This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
Negative Emissions Technologies currently redirects to this page. There was no redirect mentioned on this page, so I added it. However, the meaning is sufficiently distinct that the NET page should be un-redirected and filled out. CDR refers primarily to the act of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it for long-term use. While some NETs fulfill this activity, others only remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere on a short-term basis, such as those technologies that use the removed carbon for additional energy generation, before releasing it back into the atmosphere. NET further incorporates the totality of emissions reductions effected by the use of NET technologies, and not simply the act of sequestering carbon dioxide. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda (ebook). Washington, D.C.: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. ISBN 978-0-309-48455-8. Retrieved 21 February 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cscott79 ( talk • contribs)
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR), also known as negative CO2 emissions, is a process in which carbon dioxide gas (CO2) is removed from the atmosphere and sequestered for long periods of time.. I still think this article would be better off renamed and refocused to "negative emissions", given that there is quite some overlap between this article and carbon sequestration and carbon capture and storage, which is also evidenced by the many excerpts that are used. Alternatively it might be better to shrink and condense this article more so that it becomes a short high-level overview article (almost like a detailed disambiguation page). EMsmile ( talk) 14:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR), also known as negative CO2 emissions, is a process in which carbon dioxide gas (CO2) is removed from the atmosphere and sequestered for long periods of time, aligns with the IPCC's definition of the term. My comment above from Feb 2020 was referring to nonstandard or informal usages of the term. I suggest leaving the three articles as three separate articles. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 22:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
SailingInABathTub StarryGrandma and everyone,
As you can see this article contracts the climate engineering article. Have you any idea how we can fix this? Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I've just re-arranged and condensed the methods section. I felt that if the content regarding carbon sequestration is too long here then people will in future continue to add more content about carbon sequestration which then results in double work: we'd have to update it here and also at carbon sequestration. Therefore I think the content about carbon sequestration needs to be brief here, summary style. I've used an excerpt for that. I think even the remaining content about agriculture and biochar ought to be condensed further. CDR is mainly about carbon sequestration and about DACS, right? The details about those can be found in the respective sub-articles and don't need to be repeated here. Summary and overview: yes, details: no.
The content about issues could perhaps require fleshing out, although again the content about issues will be very similar at carbon sequestration and at direct air capture so we need to be careful to be wise about it so that we don't have to maintain and update that issues content on three pages in parallel. EMsmile ( talk) 13:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@ EMsmile: your revert at [1] seems to misunderstand the stage electrolytic desalination is at for carbon removal. The [2] source is not "possible fundamental research", it's the measurements including the economics for earlier work such as [3], [4], [5] and [6].
A wider question, why is this article completely devoid of any mention of ocean-based direct carbon removal? It's an active applied field with dozens of pilot projects ongoing. It's more efficient than direct air capture because the mean free path of gases in air aren't as available to reactive surfaces as liquid seawater. And of course the CO2 in air is in equilibrium with carbonate in seawater, so it's the same end result.
Why doesn't this article mention direct ocean removal at all? Can you think of a better example of it to include? Ocean alkalinity enhancement isn't appropriate given its terrible economics. Sandizer ( talk) 15:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Electrodialytic ocean carbon removal and desalination:
Salt and carbonate can be simultaneously removed from seawater via economical
electrodialysis for simultaneous
desalination and carbon removal.
[1]
Well it's been a week, so I'm planning to replace the Mustafa passage and add Captura unless anyone objects. Sandizer ( talk) 00:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
For reference, the section under discussion is "Electrodialytic ocean carbon removal and desalination" here. Thanks Chidgk1 for the sleuthing! I've also tried to find a mention of direct ocean removal in the IPCC's SROCC and AR6 reports and couldn't, although I could have missed something. The WRI report is a good secondary source that does cover it.
There is a lot of research happening in CDR. I agree with EMSmile that we can't cover every single thing under investigation; on the other hand mentioning prominent areas of research is sometimes due weight. Is this a prominent area of research? Are there areas of research that are more prominent that we don't mention? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 17:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
References
Regarding
this edit that I made a while ago, User:Clayoquot brought this to my attention: "I want to make sure you understand that the definition of CDR is not the definition of "net negative greenhouse gas emissions", "net zero CO2 emissions" or "net zero greenhouse gas emissions". I fixed the error in
Carbon dioxide removal but if you've carried this misunderstanding to other articles, they will also need to be fixed." Don't worry, I did not have the impression that it's the same thing. However, I was trying to clarify some content on the existing page and might not have done a good job got it wrong, I am very sorry! But I think it's still not overly clear in the current version.
