United Airlines will invest in carbon capture to try to limit the bad effects of its fuel on the climate.
It would be better for the planet if we all took fewer airplane trips, but consumer demand just keeps increasing. Especially after the pandemic, everyone wants to get away by plane. So here is an alternative way to deal with aviation pollution. Would love to know if you regard this as a good solution.
Steven Mufson reported for the Washington Post in January, “United Airlines is … backing carbon capture — the nascent technology designed to suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
“United Airlines is the first major U.S. air carrier to take a step toward trying to remove some of the greenhouse gases spewed by it and every other airline, pollution that is driving up global temperatures.
“For United, it’s an alluring project. Governments, particularly in Europe, are beginning to crack down on emissions from airlines. Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the first time regulated greenhouse gas emissions from commercial aircraft. … United is increasingly focused on its voluntary goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 — good publicity at a time of growing alarm about climate change.
“But it may also be placing an early bet that carbon-capture technology could — with the help of federal tax credits — prove profitable. …
“Steve Oldham, chief executive of Carbon Engineering, which has developed carbon-capture technology, said United is taking an unusual approach to decarbonization. ‘When most are thinking they have to stop emissions, here you have a very credible company with a real need saying that the best way of dealing with emissions is removing them,’ he said.
“A lot is at stake. If global airlines were lumped together as one country, they would rank among the world’s top five or six emitters of carbon dioxide, according to the International Energy Agency. Aviation accounts for 3.5 percent of the planet’s man-made greenhouse gas emissions, a recent Manchester Metropolitan University study says. At high altitudes, the planes leave behind contrails of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, water vapor and soot.
“When it comes to commercial aviation, there are no low-carbon alternatives. In the summer, a small white-and-red all-electric-powered Cessna e-Caravan flew safely over Washington state — for only 28 minutes. The plane had room for nine, but only the pilot was on board.
“Solar-powered flights are even less practical. A plane called Solar Impulse 2 went around the world over 14 months, but it could only hold the pilot in an unheated, unpressurized phone-booth-size cockpit whose single seat doubled as a toilet. The plane flew at an average of 30 miles per hour to maximize energy savings, and, despite an enormous wingspan, it was only able to carry the equivalent weight of one automobile.
” ‘The aviation sector is one of the hardest to decarbonize,’ Oldham said. ‘Planes require fuel and burn a lot of fuel. At high altitude, the impact of those carbon emissions is greater than if they were released on the surface.’
“So United says it will become a partner in 1PointFive, a joint venture designed to finance and deploy a large-scale direct-air-capture plant. The firm, formed in August by a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum and Rusheen Capital Management, will use technology created by Carbon Engineering.
“The name 1PointFive refers to the U.N. goal of limiting the average increase in global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial times. Constraining global warming to that level could avert the most catastrophic fallout from climate change, scientists say. The company will build its first plant somewhere in the Texas Permian Basin, an area rich in shale crude oil and natural gas.
“Occidental, the biggest oil and gas operator in the Permian, will take the carbon dioxide from the air and pump it into old wells to extract more oil. Legislation gives firms a $35-a-barrel tax credit for this capture and use. Occidental will leave the carbon dioxide underground; it has said it has enough geologic storage capacity to bury 28 years worth of U.S. emissions. …
“Scale remains a problem. United has improved its fuel efficiency by more than 45 percent since 1990, the year often used as a benchmark for climate-oriented energy savings. It has added aerodynamic fins on wingtips, used only one engine when taxiing on runways and bought planes that weigh less. But the number of travelers has soared, and airline fuel consumption has gone up. The federal Energy Information Administration estimates that jet fuel demand will more than double by 2050.
“Each carbon-capture plant will take up about 100 acres and capture 1 million tons, equivalent to the work of more than 40 million trees. To put that into perspective, worldwide emissions are 40 gigatons. Offsetting that would require 40,000 carbon capture plants. …
“David Victor, a professor and climate expert at the University of California at San Diego, said, ‘The airlines are an example of a sector where firms are starting to see the writing on the wall … and a lot of them don’t know what to do.’ “
More at the Washington Post, here.
Suzanne's Mom's Blog 
Interesting. Given current technology and current emission rates, such plants can’t at the moment make much of a difference but it still seems worth doing. It’s a step in the right direction and such processes will hopefully improve and become more efficient over time. We should be trying dozens of ways to reduce CO2 emissions.
Indeed. Humongous problems in to be attacked in a variety of ways.
We need to invent those star trek tranporters
Ha, ha, ha. Why didn’t I think of that?!
I don’t know…
I can see that there will be unanticipated side effects. Would like to hear from environmentalists who have gone into the question deeply.
A couple of things about carbon capture. First, Carol is correct that the scale needs to grow tremendously to be of much benefit. Second, and in line with the first, the Paris Climate Accord only relies on 2.5% of carbon reduction coming from capture. Therefore, 97.5% must come from reduced emissions if we are going to win this battle.
I have to say that makes sense. And here’s a question from a nonscientist, me: when we put lots of carbon in the earth, what does it do to the creatures living there? Are the worms good with this approach?
Also a non-scientist, but I can ballpark an answer to your question – I think. My understanding of the captured carbon is in solid form, like concrete, at the end of the capturing process, and hopefully inert. From studies of newly planted forest as “carbon sinks” it is known to take approximately 15-years for the forest to mature to a break-even point (capturing enough carbon to offset the emissions from the forest floor); and another 15-years (30 total) for it to repair the damage that was done by clearing it – C02-wise – and become an on-balance reducer of total carbon. Thus, I believe the earth holds the carbon it can, and emits what it can’t. So, I do not believe worms, etc. will be adversely affected. But, a scientist may correct my assumptions.
For a nonscientist, you really know your stuff!
Combatting addition of carbon emissions is the major issue, especially from airlines. Thank you 😊
We all need to think first before flying: Is this trip necessary? It’s demand that drives the increase in emissions. Some trip are actually important but not all.
Ye. Agreed. After the pandemic, flying would not be the same again.
I hope we will think of new novel ways to produce less carbon, or absorb more as in green roofs.
Many approaches needed. I love green roofs!