Could this Rock Be the Key to Fighting Climate Change?

A mysterious green rock called olivine could be the key to fighting climate change. The unique mineral has a curious property – it’s able to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere – and it could potentially turn the tide in the losing battle against global warming. Retired geochemist Olaf Schuiling believes the rock could remove enough CO2 from the atmosphere to halt climate change.

Continue reading below

Our Featured Videos

olivine, climate change, geoengineering, global warming, mining, co2, co2 absorbtion, coal, oil, Co2 emissions, olivine mining

The good news is that olivine is abundant, and that there are several researchers already working on ways to put it to good use. The statistic are impressive: one report states that one ton of olivine could remove approximately two-thirds of a ton of CO2. However this means we would literally need billions of tons of the rock – approximately 3,000 Hoover Dams worth!

Related: 5 crazy ways to stop climate change

“Let the earth help us to save the earth,” Schuiling said speaking to Grist, noting that the methods we already use to extract oil and coal could be utilized for mining olivine. There are drawbacks, of course. Unfortunately, the ‘olivine method’ would take two decades to make any noticeable difference, and that’s not even taking into account the year-on-year rise in emissions.

Geoengineering is not new, and while some crazy theories have been put forward – such as wrapping Greenland in a blanket – this is one of the more practical ones. Olivine is already being put to use in the Netherlands where certain environmentally-conscious citizens have been using the mineral in paths and gardens around the country. One company called greenSand is even trying to make olivine a viable construction material.

The National Academy of Sciences is expected to release a report on geoengineering sometime this year, but until then this is one idea that could potentially make a big difference. Use the earth to save the Earth? It does make sense…

Via Grist

Images from Shutterstock

9 thoughts on “Could this Rock Be the Key to Fighting Climate Change?”

Gene Fuss August 1, 2017 at 8:15 am

The world's tectonic plates map link URL got 'shrunk' in the process of being converted from a link to the text in the comment. Here is the text version without the 'web URL prefix' upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Map_plate_tectonics_world.gif/350px-Map_plate_tectonics_world.gif

Gene Fuss August 1, 2017 at 8:10 am

Manmade global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion metric tons in 2012. At 2/3 ton of CO2 removed per ton of olivine, that means 53 billion tons of olivine would be need to be mined per year to absorb the man made CO2 emissions Total global mining output is 17 billion metric tons per year as of 2015. The olivine would also need to be milled to efficiently capture the CO2. Formation of carbonates is by diffusion of CO2 through existing layer of carbonate mineral to reach unreacted olivine oxide interface. The reaction starts quickly, but slows rapidly as the carbonate surface layer builds. Only about half of the olivine would be converted to carbonate because of the diffusion-limited process, unless the olivine was milled to less than 100 nanometer (0.1 micron) size. So over 100 billion metric tons of olivine would need to be mined and milled annually to absorb those 35.6 billion metric tons of manmade produced CO2. Olivine is a volcanic magma-formed mineral. You will find it mostly where volcanoes are found. It is concentrated in those zones only. In the U.S. that is on the east and west coasts. Worldwide, it is in the zone of the tectonic plate edges. https://upload.wikimedia.org/.../350px-Map_plate... And the rainfall would 'weather' the formed carbonate dust, washing it into the rivers and streams into lakes and the ocean. The oceans absorb 90 billion metric tons CO2 per year, release 88 billion metric tons per year, for a net gain of 2 billion metric tons per year. This is only 2/35.6 of total global CO2 emissions, combined manmade and natural. This is 5.6% of the MANMADE CO2 emissions. A drop in the bucket. So while possible in theory, the logistics and energy requirements, plus the net capacity of the primary final sink of CO2, the oceans, make the scheme impractical.

Anonymous January 4, 2016 at 12:59 pm

Just plant more trees and limit population growth

Anonymous November 1, 2015 at 11:48 pm

Plants consume CO2 and produce oxygen(more so than not). This \\\"rock\\\" may absorb some, but what happens when it reaches capacity? Is the CO2 released when it breaks down? Where does the CO2 go? This is neither a solution or a bandage.

sfdenizen February 24, 2015 at 11:57 am

This is interesting, but seems like a very superficial band-aid solution. We need to reduce our insane energy needs as a culture. Let's slow down our lives: bike, walk, grow food locally, spend time in nature and be satisfied with pursuits that don't require constant plundering of the earth. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear may seem like good options, but they too have major environmental costs. We need to go back to nature-based simple living. It's better for the planet, better for our culture, and better for our physical and mental well-being.

Anonymous December 31, 2014 at 9:02 pm

"freeradical" is correct, we must stop causing it. And the best way to do that is to replace Big Petro-Carbon (BPC) with nuclear. And the best nuclear is Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. LFTRs not only generate energy, they can desalinate water with their waste heat AND burn up PUFF (previously used fission fuel) left behind by conventional nuclear power.