Looking at the glossary of the AR 6 WG 1 report it says: Negative greenhouse gas emissions: Removal of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the atmosphere by deliberate human activities, that is, in addition to the removal that would occur via natural carbon cycle or atmospheric chemistry processes.
When I compare that with the IPCC definition for CDR (CDR = Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) Anthropogenic activities removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products.) I conclude that CDR equals "negative CO2 emissions" - right? (but not "net negative CO2 emissions"). that's what is also says in the lead currently. Therefore, my suggestion would be to add that back into the definitions sections and to say: "The definition for negative CO2 removal emissions is the same as the one for carbon dioxide removal".
Furthermore, this sentence is not very clear: "The U.S.-based
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine uses the term "negative emissions technology" with a similar definition.". I would say: "The term negative emissions technology is commonly used in the the same way as the term for carbon dioxide removal emissions." (mind you, when they speak of emissions, are they thinking of all GHGs or only CO2?).
EMsmile (
talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
When CDR is framed as a form of climate engineering, people tend to view it as intrinsically risky
I am removing the section on Magnesium silicate/oxide in cement as I don't believe it is due weight to mention it. The cited source [7] says its net GGR is not fully understood and IPCC AR6 WGIII agrees, saying it "could" be carbon-negative (p. 1191). Here's the entirety of what AR6 WGIII says: "there have been pilot projects with magnesium-oxide-based cements, which could be negative emissions." Here's what I will remove:
Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
References
I am copying here something from my talk page that User:Clayoquot had put together there. I think it's useful to have it here to show where I went wrong (during some editing work in Feb and March 2023) and to help others as well if they have similar confusion that I had:
Article | Diff (those were changes made by me) | Comment (those were comments by User:Clayoquot) |
Carbon dioxide removal | [8] and [9] | Removed
BECCS from the lead and removed the entire section on BECCS, saying it’s not a CDR method. BECCS is a CDR method.
This is especially baffling because the next day, you added in sourced content that correctly included BECCS as a CDR method, [10] but you didn’t fix your previous error. |
Carbon dioxide removal | [11] | Removed the entire section on ocean fertilization with edit summary “we don't need this for two reasons: firstly it falls below "carbon sequestration" which is already mentioned above. Secondly it is not a promising pathway.”.
At the time, there was a “Carbon sequestration” section with an excerpt from the lead of Carbon sequestration, however the lead at the time [12] did not mention ocean fertilization. IPCC AR6 WGIII says “Despite limited current deployment, estimated mitigation potentials for DACCS, enhanced weathering (EW) and ocean-based CDR methods (including ocean alkalinity enhancement and ocean fertilisation) are moderate to large (medium confidence).” Whether ocean fertilisation is a promising pathway or not is a matter of extensive, active scientific debate. We are required to cover all sides of a debate neutrally. Your edit summary suggests you removed the entire section based on your personal opinion. |
Carbon dioxide removal |
"these are all part of carbon sequestration so I've moved them down a level.” May 30 2022
”enhanced weathering belongs within the carbon sequestration section” Feb 7 2023 re-arranged as there are really two main methods: carbon sequestration and DACS” 09:55 Feb 7 2023
|
Series of edits that reorganized CDR methods into two categories based on whether you considered the method to be “carbon sequestration” or not. All CDR methods involve carbon sequestration. |
Carbon dioxide removal | [13] | Reorganized methods in a way that implies, incorrectly, that afforestation, reforestation, and forestry management are not part of “Carbon sequestration on land and in the ocean”.
