Climate Remediation Engineering - CO2 Removal Approaches

May 05, 2025 Last reply: 1 year ago 2 Replies

There have been many approaches to CO2 removal proposed over the years, but very few attempt to estimate the dollar cost per ton of CO2 removed have been published. Here is a recent proposal that does estimate costs:



Beerling, D.J., Kantzas, E.P., Lomas, M.R. et al. Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands. Nature 583, 242–248 (2020).

formatting link



.

formatting link



Extracted from the Abstract: "Enhanced silicate rock weathering (ERW), deployable with croplands, has potential use for atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) removal (CDR), which is now necessary to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. ... China, India, the USA and Brazil have great potential to help achieve average global CDR goals of 0.5 to 2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year with extraction costs of approximately US $80–180 per tonne of CO2. These goals and costs are robust, regardless of future energy policies. Deployment within existing croplands offers opportunities to align agriculture and climate policy. ... "



That's a pretty wide cost range, so we will use the geometric mean, Sqrt[80*180]= 120 US dollars per metric ton of CO2 removed.



Also note that this is an academic analysis, and so is most likely quite optimistic compared to a contractually-binding full engineering cost estimate. However, here is another datapoint reinforcing that estimate:



"Carbon Capture Is Key to Companies’ Net Zero Pledges -- Some carbon-dioxide removal techniques that companies rely on to improve their environmental footprints are riskier than others", By Rochelle Toplensky, March 17, 2021 6:09 am ET, The Wall Street Journal.



Relevant quote: "Project economics depend on the volume and purity of CO2 and the distance to the carbon reservoir, but it is 'highly likely' a facility can be economic at carbon prices of around $100 a ton, says Syrie Crouch, vice president of CCS at Shell. "



.

formatting link



The CDIAC tells us that one ppmv of CO2 in the Atmosphere weighs 7.816 metric gigatons, of which 2.133 gigatons is the elemental carbon component, so 100ppmv of CO2 will weigh 781.6 gigatons. Using Beerling's estimate of US $120 per metric ton to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, we find that the cost to remove 100ppmv of CO2 to be US



93.8 Trillion US dollars. To return to pre-industrial CO2 levels would cost twice that, or 188 Trillion US dollars.

For comparison the 2020 GDP of the entire world is 88 Trillion US dollars. The GDP of the West is about 40 Trillion, or slightly less than half the world GDP.



Datapoint: Over the five years of WW2, the US spent on average 27% of their GDP, squeezing everything else out to the margins, and they are probably still paying for it.


Joe Gwinn


This is fine as far as it goes, but nobody sane is relying on actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere to reverse anthropogenic global warming.

The current strategy is to invest heavily in renewable energy sources - wind turbines and solar panels - so that we can slow down the rate at which we are burning fossil carbon as fuel (and dumping the CO2 generated into the atmosphere). The hope is that natural weathering can eventually take enough of it out to reverse the warming we have seen so far.

We are getting close to the point where the amount of CO2 being dumped in the atmosphere is going to level off. We need to get to the point where it is going down.

It took about twenty years of development to get the price of renewable energy below the price you have to pay to dig up and refine fossil carbon into a state where you can burn it to generate energy.

This work has changed our world, and one of the changes is that all the people who invested heavily in making fossil carbon accessible are going to be making progressively less money out of those investments

They pay for a lot of climate change denial propaganda which claims that we haven't got there yet. Gullible twits like John Larkin and Cursitor Doom are suckered by this.

Greed will eventually move us over to renewable energy sources, but it is going to take a while. The hope is that anthropogenic global warming won't get too bad before we get there.

Silicate rock weathering has always worked in the past - look at Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum some 56 million years ago.

formatting link
The temperature took about 20,000 years to peak, and about 150.000 years to get back down again. Grinding up lots of silicate rock should make the recovery go faster, but - as you say - it will meaning grinding up a lot of rock.

Stopping burning fossil carbon as fuel would be cheaper, but it means changing society, and today's fat cats aren't happy about being put on a diet.

Just the fact that people are still burning coal for energy as a business (at about 30% thermodynamic efficiency) is enough to tell you that doing the exact opposite process is not going to be thermodynamically and economically justifiable at the same time. Otherwise we would put the two processes in the same box and have a perpetual motion machine (and free money machine)!

If we value having the carbon in solid form rather than as gaseus CO2, then before paying to convert the CO2 gas to coal, the first thing we should do is to stop converting coal to CO2 gas. The second thing would be to pay other people to also stop. It would be far cheaper than CO2 capture. The present purpose of CO2 capture is as a hand-waving excuse for politicians to build new coal power stations and approve new coal mines.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required