Removing Carbon From the Atmosphere

Vyom Gupta
Removing CO2 From the Atmosphere
The entrapment of greenhouse gases plays a big part in global warming and Carbon
Dioxide as at the forefront of this problem. As the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere increases, the more we expedite the global warming process. In order to
delay the effects of carbon dioxide, we need to find temporary solutions to decrease the
amount of Carbon in the atmosphere.

In the meantime, the first solution is (used by Climeowrks and Global Thermostat)
using direct air capture devices and having them pull out CO2 from the air by sucking in lots
of air and then through a series of chemical reactions remove the CO2 and re-releasing the
air. Because CO2 is only found in one of 2,500 molecules, large volumes are going to be
needed to efficiently remove the carbon. The main idea an is industrial cooling tower
containing a liquid hydroxide solution which will capture CO₂ and convert it into carbonate.
The carbonate would then be converted into small carbon pellets. Finally, the carbon pellets
will be heated in a kiln and transformed into pure carbon dioxide gas, which can be turned
into synthetic fuel.

The second main solution is a synthetic forest. The primary advantage to a synthetic
forest is that it requires much less land for an equivalent amount of work. The Amazon is
capable of capturing 1.6 billion tons of CO2 each year. This is roughly equal to 25 percent of
our annual emissions in the US. The land area required for a synthetic forest to capture the
same is 500 times smaller. In addition, for a synthetic forest, you don't have to build it on
arable land, so there's no competition with farmland or food, and there's also no reason to
have to cut down any real trees to do this. Basically, we are turning atmospheric CO2 into
gasoline.
Image result for synthetic forest carbon capture




As a global community, it is important that we try to reduce carbon emissions in our
own lives and try to support these large projects aimed at reducing the carbon concentration
in the atmosphere in order to keep our environment healthy.

Works Cited:
http://www.climeworks.com/co2-removal/
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44396781
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/02/artificial-trees-as-a-carbon-capture-alternative-to-geoengineering/
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/06/seas-david-keith-has-a-plan-to-slash-costs-of-co2-capture/
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-electricity-biomass-carbon-capture-western.html