Edit summary claims this makes the structure “more similar to IPCC structure”. This is not what the IPCC says. The IPCC agrees with other sources in classifying afforestation/reforestation as land-based CDR methods. |
Also from Clayoquot on my talk page: "Your statement above emphasizes the superficial and low-risk improvements that you make to articles. I included the examples above to illustrate that you’re also making substantive changes to highly visible parts of articles and sometimes getting elementary facts completely wrong. Inclusion of BECCs as a CDR method is so basic that one-page overviews of the topic cover it. [14]." EMsmile ( talk) 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I think this article would benefit from a 2x2 image collage for the lead, similar to the ones at climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation. It could show nicely the range of CDR options, rather than just one image of a tree planting project. My suggestion would be 1 image of each for:
I would not be in favour of having a picture with ocean fertilisation or ocean alkalinity enhancement as I regard those as experimental and with a low likelihood of ever being applied at full scale. In any case, we would only have space for 4 images so would have to make a selection, and might as well pick those that are currently most promising with some due weight consideration (?). EMsmile ( talk) 08:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Thermal decomposition of methane results in Hydrogen gas and carbon solid and should be included in this article when combined with bio sources of methane by anaerobic digestion. 159.196.168.197 ( talk) 05:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
Negative Emissions Technologies currently redirects to this page. There was no redirect mentioned on this page, so I added it. However, the meaning is sufficiently distinct that the NET page should be un-redirected and filled out. CDR refers primarily to the act of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it for long-term use. While some NETs fulfill this activity, others only remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere on a short-term basis, such as those technologies that use the removed carbon for additional energy generation, before releasing it back into the atmosphere. NET further incorporates the totality of emissions reductions effected by the use of NET technologies, and not simply the act of sequestering carbon dioxide. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda (ebook). Washington, D.C.: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. ISBN 978-0-309-48455-8. Retrieved 21 February 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cscott79 ( talk • contribs)
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR), also known as negative CO2 emissions, is a process in which carbon dioxide gas (CO2) is removed from the atmosphere and sequestered for long periods of time.. I still think this article would be better off renamed and refocused to "negative emissions", given that there is quite some overlap between this article and carbon sequestration and carbon capture and storage, which is also evidenced by the many excerpts that are used. Alternatively it might be better to shrink and condense this article more so that it becomes a short high-level overview article (almost like a detailed disambiguation page). EMsmile ( talk) 14:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR), also known as negative CO2 emissions, is a process in which carbon dioxide gas (CO2) is removed from the atmosphere and sequestered for long periods of time, aligns with the IPCC's definition of the term. My comment above from Feb 2020 was referring to nonstandard or informal usages of the term. I suggest leaving the three articles as three separate articles. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 22:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
SailingInABathTub StarryGrandma and everyone,
As you can see this article contracts the climate engineering article. Have you any idea how we can fix this? Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I've just re-arranged and condensed the methods section. I felt that if the content regarding carbon sequestration is too long here then people will in future continue to add more content about carbon sequestration which then results in double work: we'd have to update it here and also at carbon sequestration. Therefore I think the content about carbon sequestration needs to be brief here, summary style. I've used an excerpt for that. I think even the remaining content about agriculture and biochar ought to be condensed further. CDR is mainly about carbon sequestration and about DACS, right? The details about those can be found in the respective sub-articles and don't need to be repeated here. Summary and overview: yes, details: no.
The content about issues could perhaps require fleshing out, although again the content about issues will be very similar at carbon sequestration and at direct air capture so we need to be careful to be wise about it so that we don't have to maintain and update that issues content on three pages in parallel. EMsmile ( talk) 13:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@ EMsmile: your revert at [1] seems to misunderstand the stage electrolytic desalination is at for carbon removal. The [2] source is not "possible fundamental research", it's the measurements including the economics for earlier work such as [3], [4], [5] and [6].
A wider question, why is this article completely devoid of any mention of ocean-based direct carbon removal? It's an active applied field with dozens of pilot projects ongoing. It's more efficient than direct air capture because the mean free path of gases in air aren't as available to reactive surfaces as liquid seawater. And of course the CO2 in air is in equilibrium with carbonate in seawater, so it's the same end result.
Why doesn't this article mention direct ocean removal at all? Can you think of a better example of it to include? Ocean alkalinity enhancement isn't appropriate given its terrible economics. Sandizer ( talk) 15:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Electrodialytic ocean carbon removal and desalination:
Salt and carbonate can be simultaneously removed from seawater via economical
electrodialysis for simultaneous
desalination and carbon removal.
[1]
Well it's been a week, so I'm planning to replace the Mustafa passage and add Captura unless anyone objects. Sandizer ( talk) 00:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
For reference, the section under discussion is "Electrodialytic ocean carbon removal and desalination" here. Thanks Chidgk1 for the sleuthing! I've also tried to find a mention of direct ocean removal in the IPCC's SROCC and AR6 reports and couldn't, although I could have missed something. The WRI report is a good secondary source that does cover it.
There is a lot of research happening in CDR. I agree with EMSmile that we can't cover every single thing under investigation; on the other hand mentioning prominent areas of research is sometimes due weight. Is this a prominent area of research? Are there areas of research that are more prominent that we don't mention? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 17:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
References
Regarding
this edit that I made a while ago, User:Clayoquot brought this to my attention: "I want to make sure you understand that the definition of CDR is not the definition of "net negative greenhouse gas emissions", "net zero CO2 emissions" or "net zero greenhouse gas emissions". I fixed the error in
Carbon dioxide removal but if you've carried this misunderstanding to other articles, they will also need to be fixed." Don't worry, I did not have the impression that it's the same thing. However, I was trying to clarify some content on the existing page and might not have done a good job got it wrong, I am very sorry! But I think it's still not overly clear in the current version.
