Compensation of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> buildup through engineered chemical sinkage

Elliott, Scott; Lackner, Klaus S.; Ziock, Hans-Joachim; Dubey, M. K.; Hanson, Howard P.; Barr, S.; Ciszkowski, Nancy A.; Blake, Donald R.

doi:10.1029/2000gl011572

Cited by 44 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CTM calculations confirm earlier estimations [1] that a chemical sink, engineered correctly (v > 0:5 cm s À1 ), and placed in a large, remote geographical area such as Nevada or the Gobi Desert, could remove enough CO 2 annually to compensate for the atmospheric increase. A model chemical system of Ca(OH) 2 has promising thermodynamics for chemical sinkage, but the kinetics should be further investigated in the laboratory, as well as other scrubbers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Sequestration of CO 2 has been proposed in such reservoirs as the deep sea [5][6][7][8][9], aquifers, sediments [10,11] and soils [12]. Here, the reaction of carbonic acid via engineered chemical sinks, as proposed by Elliott et al [1], is further explored. Using a chemical transport model (CTM), the sequestration potential of the proposed removal process is simulated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chemical transport modeling of potential atmospheric CO2 sinks

Johnston

Blake

Rowland

et al. 2003

Energy Conversion and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potential for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sequestration via engineered chemical sinks is investigated using a three dimensional chemical transport model (CTM). Meteorological and chemical constraints for flat or vertical systems that would absorb CO 2 from the atmosphere, as well as an example chemical system of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH) 2 ) proposed by Elliott et al. [Compensation of atmospheric CO 2 buildup through engineered chemical sinkage, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28 (2001) 1235] are reviewed. The CTM examines land based deposition sinks, with 4°Â 5°latitude/longitude resolution at various locations, and deposition velocities (v). A maximum uptake of $20 Gton (10 15 g) C yr À1 is attainable with v > 5 cm s À1 at a mid-latitude site. The atmospheric increase of CO 2 (3 Gton yr À1 ) can be balanced by an engineered sink with an area of no more than 75,000 km 2 at v of 1 cm s À1 . By building the sink upwards or splitting this area into narrow elements can reduce the active area by more than an order of magnitude as discussed in Dubey et al. [31].

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical transport modeling of potential atmospheric CO2 sinks

Johnston

Blake

Rowland

et al. 2003

Energy Conversion and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An air capture system will be limited by the flux of CO 2 that is transported to the absorber by atmospheric motions; even a perfect absorber can only remove CO 2 at the rate at which it is carried to the device by large-scale atmospheric motion and turbulent diffusion. At large scales (100's of km), CO 2 transport in the atmospheric boundary layer limits the air capture flux to roughly 400 tC/ha-yr [Elliott et al, 2001].…”

Section: Physical Limits To the Use Of Energy And Landmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Strategy with Co2 Capture from the Air

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is physically possible to capture CO2 directly from the air and immobilize it in geological structures. Air capture differs from conventional mitigation in three key aspects. First, it removes emissions from any part of the economy with equal ease or difficulty, so its cost provides an absolute cap on the cost of mitigation.Second, it permits reduction in concentrations faster than the natural carbon cycle: the effects of irreversibility are thus partly alleviated. Third, because it is weakly coupled to existing energy infrastructure, air capture may offer stronger economies of scale and smaller adjustment costs than the more conventional mitigation technologies.We assess the ultimate physical limits on the amount of energy and land required for air capture and describe two systems that might achieve air capture at prices under 200 and 500 $/tC using current technology.Like geoengineering, air capture limits the cost of a worst-case climate scenario. In an optimal sequential decision framework with uncertainty, existence of air capture decreases the need for near-term precautionary abatement. The long-term effect is the opposite; assuming that marginal costs of mitigation decrease with time while marginal climate change damages increase, then air capture

show abstract

“…The captured CO 2 must be recovered, transported, and placed in a site for underground geological storage (Elliott et al 2001;Lackner 2003;Keith et al 2006). Geological storage is envisaged to be similar to that used for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) (IPCC 2005).…”

Section: Engineered Carbon Capture and Storagementioning

confidence: 99%