. The iron silicate is expensive and hard to mine. Additionally, similar problems exist than with the ocean fertilization.

Massive reforestation: Additional trees and forests can absorb CO2 and so reduce the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, the world is afflicted with deforestation, a process that has become worse over the years and has taken additional speed in Brazil again, the nation with the most rain forests. More than 25% of the world's grubbed forests are lost forever because the land is used for mining, agriculture, infrastructure, and plantations, such as palm oil. The rise of palm oil has brutally deteriorated things. In Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere massive deforestation of valuable rain forest has taken place just to transfer the land into palm oil mono-cultures, with devastating outcomes to species, air quality, and emissions. Even if reforestation can be politically enforced, then still it might go on the expense of agricultural cropland, which is needed to feed the raising population of the planet. Only with agricultural output efficiency significantly increasing can this be a serious solution. The only great solution would be a reforestation of unused, dry areas such as desserts with the negative effects of high water usage and a limited sun ray reflection back to space. The increased heat absorption therefore could fuel the global warming.

The onshore biosphere has the potential to absorb up to 25% of all CO2 emissions with a significant portion by the perm-frost soil in Siberia and North America. Each melting process in the summer produces methane. The particular grass and weeds and microorganisms are detectors for the speed of such local processes. With higher temperatures does the weed grow faster and absorbs more CO2, a perfect natural climate balance. Similar applies to other climate zones. The decomposing plants slowly increase the biomass with the absorbed climate gases on the ground. Trees breathe CO2 in and oxygen out. With up to 25% capacity tropical forests are the most significant onshore greenhouse gas storehouses; net adjusted by falling leaves that re-emit CO2 again. With deforestation however, the net balance deteriorates significantly since the wood isn't rotting anymore on the ground and sooner or later is evaporating biomass. Natural, untouched forests are therefore the most efficient carbonate sinks.

Reforestation takes time, since the trees have to naturally grow first. Even if started immediately, the positive effects realistically won't kick in before the years around 2040 or so. The needed surface area must be sustained and won't grow smaller, rather bigger.

Certain NGOs discuss the reforestation of the African savanna. Certainly, a major undertaking with unclear environmental outcome. The goal is to gain additional agricultural cropland since the savanna represents more than 25% of the world’s unused cropland. Land is sparsely populated there. The potential of high-tech solutions in collaboration with the above shown microbiology concepts could indeed enable a massive push in harvesting output. However, many questions arise when it comes to ecological consequences, such as water supplies, eco-friendly ways of harvesting, or even changes in precipitation with a possible risk to shift the world climate. The savanna is a major natural ground depression storage for carbohydrate. Once the savanna gets transformed, the carbohydrate will be released into the atmosphere with tremendous consequences to the planet’s climate. The common point of view is that this approach only makes sense when it goes along with a very efficient agricultural output scenario (see post from Jan. 3, 2021 on "Smart Agriculture: Microbiology Farming in collaboration with Data Technology Solutions").

Redirection of sunbeam / solar radiation management (SRM): This approach is not focusing on reducing CO2 but rather on a reduction of the radiation heat that hits the planet and gets absorbed. The CO2 concentration is addressed indirectly only. The beams are redirected to space. All kinds of solutions have been discussed: Covering glaciers and wide areas of ice fields to prevent them from melting, covering desserts with reflecting materials, painting cities with white paint (copied from the 'white villages' in hot areas such as Spain), green cities with more trees and bushes around the buildings, balloons in the air, reflecting particles in the atmosphere, artificial clouds, and many more. Some researchers favor the increase of ash particles (such as sulfate from volcano eruptions) to reflect sun radiation, but the entire spectrum of consequences isn't researched, yet. The magnitudes aren't known yet when actively influencing the atmosphere or the weather patterns. Also, the CO2 emissions aren't reduced with this approach and so can still cause a lot of damage.

Enhanced weathering: This approach tries to use grinded minerals such as olivine and spread them over wide landscapes. When weathering, the minerals warp to carbonates and start absorbing CO2. Unfortunately, the needed mining output for olivine would have to rise over a hundred times to make an impact. Entire mountain ranges had to be bare-layed with an excessive need of energy.

Basically, it appears as mankind, without massive losses in human welfare, won’t be able to reduce their CO2 consumption to a level that can save and turn-around recent climate change developments. Keys seem to be innovative solutions (see post from Jan. 6, 2019 on "Climate Change: Systemic Challenges to the Planet and Remaining Tactics to Meet Them").