Is anyone actually working on technologies to slow/repair climate change?

[Cloo]

I'm aware this may be a silly/naive question - but we have billionaires building their space phalluses and all kind of technology development going on but I don't think I have heard of any work being done on technological ways that we might repair or turn back the tide of climate change? Surely there must be at least some theoretical ideas about this doing the rounds?

Because, to be honest, I think we're past the point of no return in terms of behaviour change and the only way we're not fucked within the next century, it seems to me, is if someone can come up with a way to mitigate climate change or even repair the damage from it. But like I said, I'm kind of surprised never to have heard of anyone even looking into it. Is it just so pie-in-the-sky no one's even trying?

 

[Leafster]

The technology that springs to mind is Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS). It's basically touted as a solution so we can just carry on burning stuff but, as far as I'm aware, it's relatively small scale so won't have a radical impact. It's also currently very energy intensive. So, largely, it's ineffective at providing any meaningful solution. I think most knowledgeable commentators say it's a dead duck but it's been pushed hard as a solution by checks notes, the oil industry.

 

[Leafster]

Other avenues which aren't exactly technological are the restoration of peat bogs, wetlands and forests as carbon stores and to mitigate flooding. Similarly, restoring rivers to their natural state to reduce flooding downstream.

 

[lazythursday]

There are technologies, but none of them really are a substitute for drastically cutting fossil fuels. CCS - enables some heavy industry to continue in a low carbon world by capturing the carbon and burying it but there's no way we can do that at the kind of scale needed to capture all the carbon we burn now - it's both unproven, and is resource/energy intensive.

Then there are some frankly scary geo engineering ideas that are now getting more traction. Artificially putting particles in the stratosphere to reflect the sun's rays and hence cool the planet. Could have unintended consequences. But also might become essential - but even then would likely be an emergency stop gap thing to give more time of the hard work of getting off carbon.

 

[Leafster]

There are technologies, but none of them really are a substitute for drastically cutting fossil fuels. CCS - enables some heavy industry to continue in a low carbon world by capturing the carbon and burying it but there's no way we can do that at the kind of scale needed to capture all the carbon we burn now - it's both unproven, and is resource/energy intensive.

Then there are some frankly scary geo engineering ideas that are now getting more traction. Artificially putting particles in the stratosphere to reflect the sun's rays and hence cool the planet. Could have unintended consequences. But also might become essential - but even then would likely be an emergency stop gap thing to give more time of the hard work of getting off carbon.

You forgot space mirrors. Mirrors in space!!!

The sensible and only realistic solution, is as you say, to reduce our need for fossil fuels. And to do it fast!

 

[8ball]

Energy efficiency tech.
Renewables.
Drought-resistant crops.
Upgraded flood defenses.
Carbon sequestration tech.
Microgen and storage.
Biofuels
Passive cooling solutions (ie. buildings)
Novel recycling tech...

.... um, that Impossible Burger?

 

[Leafster]

Energy efficiency tech.
Renewables.
Drought-resistant crops.
Upgraded flood defenses.
Carbon sequestration tech.
Microgen and storage.
Biofuels
Passive cooling solutions (ie. buildings)
Novel recycling tech...

.... um, that Impossible Burger?

Biofuels still mean burning stuff so aren't really a solution. There will probably be niche uses for them though.

 

[8ball]

Biofuels still mean burning stuff so aren't really a solution. There will probably be niche uses for them though.

They are not fossil fuel based. Carbon goes round in circle.
Basically a form of solar energy. But yeah, no net removal of atmospheric carbon.

 

[Leafster]

They are not fossil fuel based. Carbon goes round in circle.
Basically a form of solar energy. But yeah, no net removal of atmospheric carbon.

It's a bit like log burners really. Shorter carbon cycle - grow stuff - burn stuff - grow stuff which sequesters carbon - burn it again. But, it's the other aspects that are a problem like pollution and setting aside land specifically to grow stuff to burn.

In a world where climate change has a major impact on what you can grow and where, you probably want to focus on crops to eat rather than burn.

 

[8ball]

In a world where climate change has a major impact on what you can grow and where, you probably won't to focus on crops to eat rather than burn.

If you're talking about growing in a substrate suitable for food production, then yeah, sure.

 

[Crispy]

The technology that springs to mind is Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS). It's basically touted as a solution so we can just carry on burning stuff but, as far as I'm aware, it's relatively small scale so won't have a radical impact. It's also currently very energy intensive. So, largely, it's ineffective at providing any meaningful solution. I think most knowledgeable commentators say it's a dead duck but it's been pushed hard as a solution by checks notes, the oil industry.

It's completely pie in the sky. It has taken the sum of all human industry to put all that CO2 in the air. To take it back out again by mechanical means would require a similar amount of industry (and energy!)

There are no technological quick fixes, and the scale of the problem more or less ensures that will always be the case. The problem is huge and can only be solved with huge effort.

Mirrors in space, dust in the air etc. might become neccesary in the coming decades as a stopgap to prevent truly terrible levels of warming (4° or more), but they must be accompanied by all the reforestation, decarbonisation of energy and transport etc. that we should have been doing for the last 30 years.

 

[8ball]

It's completely pie in the sky. It has taken the sum of all human industry to put all that CO2 in the air. To take it back out again by mechanical means would require a similar amount of industry (and energy!)

