How can we undo the fossil fuel CO2? (A longer version: what are the most promising and sustainable strategies in carbon management and sequestration?

Given the slowness of transition towards a low-carbon economy, we are bound for a high CO2 world. It is most likely that we will have to sequester CO2 and manage the carbon pools on land and in the ocean to keep the atmospheric CO2 below a dangerous level. The unintended consequences of our ‘geophysical experiment’ (Roger Revelle) will have to be undone by intended actions that are informed by the best science. Earth system research is in a unique position to answer such a question that involves an extremely large number of disciplines and their interaction with the human dimension.

How to store excess CO2 underground?

Nuclear waste need to be stored in special container to avoid contamination of the environment. Co2 level is rising in the atmosphere at a rate of about 2 molecules per million. CO2 emitted from thermal power plants and industrial areas through chimneys should be more amenable for storage. Today 25% of total world wide co2 emission is due to thermal power plants. The number is expected to double in the next decade. Everyone is aware of consequences of co2 in the atmosphere. Co2 absorption in sea acidifying sea water etc. In order to have equilibrium in CO2 cycle enough green cover is required. Less green land mass means excess co2 in the atmosphere and more G.W. resulting climatic change, melting of polar ice, raising sea level which may destroy civilization. Thinking all the consequences some how co2 needs to be curbed or stored underground.

A similar question to the one asking if its safe to store CO2 underground but taking into account how it might effect processes within the Earth: Is there a danger of CCS trapping heat within the Earth and changing the processes that occur within the Earth?

Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are governed by the processes within the earth. I would not like to have these processes changed so there are more volcanic eruptions and earthquakes happening. It will probly be hard to moniter how much heat could be trapped within the Earth though. Are there any records that people can get a sence of whats normal for the mantle from?

Can marine algae be grown cost effectively in facilities on land to help lower greenhouse gas concentration and forestall dangerous climate change?

Since it is unlikely that society will be able to reduce carbon dioxide emissions before we are committed to dangerous climate change for the next millennium, we must come up with engineering solutions on a global scale. Many geo-engineering options that have been proposed have received well deserved criticism based on environmental and financial concerns. My question is: can marine algae be grown cost effectively in facilities on land so that they provide 1.) biofuels capable of replacing all fossil fuel consumption, and 2.) biopetroleum sequestration products that extract sufficient quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to lower greenhouse gas concentrations below a level committing us to dangerous climate change?

Policy makers continue to focus on carbon dioxide emission reductions while many climate scientists have recently recognized that we cannot get to where we need to be by focusing only on reducing emissions. We need approaches that will extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere on a global scale. Reforestation cannot get us to where we need to be and neither can ocean fertilization. However, marine algae 1.) out-produce terrestrial plants by approximately 8-10 times per hectare, 2.) can be grown on land that does not compete with agriculture, and 3.) do not require freshwater. The biggest obstacles are 1.) determining suitable biopetroleum sequestration products, and 2.) getting production scaled up in the next few decades, before we are committed to dangerous climate change.

Why should we perform artificial photosynthesis? What could be the potential directions?

Photosynthesis is the mechanism by which plants combine carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O) with sunlight (using chlorophyll) to make glucose and emit oxygen (O2). In the artificial version, there can be two scenarios, I call them type 1 & 2.

Type 1. Just splitting the water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen, without needing the carbon dioxide. The hydrogen can be used for fuel.

Type 2. Utilizing CO2 to imitate the plant photosynthesis, in order to reduce carbon dioxide, make some glucose (food), and some by products like methane for energy.

Utilization ideas:
Type 1: For fuel cells, hydrogen source, energy harvesting

Type 2:
a. Clean energy (one can use such a system to suck up the CO2 and emit O2, near industrial plants, roads & highway (on the street light poles, road dividers, reflectors etc), inside tunnels, etc. In fact, CO2 is so abundant that if such a system works, one can turn the environmental issues into an advantage. This will reduce CO2 emission, filter pollution, balance further economic/industrial growth which could be under scrutiny due to CO2 emission problem.

b. Make some glucose, sugar (in the direction towards food development). This can help global food problem. Although it sounds funny, still we should not underestimate the mechanism by which plants are living after all!

c. Produce other carbon compounds and by-products like methane for energy harvesting.

There has been some advancements in the technology. I’m providing few pointers below.

Type 1:
Daniel Nocera, MIT, head of MIT’s solar revolution project. http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/nocera.html
Akira Fujishima, Univ. of Tokyo, http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2005/044a.html

Type 2:
Bjron Winther-Jensen, Monash Univ., Australia http://www.eng.monash.edu.au/mat/staff/bjorn-wintherjensen.pdf
CSIRO, Australia, http://www.csiro.au
Vijoleta Braach-Maksvytis, Univ. of Melbourne, Australia, http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/3135/