What is currently being done in the carbon removal space?

XPRIZEXPRIZE Los Angeles, CaliforniaPosts: 70 admin
edited March 11 in Current Landscape
What technologies have you seen that are currently being implemented for air, or for oceans, or on land right now in the carbon removal space?

Share any links, ideas, or projects that you have seen!

What projects have inspired you the most? Which do you think are the most (or least) practical? Post your thoughts below!


  • NickAzerNickAzer Portland, OR, USAPosts: 62 admin
    Here's an interesting article on carbon capture that's been in the news a lot this week, on turning CO2 back into coal:


    Does this seem like a reasonable or practical method of carbon removal?

    If not, what are some of the methods of carbon removal you have seen that you like better?
  • brgentrybrgentry Belmont, CAPosts: 3
    edited March 6
    There are so many things being worked on right now, and at the same time not enough to ensure we have a habitable planet. Here is a site with a partial listing of companies starting to do carbon capture and storage or utilization: http://www.airminers.org/.

    Here is a very interesting paper on the ocean. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00337/full

    The ocean is often forgotten in this CCS&U discussion and I think it should be more of our focus. At over 70% of the planet surface, 90% of the existing carbon storage, and a lynchpin part of our global ecosystem, it needs our attention. It's warming, acidifying and rising faster than anticipated. Solutions that focus on this underserved area would do well.

    One more note on the oceans. To permanently reduce atmospheric CO2 by 1 ton you have to remove and "sequester" 2 tons from the atmosphere to account for degassing primarily from the ocean and some from land.
  • DanSelzDanSelz Los AngelesPosts: 21 mod
    Hi @brgentry , thanks so much for this post! I couldn't get the ariminers site to work for me, but it seems very promising so hopefully it'll be back up soon. And thanks for the paper on oceans. Agreed that that's a very promising avenue, looking forward to checking it out!
  • brgentrybrgentry Belmont, CAPosts: 3
    And here's another recent overview article: https://cen.acs.org/environment/greenhouse-gases/Capturing-carbon-save-us/97/i8 It doesn't cover oceans per se but the comments do. @DanSelz
  • josephjjamesjosephjjames Posts: 7
    Hi All:

    Great to be a part of this CO 2 capture discussion, as the cost-share features of our recently-patented CRBBP Process apply in either a land or water-based application.

    An independent, third-party analysis suggests that the bio-crops used in our CRBBP Process will absorb 3 times the CO 2 as newly-planted pine trees and 2 times as much as another bio-crop.

    If I can find the time, I will enter our water-based process, which uses a Floating Bio-Greenhouses (FBG's), as a way to protect young shellfish from ocean acidification, by removing CO 2 from a host ocean site and ultimately reusing and sequestering the captured carbon in the cost-advantaged bio-products we make.

    We will be looking for design and demo project Partners for this application of our CRBBP Process.


  • DanSelzDanSelz Los AngelesPosts: 21 mod
    Hi @josephjjames , thanks for joining and letting us know about your CRBBP process! Do you have any links you can share where we might be able to read up on it?
  • jamesburbridgejamesburbridge Posts: 15
    Carbon Engineering pulls down some serious funding while claiming they can get atmospheric carbon removal below $100/t. This might work in a country with a carbon pricing backstop like Canada (the backstop is C$50/t next year I believe?), but what drives a project like this to succeed in a nation like the US with a piecemeal approach to carbon pricing?

  • peterkpeterk Posts: 7
    I am influenced by the many studies indicating that ca 10 GT/yr of CDR will be required to hold warming below 2 degrees C, and that the alternative involves damages amounting to tens of percent of global GDP ... or worse. Given the NAS report's conclusion that improved agricultural practices, reforestation and biofuels can't do enough - given competing uses for land, etc - it's likely that $50 to $100/ton CDR approaches will be required. Though air-to-fuels and wooden- or carbon-fiber-skyscrapers have an obvious, futuristic appeal, I don't think that permanent storage in carbon products will extend to gigatons per year, so it may be wise to approach this as we approach other waste storage solutions (sewage, garbage), which are largely funded by taxpayers. Who will pay, exactly? I don't know, but BC, California and Norway have made a good start.
  • jamesburbridgejamesburbridge Posts: 15
    Thanks @evmorton it looks like you're working on some of the pathways we're thinking about for a future prize. Any thoughts how you would design a hugely ambitious, innovative CDR prize?
  • evmortonevmorton Posts: 6
    @jamesburbridge I think it would be great to have a CDR prize that creates the most sustainable CDR technology. A technology that uses the least amount of energy and resources to remove CO2 and that can be placed in areas that are not disruptive to society, especially low income communities. I think the prize should also have some kind of policy aspect to it. How do we make sure that the technology is used to deter fossil fuel use rather than encourage it?
  • cnatancnatan Posts: 7
    Thank you @evmorton for your comments. What does the policy aspect of CDR removal look like? Would appreciate your thoughts on the public policy side of this.
  • cnatancnatan Posts: 7
    Thank you @peterk for your comments. You stated in your comments that you have read numerous studies which state 10 GT/yr of CDR will be required to hold warming below 2 degrees C? Besides the NAS report, what other reports state the 10 GT/year number please?
  • evmortonevmorton Posts: 6
    @cnatan I think it looks like understanding what regulations pair well with CDR. Carbon tax? Cap and trade? A freeze on all CO2 emissions? How can technology and policy work together to reduce CO2? Using CDR with fossil fuels is helpful, but it doesn't fully solve the problem of climate change. We have to also remove the carbon that is already in the atmosphere. And is it best to continue using fossil fuels just because we have CDR? I guess it depends on what the ultimate goal is. If we want to continue using fossil fuels, we can used CDR to make them "cleaner", and CDR for fossil fueled power plants should probably be required. But if we want to actually combat climate change, we also should focus on CDR that directly removes carbon from the atmosphere and policies that prohibit more carbon from going into the atmosphere. Lots to think about!
  • jamesburbridgejamesburbridge Posts: 15
    @evmorton agreed. If it were up to me, we'd have a global price on carbon annually adjusted upwards to continue further innovation and keep feet to the fire. Invest the revenue in either negative emission tech, or carbon neutral power generation to replace the most polluting sources first. I just can't envision a major societal shift away from fossil fuels without a substantial price on carbon emissions.
Sign In or Register to comment.