To be co2 negative, our civilization present challenge

To be co2 negative, our civilization present challenge

Or it will be soon too late

Every time I read scientific papers about the current scientists’ verification work on test models in order to check previous forecasts on climate evolution, current data are worse than any adverse hypothesis that existed before. This happens year after year, and paper over paper, every new hypothesis proofs worst than the previous one.

Based in ICCP Climate Change2014 Synthesis Report: “ between 1850 and 2011, cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere were 2040 ± 310 GtCO2, about 40% of these emissions have remained in the atmosphere (880 GtCO2), and the rest was stored in plants, soils and ocean”. Green House Gas (GHG) emissions have pushed CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from 280 p.p.m. in 1850 to 391 p.p.m. in 2011.

News are not good for us. As scientists predict, we will likely reach up to the level of 550 p.p.m. with our cumulative emissions within the next half century. During this time humankind will be trying to become Carbon Neutral and will make efforts to eliminate hydrocarbon burning. This is because recent investigations tell us that oceans acidification and soil lack of nutrients are both reaching the top of their capability to store CO2.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

But the challenge starts here: the Arctic and sub-Artic regions have large quantities of organic carbon and potential methane stored in their frozen soils. This is thawing and triggering a GHG feedback mechanism. This is happening also with Methane Hydrate stored in shallow waters.

The potential GHG embedded in the permafrost has been recently estimated around 1700 GtCO2. Nothing about Methane Hydrate. THESE ARE THE NAKED FACTS AT PRESENT.

• What is the solution to stop this? The solution is BECOMING CO2 NEGATIVE, which is the PRESENT CIVILISATION CHALLENGE. We must get the genie back to the magic lamp.

• How CAN WE DO IT? By capturing the atmosphere CO2.

• How much would that cost? We have to consider CO2 capture in relation to energy generation from wood i.e. 1 wood ton = 3,6 MWh LCV₀ and equate the energy resource in the wood to its energy equivalent value, i.e. 1 MWh = US$ 50. We then have to calculate the CO2 captured within this wood when not burnt for energy generation. That is 1 wood ton = 1,8 tCO2 which in the end means a profit loss from energy generation which can be estimated at about US$ 100 per tCO2. A round number.

Meaning, that if we want to reverse the human CO2 emissions generated since 1850 to date, we will then need 880 GtCO2 x 100 Eur/tCO2 = US$ 88 x 10¹² (the World GDP in 2016 was US$ 75,6 x 10¹² according to World Bank). Hence, the cost of becoming CO2 negative sits at about ONCE THE WORLD’s GDP. WOW!!! Instead, if we just wait until the permafrost melts, it could be that the cost, no matter how big, will not be paid.

The conclusion is harsh: if we do not start becoming CO2 negative, it doesn’t matter how, nothing will save us, the humankind.