Start a biochar plant burning biomass for energy but leaving the charcoal as a long-lasting soil improvement and carbon storage product.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar

Sell the biochar to homeowners:

http://www.ultrakulture.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/4-Ter...

I have no idea about the economics, though, maybe it's just not feasible without subsidies.

Edit: Why? Because the technique is simple, biomass is relatively cheap, you get electricity and heat you can sell in a cold climate, and that terra preta example makes me envious, as someone interested in gardening. If the char was cheap enough, I would want to buy lots of it myself. Helping the planet and helping my own plants.

I think you need a large scale plant to keep costs down. There are large scale biomass power plants where I live, but they specialize in burning everything, so some investment is needed.

I have a client in the biochar industry. They manufacturer "machines" or furnaces to produce biochar, as well as sell it directly. https://newenglandbiochar.com

Using biochar in your garden, on your lawn etc. is a great way to sequester some carbon at a small scale.

I agree with the biochar suggestion, but I'd also suggest to bury both biochar and syn-oil deep in the ground -- at least, in the first decades or so. That's because I don't believe the usual sales pitch for biochar actually works.

Biochar as a soil amendment is not a reliable means to increase yields. Depending on the produce and the soil, it decreases yields. Sometimes, it seem to have no effect, at all. So far, the most reliable results have been observed in tropical areas. People there don't have the money to invest in farm land, yet.

Refining syn-oil is hard, because its quality is low -- comparable to bunker oil. Tar is one of the few products that can be made out of it, successfully.

Therefore, burying both seem to be the best option. After all, there should be quite a few depleted oil fields and coal mines in the world, so space is not a problem.

Charm Industrial is doing something like this (producing hydrogen from biomass and sequestering excess carbon from the process)

https://www.charmindustrial.com/about

> If you had $1B for carbon negative tech, where would you invest it?

Renewable energy and electric transport.

Trying to pull carbon out of the atmosphere is like trying to pull salt out of water. It is far easier and less costly to avoid putting the salt there in the first place.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be invested in carbon extraction, but so long as we have large carbon emissions then the most efficient place for money to go is towards eliminating those. Cleanup should be secondary.

I see that a lot stated as a general rule, but in reality it depends. Have you ever looked on how many people are employed on taking salt out of sea water?

Sure, for most of the carbon we emit, it's easier to stop emitting it. But not all. We won't reach neutrality by cutting emissions alone.

Besides, we will need to take carbon out of the air to fix the climate after we stop breaking it.

I don't disagree.

What I'm saying is that there is a lot of low hanging fruit to pluck. A 1 billion dollar solar plant could generate revenue to fund research while cutting emissions. A 1 billion dollar solar plant wouldn't eliminate all carbon output, not by a long shot.

It's a real action that could be done in less than a few years.

Until we get to a point where more solar doesn't decrease carbon output, more solar is the way to go.

You know, the lowest hanging fruit right now isn't even energy generation. It is on insulating/ventilation of buildings. Despite that all the action is on energy generation, and for good reasons. The only of the low hanging problems that we really solved is illumination, and that took many years after we got a solution that was better than the older tech on every single way.

The same way, we can't wait for the generation problem to be solved before we start exploring the solutions for capture. We have to do everything all the time; just not with the same intensity.

Are there any reasons to desalinate water besides geopolitical ones?

Yes, there are places where it is really expensive to move water into.

But most of the time, people separate them to get the salt, not the water.

I would also add here carbon dioxide extraction for carbon burning electricity plants. This carbon dioxide can be then used locally to grow new fuel for the plant.

Heck yeah! We worked with Carbon Engineering on our first carbon negative product (a planter pot). And we're working with Climeworks on our carbon negative bracelet: http://gonegative.co

Tito- very cool! Just looked through your website and your Indiegogo. I'm at the tail end of a PhD so don't have much disposable income at the moment, but will support it when I do.

Are you going to make planters again? I hope so! Even if you aren't, I'm curious what the price was for them.

Wow appreciate hearing your story! Yes, please email me, [email protected]

I was just showing off the planter at a party in SF yesterday, it's such an icon.

I write a weekly newsletter on carbon removal, check it out here: http://bit.ly/tito-carbon

C2CNT - direct air to carbon nanotubes: https://www.c2cnt.com/

they can grow nanotubes with simple electrolysis, and the only inputs are electricity and co2. They've got a version that works in a gas plant's exhaust, and a version that's completely solar. It's still early - like, hand-assembled by grad students early - but I cannot imagine that this is not going to be revolutionary

and oh yeah - they can make macro-scale carbon nanofiber "wool" which can be woven into future textiles: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246860691...

and and and you can use carbon-negative nanotubes as ingredients in other building materials, which makes them stronger, so you need less of it, so you emit less co2 making (for example) concrete: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu.edu/dist/d/73/files/...

(sorry for multireplies but this concept is just so exciting to me)

Washer-sized nuclear reactors for home use under $10k.

I for one can't wait to have a Mr. Fission in my utility room.

Everyone who thinks nuclear is a great solution should be the first to obtain these units. I'd support a generous subsidy for this.

"Live it, or live with it!"

I think carbon to value is the best way. If valuable uses for carbon are found companies will work on carbon capture themselves without political purpose.

Trees

I like cotap.org for this. Carbon offesets that go to tree farming in places where jobs planting trees might pull people out of poverty

Nice! Got a favorite tree scale up plan?