Looking at the glossary of the AR 6 WG 1 report it says: Negative greenhouse gas emissions: Removal of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the atmosphere by deliberate human activities, that is, in addition to the removal that would occur via natural carbon cycle or atmospheric chemistry processes.
When I compare that with the IPCC definition for CDR (CDR = Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) Anthropogenic activities removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products.) I conclude that CDR equals "negative CO2 emissions" - right? (but not "net negative CO2 emissions"). that's what is also says in the lead currently. Therefore, my suggestion would be to add that back into the definitions sections and to say: "The definition for negative CO2 removal emissions is the same as the one for carbon dioxide removal".
Furthermore, this sentence is not very clear: "The U.S.-based
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine uses the term "negative emissions technology" with a similar definition.". I would say: "The term negative emissions technology is commonly used in the the same way as the term for carbon dioxide removal emissions." (mind you, when they speak of emissions, are they thinking of all GHGs or only CO2?).
EMsmile (
talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
When CDR is framed as a form of climate engineering, people tend to view it as intrinsically risky
I am removing the section on Magnesium silicate/oxide in cement as I don't believe it is due weight to mention it. The cited source [7] says its net GGR is not fully understood and IPCC AR6 WGIII agrees, saying it "could" be carbon-negative (p. 1191). Here's the entirety of what AR6 WGIII says: "there have been pilot projects with magnesium-oxide-based cements, which could be negative emissions." Here's what I will remove:
Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
References
I am copying here something from my talk page that User:Clayoquot had put together there. I think it's useful to have it here to show where I went wrong (during some editing work in Feb and March 2023) and to help others as well if they have similar confusion that I had:
Article | Diff (those were changes made by me) | Comment (those were comments by User:Clayoquot) |
Carbon dioxide removal | [8] and [9] | Removed
BECCS from the lead and removed the entire section on BECCS, saying it’s not a CDR method. BECCS is a CDR method.
This is especially baffling because the next day, you added in sourced content that correctly included BECCS as a CDR method, [10] but you didn’t fix your previous error. |
Carbon dioxide removal | [11] | Removed the entire section on ocean fertilization with edit summary “we don't need this for two reasons: firstly it falls below "carbon sequestration" which is already mentioned above. Secondly it is not a promising pathway.”.
At the time, there was a “Carbon sequestration” section with an excerpt from the lead of Carbon sequestration, however the lead at the time [12] did not mention ocean fertilization. IPCC AR6 WGIII says “Despite limited current deployment, estimated mitigation potentials for DACCS, enhanced weathering (EW) and ocean-based CDR methods (including ocean alkalinity enhancement and ocean fertilisation) are moderate to large (medium confidence).” Whether ocean fertilisation is a promising pathway or not is a matter of extensive, active scientific debate. We are required to cover all sides of a debate neutrally. Your edit summary suggests you removed the entire section based on your personal opinion. |
Carbon dioxide removal |
"these are all part of carbon sequestration so I've moved them down a level.” May 30 2022
”enhanced weathering belongs within the carbon sequestration section” Feb 7 2023 re-arranged as there are really two main methods: carbon sequestration and DACS” 09:55 Feb 7 2023
|
Series of edits that reorganized CDR methods into two categories based on whether you considered the method to be “carbon sequestration” or not. All CDR methods involve carbon sequestration. |
Carbon dioxide removal | [13] | Reorganized methods in a way that implies, incorrectly, that afforestation, reforestation, and forestry management are not part of “Carbon sequestration on land and in the ocean”.
Edit summary claims this makes the structure “more similar to IPCC structure”. This is not what the IPCC says. The IPCC agrees with other sources in classifying afforestation/reforestation as land-based CDR methods. |
Also from Clayoquot on my talk page: "Your statement above emphasizes the superficial and low-risk improvements that you make to articles. I included the examples above to illustrate that you’re also making substantive changes to highly visible parts of articles and sometimes getting elementary facts completely wrong. Inclusion of BECCs as a CDR method is so basic that one-page overviews of the topic cover it. [14]." EMsmile ( talk) 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I think this article would benefit from a 2x2 image collage for the lead, similar to the ones at climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation. It could show nicely the range of CDR options, rather than just one image of a tree planting project. My suggestion would be 1 image of each for:
I would not be in favour of having a picture with ocean fertilisation or ocean alkalinity enhancement as I regard those as experimental and with a low likelihood of ever being applied at full scale. In any case, we would only have space for 4 images so would have to make a selection, and might as well pick those that are currently most promising with some due weight consideration (?). EMsmile ( talk) 08:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Thermal decomposition of methane results in Hydrogen gas and carbon solid and should be included in this article when combined with bio sources of methane by anaerobic digestion. 159.196.168.197 ( talk) 05:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)