Could carbon capture save our planet?

Reducing human emissions isn’t effective enough to stop climate change. Especially at the accelerating pace of a 2% increase annually, solely with human emissions. The carbon capture method trapping carbon and reusing it as a renewable energy. It also diffuses 300% more than smokestack power plants (a current method to lessen the effects of coal combustion). As would agree many qualified professors and physicists like Peter Eisenberger and Osamu Terasaki who believe that this solution is mandatory. As well as the most recent UN (united nations) report that state carbon capture is the only way to avert from catastrophic climate change. So why do so few people know about this fix?

The most successful company is named ‘’Global Thermostat’’ which was co-founded by Peter Eisenberger (as I mentioned earlier). They are the only company that can take carbon directly from the atmosphere at remarkably low prices which is the biggest controversy about carbon capture and had use of this technology limited. Their process is to coat a cube in a nitrogen based compound which is then stacked cubes upon cubes. Exhaust pipes are relieved and the cubes absorb the carbon like a sponge filling with 97% carbon. They can handle 100 000 cubic ft per minute. This works because the bond between nitrogen and carbon is one of the most abundant bonds in organic and biological chemistry.

A less proficient method commonly used by many companies. Is called amine scrubbing. Amines are compounds often based on one or multiple nitrogen atoms. An amine solvent in this situation also acts as a sponge, or magnet and attracts the carbon. The carbon captured in this method come from flue gases. Flue gases are the exhaust from coal combustion. Comparing to the primary solution (capturing 97% carbon), This method only captures 90% and its’s only source is the flue gases which can be somewhat limiting as oppose to just being able to take it directly from the air.

One last solution I’m going to share comes from the international energy agency. What they do is inject carbon into volcanic rocks, and in less than 2 years the carbon becomes mineralized on the contrary of what science consensus would suggest, which is centuries to millennia’s. With this comes lots of controversy for many reasons. One, carbon is compressed before injection to decrease its volume, making it more buoyant. This raises concern over leaks as it will be stored underground. Making some countries ban this method.

I think the best way to change our climate is to bring attention to our first method from global thermostat. It works well with the economy and with carbon capturing. With approval, this could easily save our planet. An easier fix though is to stop burning so much coal and get creative with new strategies because combustion is the worst cause so, imagine if it was just gone.

Citings

<a href=”https://openclipart.org/pdf/169425/powerplants.pdf”>Mutable powerplant (PDF)</a>

Powerplant image

https://www.google.com/patents/US816306

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531346/can-sucking-co2-out-of-the-atmosphere-really-work/

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5948/1652

https://newatlas.com/carbon-capture-rock-two-years/43787/