Comments

Anonymous said…
I do agree that reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which make up more than 80% of the greenhouse gases emitted in the United States primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, is essential in order to minimize the impact that humans have on the health of the environment. The carbon emissions, like other greenhouse gases, trap solar energy in the atmosphere, resulting in an increase in global temperature and CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for approximately 50-200 years. The EPA predicts that one of the numerous effects of the increase in carbon emissions is how demand for water will increase in tandem with how the supply will decrease as rainfall will increase in some areas, causing pollutants to enter drinking water, and rising sea water will lead to the infiltration of saltwater in freshwater drinking supplies. Another reason why humans need to reduce CO2 emissions is that global warming can result in an increase in the number of wildfires, droughts, and tropical storms according to NASA. The increasing number of cases of severe weather wreaks havoc on infrastructure leading to the destruction of homes/habitats, the loss of life, and the spread of disease. Moreover, the alteration in weather patterns is likely to cause an increase in temperature and a decrease in precipitation, which according to the US Global Change Research Program will result in the reduction of crops like tomatoes and rice in the Central Valley of California. In all, there are numerous harmful consequences that arise from an increase in carbon emissions and consequently global warming, which indicates that contemporary society needs to take action like through the methods like those that are listed in this blog post. (Source: https://education.seattlepi.com/consequences-carbon-emissions-humans-4138.html).
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
This ability to turn CO2 back into fuel is a very efficient idea. Although the idea seems very expensive to make widespread, I believe that if we were able to do it, it would drastically increase our sustainability. Also the idea of a synthetic forest seems very efficient due to its ability to lower CO2 concentrations.
Anonymous said…
Nice post! Although climate change solutions such as carbon filters and absorbtion promise to bring progress against climate change it is important to look to the implementation of these systems. As this implementation is usually a problem. Over the past few years we have seen large opposition to the idea of global warming and the steps to end it. For example, the Yellow jacket protests in France largely sprang up due to Emmanuel Macron’s decision to implement a carbon tax. Similarily, Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris climate agreement in favor of a more isolated and business oriented approach to climate change. It is therefore important to analyse the viability and cost of a solution before we implement so we dont’ repeat the mistakes of the past.
Anonymous said…
It is good that companies are trying to find solutions to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. It is important to find ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions if we want to keep the environment healthy. I hope that these methods do not cause any other environmental problems, which is often what happens when humans try to fix an issue. I hope that companies keep look for ways to reduce greenhouse gasses and solutions to our many other environmental issues. If we want to keep the planet healthy for future generations then it is of utmost importance to find methods to increase our sustainability.
Anonymous said…
I really like the idea of using converted CO2 gas into usable synthetic fuel! While it is beneficial to trap carbon emissions in artificial carbon sinks, it is more efficient and more useful to repurpose the carbon from the atmosphere. We could even use this fuel as an alternative to fossil fuel production, alongside renewable resources, as well. It’s very important that we come up with solutions to the global warming issue very soon because the consequences will really begin to manifest themselves soon. We must be held accountable to slow the damage we have lready incurred.
Caroline Tuggle said…
I had no idea that synthetic forests could take in the same amount of CO2 with an area 500 times smaller than the Amazon! I think that the idea of synthetic forests would really help improve our atmosphere in terms of oxygen output and CO2 input while not taking away valuable farm land or land to build on. However, I also believe that it is important to keep as much natural foliage and forest land as possible. We cannot replace all of our natural forests and trees with synthetic because that would completely wipe out food sources and habitats for animal species. Overall, I believe that the idea of synthetic forests is a really great idea as long as we maintain a certain level of natural CO2 input as well.
Anonymous said…
As stated earlier by Saaket I feel this type of carbon concentration reduction would be very expensive upfront. However, I feel this has a good ability to well reduce concentrations and may prove to be very impactful in the future. The creation of synthetic fuel seems to be a very good outlook as we will be able to create a beneficial product for everyone. The creation of the synthetic fuel can allow for a negative feed back loop as well as the synthetic fuel can slowly replace more and more of the fossil fuels that enter that atmosphere.
Anonymous said…

I really like the idea of having these two methods available to convert our CO2 emissions into something useful, and at the same time, reduce the carbon dioxide emmisions. The efficiency of these two methods is well worth it, but even though using gigantic air capture devices seems unreasonable and a huge hassle to create, it is well worth it to save our Earth from heating up and destroying habitats.
Anonymous said…
I think using these two methods would be very beneficial to the environment to help preserve it. With all the carbon in the air many changes need to be made with our habits and our ideas to help reduce the amount of carbon, and these two ideas are a great start. I think doing this will help reduce carbon in the air but more changes need to be made before it is too late.
Anonymous said…
Given the rising amounts of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, both solutions would be extemely beneficial. Right now, many lawmakers lack a proper solution the to growing levels of carbon dioxide and synthetic forests and direct air capture devices would be incredibly beneficial to the entire world. However, I do not believe that these devices can solely manage the rising levels. It would still be beneficial to plant trees and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels rather then rely on these two methods alone.
Lauren Pan said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
I think both these solutions are very viable. The second one in particular is very intriguing though. Biomimicry, which is the design and production of materials, structures, and systems that are modeled on biological entities and processes, is a smart way to solve the problem of excess carbon emissions. However, most normal individuals are not capable of executing either of your methods to fix this problem. Those are more big scale for the government and big companies. Personally, there are other ways to reduce carbon emissions such as walking, biking, carpooling, or using public transportation. But overall, the methods you mentioned have the right intentions and may ultimately save this planet.
Anonymous said…
Although both synthetic forests and air trapping devices are both interesting propositions, the implantation of both of these may result in tons of carbon being released into the environment. When building an entire forest, it is inevitable that a large amount of carbon will be released as the drills and machinery required will use gas. Also, large machinery produced to capture air may also release large amounts of carbon. While both of these ideas are interesting, implementing either of these would require tons of government support and massive infrastructure. Overall, the ideas you mentioned are interesting but the practical application of either of them is questionable.
Anonymous said…
Air trapping is an interesting idea, but seems to be much more inefficient than synthetic forests. Noting the massive potential of forestland that doesn’t require the use of arable land, I believe that synthetic forests seem like a viable idea to absorb carbon emissions. However, considering the Amazon forest, the biggest rainforest in the world, is only able to absorb a third of America’s carbon emissions, we have to focus on reducing our actual rates of carbon emissions to see real change. Obviously, any measures introduced to counter emissions will initially consume resources, but we must look to the long-term to find practical solutions.
Anonymous said…
Although I think both methods are very important, I also believe that one of the most powerful tools in fighting climate change is beneath our feet. Woodlands, prairies, algae, mangroves, wetlands, and soil withdraw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and keep it from going back, tipping the balance negative. These methods to fight climate change are often overshadowed by technological options, but they’re where we have the most experience and the best results so far. Restoring nature and planting more crops are also often cheaper than building and deploying hardware.

