Green Technology and the CO₂ Problem: A Realistic Look
I don’t write much on green tech, CO2, or carbon capture. I’ve known for a while that our modern lifestyle was causing problems for our planet. However, I’ve never been an “environmentalist.” Rather, I have always identified myself as a “conservationist.” I think it’s important to take care of our home, but I refuse to worship at the altar of the environment.
It’s become evident that humans are responsible for the pollution and climate issues we’re experiencing. However, if nobody holds the largest polluters accountable, life won’t change for anyone if I reuse my shopping bags or keep my thermostat two degrees cooler during the day. So how do we reverse the problems – or can we even do that?
Many initiatives exist to try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the “greenhouse gases” that are the largest contributors to climate change. However, we’ve reached the point where simply reducing emissions will no longer be enough. We are going to need to actually remove the existing carbon in the atmosphere, which calls for different efforts. We need to examine green technology and carbon capture solutions.
What is Green Technology?
Green technology comes in several forms, and you’ve heard of most of them. Renewable energy in the form of solar, wind, and hydroelectric certainly plays a large role. But we can also consider geothermal and hydrogen as clean and renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. I don’t believe that we’ll ever not need fossil fuels, but the reality is that we use them by burning them, releasing CO2 into our air.
Our infrastructure and our home appliances have been the beneficiaries of technical advances that have made them more energy-efficient. There are also great promises in electric vehicles and battery tech. Again, we’re not at the point where we can say we don’t need fossil fuels, and the manufacture and disposal of batteries carry environmental concerns that require further study and attention.
Waste-to-energy systems are a promising option for reducing environmental impact and increasing sustainability as well. Our landfills aren’t providing a lot of returning value, but if we can find ways to create energy – hopefully, clean or reasonably clean energy – from our castoffs, we can solve the disappearing landfill problem as well.
Smart grids and IoT devices can offer more efficient use of the resources we can’t stop using. A smart thermostat that doesn’t keep the house at occupancy-level comfort when nobody’s going to be home all day is one example, as is a dishwasher or a washing machine I can program to operate at off-peak hours.
None of these suggestions is a standalone solution to our increasing energy needs or the resultant emissions caused by the massive datacenters that power our social media account servers. It’s going to take a layered approach to turn the tide.
The Role of Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS)
Nobody foresees, realistically, a complete end to carbon dioxide emissions. Even if we could realize it, we’d still need to address the CO2 that’s already in the air. This is going to call for a two-pronged approach: capturing the carbon emissions at the source, and capturing them from the air. Both of these options sound like either magic or outright sorcery, but both are in active use right now.
Point-Source Capture
Point-source capture catches the carbon before it enters the atmosphere, usually from power plants, cement factories, and steel and chemical manufacturing. Some implementations call for the filtering to occur before the fuel combustion, while some have it happening afterward. It works like a filter process, but using a chemical reaction rather than a physical mesh. It’s really expensive, energy-intensive, and doesn’t offer a universal level of capture efficiency.
Direct Air Capture
Direct air capture is exactly what it sounds like. A large fan pulls in air, much like the industrial ventilation fans. Some systems use solid sorbents that are like filters, and the filters contain a chemical coating that attract CO2. Other systems use a liquid solvent, such as a hydroxide solution that reacts with the CO2.
Then what?
After capture, regardless of the method, we have to do something with the carbon dioxide. We have two options: store it or use it. Neither is a perfect solution, but either is good for now.
Storage
Storing CO2 involves injecting it into depleted gas and oil fields, deep saline aquifers, or basalt formations. In oil and gas fields, it can turn into rock or dissolve into brine, both of which are inert and harmless. The infrastructure is already there to do the injection, and the geology of the fields has proven strong enough over millennia to hold the stuff. Some of the injections can help squeeze out more oil and gas, allowing for a partial cost recovery of the storage process. Injection into saline aquifers – well beneath our groundwater tables – is even more stable than using the gas and oil fields, and follows the same procedural steps. Injecting into basalt formations will allow the captured CO2 to eventually become rock itself.
Storing the CO2 in this way provides a safe and effective method of handling it. However, it’s very expensive, and it requires monitoring to ensure that the science is right and it’s not leaking out. Additionally, assuring the public of the efficacy and safety of the process won’t be a slam-dunk.
Utilization
Utilization of captured carbon might provide an incentive to engage in it, and there are several ways it can be used. Some methods are easier than others, and some yield more use than others.
Industrial uses include curing compounds for concrete, creating carbon-negative bricks, combining with hydrogen to create carbon-neutral gasoline or jet fuel, and as feedstock for industrial processes in plastics and chemicals. Biological uses include feeding it to algae for biofuels and animal feeds, and carbonating beverages.
Currently, the amount of CO2 in these applications is tiny compared to the amount that we are emitting. Also, when the synthetic fuels are burned, we’re seeing a re-release of carbon. As a result, the reclaimed CO2 is not completely “neutralized.” These technologies, being very new, are not widely scaled yet, and so they’re still pretty expensive. But it’s early days.
Your Turn
As I said earlier, you and I as individuals aren’t going to solve the CO2 problem by driving an electric car or riding the bus if major pollution contributors aren’t doing their part. But we can expect that the costs will come down as the technologies mature, making it more feasible for nations to participate in the efforts.
I believe we should take care of the home God gave us, but I also think we need to take care not to supplant God with an environmental pseudo-deity. I’m glad to see these efforts, because I don’t see our use of power diminishing unless power is simply not available.
What do you think? Am I wrong about our individual role in carbon emission control? I’m open to a discussion, so leave me a comment and we’ll talk about it.
My photography shops are https://www.oakwoodfineartphotography.com/ and https://oakwoodfineart.etsy.com, my merch shop is https://www.zazzle.com/store/south_fried_shop.
Check out my New and Featured page – the latest photos and merch I’ve added to my shops! https://oakwoodexperience.com/new-and-featured/
Curious about safeguarding your digital life without getting lost in the technical weeds? Check out ‘Your Data, Your Devices, and You’—a straightforward guide to understanding and protecting your online presence. Perfect for those who love tech but not the jargon. Available now on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Your-Data-Devices-Easy-Follow-ebook/dp/B0D5287NR3