Anonymous December 28, 2014 at 9:03 pm

By itself this is a fairly marginal if not an ineffective solution to climate change. At most what it can do is buying some time, being a finite resource. It's a non-renewable solution for our continue growth.

Anonymous November 17, 2014 at 11:27 am

Digging up the earth (more) to save the atmosphere? If we come up with an apparent solution like this, then people won't feel accountable.

Anonymous November 13, 2014 at 9:35 pm

You don\\\'t \\\"Fight\\\" climate change... \\\"You \\\"STOP CAUSING IT!\\\" :/

Gene Fuss August 1, 2017 at 8:15 am

The world's tectonic plates map link URL got 'shrunk' in the process of being converted from a link to the text in the comment. Here is the text version without the 'web URL prefix' upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Map_plate_tectonics_world.gif/350px-Map_plate_tectonics_world.gif
Gene Fuss August 1, 2017 at 8:10 am

Manmade global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion metric tons in 2012. At 2/3 ton of CO2 removed per ton of olivine, that means 53 billion tons of olivine would be need to be mined per year to absorb the man made CO2 emissions Total global mining output is 17 billion metric tons per year as of 2015. The olivine would also need to be milled to efficiently capture the CO2. Formation of carbonates is by diffusion of CO2 through existing layer of carbonate mineral to reach unreacted olivine oxide interface. The reaction starts quickly, but slows rapidly as the carbonate surface layer builds. Only about half of the olivine would be converted to carbonate because of the diffusion-limited process, unless the olivine was milled to less than 100 nanometer (0.1 micron) size. So over 100 billion metric tons of olivine would need to be mined and milled annually to absorb those 35.6 billion metric tons of manmade produced CO2. Olivine is a volcanic magma-formed mineral. You will find it mostly where volcanoes are found. It is concentrated in those zones only. In the U.S. that is on the east and west coasts. Worldwide, it is in the zone of the tectonic plate edges. https://upload.wikimedia.org/.../350px-Map_plate... And the rainfall would 'weather' the formed carbonate dust, washing it into the rivers and streams into lakes and the ocean. The oceans absorb 90 billion metric tons CO2 per year, release 88 billion metric tons per year, for a net gain of 2 billion metric tons per year. This is only 2/35.6 of total global CO2 emissions, combined manmade and natural. This is 5.6% of the MANMADE CO2 emissions. A drop in the bucket. So while possible in theory, the logistics and energy requirements, plus the net capacity of the primary final sink of CO2, the oceans, make the scheme impractical.
Anonymous January 4, 2016 at 12:59 pm

Just plant more trees and limit population growth
Anonymous November 1, 2015 at 11:48 pm

Plants consume CO2 and produce oxygen(more so than not). This \\\"rock\\\" may absorb some, but what happens when it reaches capacity? Is the CO2 released when it breaks down? Where does the CO2 go? This is neither a solution or a bandage.
sfdenizen February 24, 2015 at 11:57 am

This is interesting, but seems like a very superficial band-aid solution. We need to reduce our insane energy needs as a culture. Let's slow down our lives: bike, walk, grow food locally, spend time in nature and be satisfied with pursuits that don't require constant plundering of the earth. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear may seem like good options, but they too have major environmental costs. We need to go back to nature-based simple living. It's better for the planet, better for our culture, and better for our physical and mental well-being.
Anonymous December 31, 2014 at 9:02 pm

"freeradical" is correct, we must stop causing it. And the best way to do that is to replace Big Petro-Carbon (BPC) with nuclear. And the best nuclear is Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. LFTRs not only generate energy, they can desalinate water with their waste heat AND burn up PUFF (previously used fission fuel) left behind by conventional nuclear power.
Anonymous December 28, 2014 at 9:03 pm

By itself this is a fairly marginal if not an ineffective solution to climate change. At most what it can do is buying some time, being a finite resource. It's a non-renewable solution for our continue growth.
Anonymous November 17, 2014 at 11:27 am

Digging up the earth (more) to save the atmosphere? If we come up with an apparent solution like this, then people won't feel accountable.
Anonymous November 13, 2014 at 9:35 pm

You don\\\'t \\\"Fight\\\" climate change... \\\"You \\\"STOP CAUSING IT!\\\" :/

Could this Rock Be the Key to Fighting Climate Change?

Environment

LEAVE A COMMENT

9 thoughts on “Could this Rock Be the Key to Fighting Climate Change?”

SIGN UP

Already have an account? Log In

LEAVE A COMMENT

9 thoughts on “Could this Rock Be the Key to Fighting Climate Change?”

Slideshow

Could this Rock Be the Key to Fighting Climate Change?

Olivine

GreenSand

Olivine Carbon Sink

Olivine Carbon Sink

Olivine Carbon Sink