There are no technological quick fixes, and the scale of the problem more or less ensures that will always be the case. The problem is huge and can only be solved with huge effort.

Mirrors in space, dust in the air etc. might become neccesary in the coming decades as a stopgap to prevent truly terrible levels of warming (4° or more), but they must be accompanied by all the reforestation, decarbonisation of energy and transport etc. that we should have been doing for the last 30 years.

I thought CCS was the tech that captures CO2 at the point of burning (for storage elsewhere).
As opposed to (carbon sequestration?) - the borderline-terraforming idea of sucking the CO2 out of the air with massive machines (which get their energy from... somewhere, I guess...).

 

[stavros]

Nuclear fusion is another technology which is constantly being worked on. However if it ever does come to pass it's unlikely to be scaleable quick enough to avoid a lot of pain, and a lot more greenhouse gases will be emitted in the meantime.

 

[8ball]

Nuclear fusion is another technology which is constantly being worked on.

I didn't put that in my post because it's been 15 years away for half a century.

 

[Leafster]

I thought CCS was the tech that captures CO2 at the point of burning (for storage elsewhere).
As opposed to (carbon sequestration?) - the borderline-terraforming idea of sucking the CO2 out of the air with massive machines (which get their energy from... somewhere, I guess...).

I had thought CCS covered all industrial processes to capture carbon including technology at the point of source of the emissions as well as the wider drawing down of CO2, and carbon sequestration related to biological means but it seems you might be right.

The distinction appear to be CSS at the source of the new emissions and carbon sequestration for everything else. Biological carbon sequestration seems to refer to forests, peat bogs etc.

 

[lazythursday]

I thought CCS was the tech that captures CO2 at the point of burning (for storage elsewhere).
As opposed to (carbon sequestration?) - the borderline-terraforming idea of sucking the CO2 out of the air with massive machines (which get their energy from... somewhere, I guess...).

You're getting confused with Direct Air Capture (DAC). Carbon sequestration is basically just carbon storage, which can be under the sea as part of CCS, or through natural processes like reforestation.

 

[8ball]

You're getting confused with Direct Air Capture (DAC). Carbon sequestration is basically just carbon storage, which can be under the sea as part of CCS, or through natural processes like reforestation.

Yep, that's the acronym, cheers.

 

[Fez909]

This just popped up on my feed. I'm skeptical, as there isn't much info on the website on the sums, but it looks interesting: Mechanical Trees

Carbon collect – RADICAL BREAKTHROUGH IN CARBON CAPTURE

carboncollect.com

I found this Youtube vid which I think is talking about the same thing and has more info than the official website:

 

[WouldBe]

This just popped up on my feed. I'm skeptical, as there isn't much info on the website on the sums, but it looks interesting: Mechanical Trees

Carbon collect – RADICAL BREAKTHROUGH IN CARBON CAPTURE

carboncollect.com

I found this Youtube vid which I think is talking about the same thing and has more info than the official website:

Doesn't say anything about how it actually captures the CO2.

Claims it uses no energy yet extends and retracts somehow.

What energy does it use to recover the CO2.

States the recovered CO2 could be used to produce fuel for cars. Not sure that's a good idea and how much energy would it take to produce that fuel.

What energy is used to produce these artificial trees.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Sequestering carbon in cement is being research with a number of resulting possibilities. Some plans involve sequestering carbon directly into the cement. Another is rhe possibility of reformulating cement to pull in carbon on its own as part of the curing process.

This seems promising, but I haven't read the study:

While the idea of early-stage concrete carbonation is not new, and there are several existing companies that are currently exploring this approach to facilitate carbon dioxideuptake after concrete is cast into its desired shape, the current discoveries by the MIT team highlight the fact that the precuring capacity of concrete to sequester carbon dioxide has been largely underestimated and underutilized.

“Our new discovery could further be combined with other recent innovations in the development of lower carbon footprint concrete admixtures to provide much greener, and even carbon-negative construction materials for the built environment, turning concrete from being a problem to a part of a solution,” Masic says.

New additives could turn concrete into an effective carbon sink

Introducing additives to concrete manufacturing processes could reduce the sizeable carbon footprint of the material without altering its bulk mechanical properties, an MIT study shows.

news.mit.edu

You always have to worry about study quality and scientific puffery that occurs. One potential worry is this addendum:

The research was supported by the Concrete Sustainability Hub at MIT, which has sponsorship from the Concrete Advancement Foundation and Portland Cement Association.

While this isn't an absolute bar to doing good research, it is something to consider when reading any study.

 

[8ball]

Sequestering carbon in cement is being research with a number of resulting possibilities. Some plans involve sequestering carbon directly into the cement. Another is rhe possibility of reformulating cement to pull in carbon on its own as part of the curing process.

Cynical part of me is already imagining the advertising materials: "SAVE THE EARTH: PAVE OVER IT!".

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Cynical part of me is already imagining the advertising materials: "SAVE THE EARTH: PAVE OVER IT!".

Yep, someone really would do that.

 

[WouldBe]

I understood that concrete/cement already worked by absorbing CO2 as it sets. Unfortunately to produce the cement it involves giving off shed loads of CO2.