Stanford researchers outline vision for profitable climate change solution
A relatively simple process could help turn the tide of climate change while also turning a healthy profit. That's one of the hopeful visions outlined in a new Stanford-led paper that highlights a seemingly counterintuitive solution: converting one greenhouse gas into another.
The study, published in Nature Sustainability on May 20, describes a potential process for converting the extremely potent greenhouse gas methane into carbon dioxide, which is a much less potent driver of global warming. The idea of intentionally releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere may seem surprising, but the authors argue that swapping methane for carbon dioxide is a significant net benefit for the climate.
"If perfected, this technology could return the atmosphere to pre-industrial concentrations of methane and other gases," said lead author Rob Jackson, the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Provostial Professor in Earth System Science in Stanford's School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences.
The basic idea is that some sources of methane emissions -- from rice cultivation or cattle, for example -- may be very difficult or expensive to eliminate. "An alternative is to offset these emissions via methane removal, so there is no net effect on warming the atmosphere," said study coauthor Chris Field, the Perry L. McCarty Director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
Methane removal and atmospheric restoration (DOI: 10.1038/s41893-019-0299-x) (DX)
Related Stories
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Global emissions of methane have reached the highest levels on record. Increases are being driven primarily by growth of emissions from coal mining, oil and natural gas production, cattle and sheep ranching, and landfills.
Between 2000 and 2017, levels of the potent greenhouse gas barreled up toward pathways that climate models suggest will lead to 3-4 degrees Celsius of warming before the end of this century. This is a dangerous temperature threshold at which scientists warn that natural disasters, including wildfires, droughts and floods, and social disruptions such as famines and mass migrations become almost commonplace. The findings are outlined in two papers published July 14 in Earth System Science Data and Environmental Research Letters by researchers with the Global Carbon Project, an initiative led by Stanford University scientist Rob Jackson.
In 2017, the last year when complete global methane data are available, Earth's atmosphere absorbed nearly 600 million tons of the colorless, odorless gas that is 28 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at trapping heat over a 100-year span. More than half of all methane emissions now come from human activities. Annual methane emissions are up 9 percent, or 50 million tons per year, from the early 2000s, when methane concentrations in the atmosphere were relatively stable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @12:37AM (3 children)
It seems costly to extract ch4 from the air
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @12:44AM (1 child)
The economics of scaled CH4 conversion
to CO2 (or CH3OH) still need to be resolved.
A price on carbon emissions or a policy
mandate would be required; current market
prices of $10 to $30 per tonne CO2 (for
example, European Emissions Allowances;
values in US dollars throughout) rise
quickly to $50 to $500 or more per
tonne this century in most integrated-
assessment-model scenarios of 1.5 ºC and
2 ºC stabilization2. Such CO2 prices would
generate potential revenues of ~$1,250 to
$12,500 per tonne CH4 using a 100-year
global warming potential of ~28 for CH4
relative to CO2 (and subtracting for the
2.75 tonnes of CO2 emitted per tonne of
CH4 removed).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @01:01AM
Proving yet again the "global warming" is just another way for Democrats to tax the populace.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @01:49AM
CO2=More Beer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Shire on Wednesday May 22 2019, @01:05AM (2 children)
Where do these hacks come from? You think you can extract 3.2 billion tons of methane with a plant the size of a football field? Just to move that much air through the filter would be insanely energy intensive. Are you going to power it with a nuclear reactor? And how do you plan to get cow fars from china to waft over to your little plant eh? The best you could hope for is a highly localized zone of low methane concentration. Making any kind of measurable difference on a global scale is simply not feasible.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:06AM
No, all it takes is for everyone to burn as much methane as they can heating, cooking, running generators, etc. The product is CO2 and H2O.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @02:39PM
Of course. You just have to run it for a few millennia. ;-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dast on Wednesday May 22 2019, @01:45AM (4 children)
Doesn't that basically mean just burning it? Producing CO2 and H2O? Am I missing something?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @03:10AM (2 children)
Yes - the issue is that (for better or for worse...) the concentration of methane in our atmosphere is less than 1ppm, and well below the flammability limit so you can't just light a match and watch all of the methane in the atmosphere burn. Their proposal is to use a catalyst and blow large amounts of air over it that will slowly remove the methane over time, possibly extracting some energy out in the process.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Freeman on Wednesday May 22 2019, @02:29PM (1 child)
I'm also thinking a global fireball from lighting that much methane would have some environmental impact.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @02:42PM
On the positive side, afterwards you would no longer have to fear any anthropogenic contributions.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:08AM
Oops, sorry didn't read down far enough before my recent post. You got there first.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @07:34AM (1 child)
So, they convert methane into CO2 and release that into the atmosphere... Why? If you already have quite pure CO2, why not contain/convert/use it directly? CO2 could have its use, but concentrating it from thin air is a relative difficult process.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday May 22 2019, @10:44AM
Because methane is an order of magnitude stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It's not that we need more CO2. It's that we need less methane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @08:42AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @04:45PM
I've been thinking about this for a while. Cattle is a big emissions source for methane. Why do we not fix the situation with some piezoelectric ignitions in both ends of the GI tract?