Anonymous said…
I like this post and appreciate both of the solutions presented. I think both have great potential and should be carefully considered across the globe. However, I feel this dismisses one of the biggest problems at hand. The largest problem is the burning of fossil fuels for human needs. I feel like the government and all people need to directly address this issue. The government has the ability to completely ban the burning of fossil fuels. One could argue that that would be harming to the economy, but if there’s not a healthy place for us to live, then there’s no economy anyway.
Anonymous said…
The idea of removing carbon from our atmosphere seems like a good solution to reducing our carbon emmisions. However, it seems it would take years to implement and would require a large sum of funding to be effective. This process would also require a significant amount of space to be able to build these synthetic forests.The cost and implentation aside, I think this would be a great way to reduce our carbon emmisions in the future especiallt if this process is made more effecient and cost friendly.
Adam Ghanem
Anonymous said…
Your research on this topic is really eye opening! It is really important for our society to think and execute new ways to prevent massive amounts of carbon from being emitted to the atmosphere. Although there are some alterations within each method that should be considered, I think that the Synthetic Forest and Air Trapping are both great steps into saving our planet’s atmosphere. Humanity is and has been emitting numerous amounts of carbon into the air and if we do not start now, then it might be too late. Reusing and repurposing the carbon dioxide as different types of resources such as fuel would be very beneficial as modern society requires immense amounts of non renewable resources in greater demand. Through these processes and other ways, we could probably slow down the rate of extracting/ depleting non renewable resources and using the 3 R’s (recycle, reuse, and reduce) to save us more time from more harmful effects of global warming.
Anonymous said…
Carbon dioxide emission has been a huge topic of discussion in recent years. Everyone is becoming aware of the damaging effects it can have on the atmosphere and are “trying” to find a solution. Both the solutions you described in your research are very good ideas, and if they were implemented worldwide, I definitely feel like it would have great success in improving our world. However, the concern about the space needed in the first solution is valid, which would make the second solution a much greater and effective idea. But what I’m concerned about is, we continue to feed the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and then attempt to remove it. Even in the solutions, they describe reemitting the carbon dioxide back into the air as fuel, which would only make the problem greater and greater, resulting in a positive feedback loop. The carbon dioxide being remitted plus the carbon dioxide we release into the air would just compound and there would be nothing to do about it. For that reason, I think change should come first with us, using less carbon dioxide emitting acts and then the solutions would be a good solution to prevent any more fuel being burned.
Yashu Pindi
Anonymous said…
I think it is great that there are options on how we can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These two methods are very beneficial to the environment and would help preserve it. I had no clue that there were direct air capture devices that remove carbon from the air, that’s really interesting. Although these are very different and innovative ideas, there are also easier ways to make a difference. For example, carpooling, biking, walking, and using public transportation are all ways of minimizing carbon emissions.
Mallory Odom said…
I really enjoyed reading your research on this topic. I think a lot of people are aware of the many problems our environment is encountering, but most don't have any suggestions on how to fix these issues. The more people become educated about the state of our planet, the more they will be able to help slow down the use of nonrenewable resources and decrease carbon in our atmosphere. I think you could even elaborate more on the types of things we as individuals can do to contribute to the cause, as the solutions you suggested could be very costly and there might be other ways to solve these issues while being more fiscally conservative.
Luke Farinelli said…
I just recently watched a video on all of the different ways companies are trying to do this, and, along with what you said, they seem to all want to turn the CO2 in the air into some sort of fuel. The obvious problem is that this would just recirculate the carbon and have a net neutral effect on our footprint. Instead we need to figure out other ways to use them. There is actually a cool research project held by Virgin to find a useful use for this carbonate and I REALLY hope they find something actually useful. - LUKE FARINELLI
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
Carbon dioxide emissions have been a glaring problem in the 21st century. Scientists are trying to find a multitude of solutions to fix this problem. The solutions described in your blog are unique, and just may be the way to fix global carbon dioxide emission. Removing carbon directly from the air is an approach the many people have not considered. People should also aim to reduce their carbon usage throughout the day, which will make a huge difference.

