Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by Edward Farrelly
2 min read 0

2

Cause prioritizationClimate changeCause Exploration Prizes
Frontpage

This essay was submitted to Open Philanthropy's Cause Exploration Prizes contest.

Currently we continue to add  35-40 billion tons of c02 to the atmosphere annually.   To stabilise our climate before tipping points create catastrophic damage to the biosphere we must rapidly reduce fossil fuel consumption globally and remove hundreds of billions of tons of co2 already emitted. 

While one critical step involves reducing fossil fuel consumption which will come mostly from policies such as switching to revenue neutral carbon taxation in place of income tax, stabilising the climate will also include removing hundreds of billions of tons of previously released carbo.  To achieve this we must develop an ultra cheap Direct Air Capture (DAC) device that can be scaled rapidly and improved with ease.  With innovations of this scale, a cellular approach (that is a series of small, interlinked machines) is preferable to large scale high investment cost designs because we expect that like solar panels, the technology will improve rapidly. 

Several DAC technologies are being developed. Most commercial techniques use liquid solvents to absorb CO2.   For example, sodium hydroxide reacts with CO2 and precipitates a stable sodium carbonate. This carbonate can be heated to produce a highly pure gaseous CO2 stream. Other chemical processes that are being explored include causticization with alkali and alkali-earth hydroxides, carbonation, and organic−inorganic hybrid sorbents consisting of amines supported in porous adsorbents.  All of these electro-chemical  techniques are experimental and where commercialised currently cost in the region of $1000 per ton captured, primarily due to high energy costs. If the energy used to capture the c02 is not renewable, it may be that the processing of capturing the c02 creates more co2 than it captures. 

Recently a new form of co2 capture has been discovered. Originally proposed by Dr. Klaus Lackner (the father of several DAC technologies) Moisture-Swing capture is based not on an electro-chemical process but  a wet/dry cycle.  This uses an Anionic Exchange Polymer which absorbs c02 when dry and releases it when wet. This moisture swing effect means that the total amount of energy needed to capture c02 is dramatically reduced, and may even be negligible if passive solar techniques are incorporated into the machine.  If Anionic Exchange Polymers can be developed which can go through many moisture swing cycles, the cost of capturing one ton of c02 could be as low as $20-30, making the whole process affordable.

There are a small number of companies exploring the technology, such as Carbon Collect https://mechanicaltrees.com/.  The Open-Air Collective (of which I am a member) is also active in this field. Because of moisture-swings promise as an ultra-low cost carbon capture technology, and because the basic science behind it has been replicated, Moisture-Swing Direct Air Capture (MSDAC) represents the most promising form of DAC being developed today and should be considered as a technology for a moonshot program. 

Gauging the technology readiness level (TRL) of moisture swing DAC is complex; the basic technology itself in the form of proof of concept is advanced, but there is much R&D work remaining to be done. We need more proof of concept research on the anionic exchange polymers and how to produce them economically, as well as iterating the design of the housing to reduce cost and incorporate passive solar energy.

2

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Relevant opportunities
27
Apply to the Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship 2025
Harrison 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
79
HealthLearn: Impact Evaluation and Next Steps
2 authors
· · 12m read
1
1
24
Evals projects I'd like to see, and a call to apply to OP's evals RFP
cb
· · 4m read
2
2
View more