Anonymous said…
When people mention man made or synthetic it is usually given a negative connotation that it is probably bad for the environment. It is interesting that synthetic forests one of the few man made inventions that has actually benefited the environment and the large impact that it can make is very interesting. I liked that this article addressed ways to reduce carbon emission because although global warming is widely recognized as an area of concern, there are not many solutions on how to reduce carbon emission, instead focusing on living in a more eco-friendly way which can only be successful as a group effort. Synthetic forests on the other hand can reduce current carbon instantly.
Dixie Westbrook said…
Definitely an ecosystem service providing regulating services that are much more expensive to fix with technology!
Anonymous said…
I think that both of these ideas are really interesting! However, I think the synthetic forest might be a more favorable solution among the masses. The fact that it's 500 times smaller than the Amazon, but still takes up the same amount of CO2 is great. I also think that since it's not competing with farmland or food will also help ease the economic argument. This way, nothing much has to change about our daily lives, but we're still helping to get rid of the CO2. Usinh either of these ideas would help a ton.
Anonymous said…
Both of these options are thought provoking, and could work. I feel that the synthetic forest might be a more practical solution however. Since it takes up the same amount of carbon as the Amazon while being much smaller, it seems to be a better choice. I feel that this option is best because it takes the least area while getting rid of carbon emissions.
Anonymous said…
I think both ideas work great as a solution towards helping the environment in terms of carbon emission. The synthetic forest seems to be quite the efficient solution especially with the the forest not taking up too much space, but also taking up significant amounts of carbon dioxide. This way we aren’t using as invasive a method while also keeping the air clean and free off pollutants. However, with all these new technologies, we must never forget that one of the best solutions is to truly just aim carbon usage as a whole.
Anonymous said…
Both of these ideas seem to be very effective and good steps toward helping the environment, However, I think that the second idea of synthetic forests seems to be more practical. The first solution of converting CO2 into fuel may too pricey too be effective worldwide. The second solution seems to be more reachable and efficient.
Anonymous said…
The things technology can do never ceases to amaze me. Both these options seem like they can play a significant part in our future cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gasses. Perhaps one day we can even reverse global warming. However, I disagree that these two solutions should be at the forefront of improving our environment. Natures design itself makes Earth the perfect home for us. The reason things our changing is us manipulating it. We should fix things by not continuing our manipulation but caring for our home. Each individual person needs to play their part by growing their own little garden and following other sustainable processes. These two things can come in handy, but we need to first work on our own treatment of the Earth and recover all that we have destroyed.

Popular posts from this blog

The Disappearance of Honey Bees Yashu Pindi

Are GMO Crops Good or Bad for the Environment?