
A team at Stanford has developed a powerful yet low-energy way to trap atmospheric CO2 using heated minerals.
By enhancing the natural weathering process, their technique creates reactive materials that absorb carbon at unprecedented rates. This scalable approach could integrate with agriculture and industry, removing carbon while benefiting crops and soil.
Revolutionary Carbon Capture: A Low-Cost Breakthrough
Stanford University chemists have developed a practical and affordable way to permanently remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping to combat global warming.
Their new process uses heat to modify common minerals, turning them into highly reactive materials that naturally absorb and store CO2. These materials can be produced in standard kilns, similar to those used in cement manufacturing.
“The Earth has an inexhaustible supply of minerals that are capable of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, but they just don’t react fast enough on their own to counteract human greenhouse gas emissions,” said Matthew Kanan, a professor of chemistry in the Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences and senior author of the study published recently in Nature. “Our work solves this problem in a way that we think is uniquely scalable.”
Harnessing Nature’s Weathering Power
In nature, common minerals called silicates react with water and atmospheric CO2 to form stable bicarbonate ions and solid carbonate minerals – a process known as weathering. However, this reaction can take hundreds to thousands of years to complete. Since the 1990s, scientists have been searching for ways to make rocks absorb carbon dioxide more rapidly through enhanced weathering techniques.
Kanan and Stanford postdoctoral scholar Yuxuan Chen developed and demonstrated in their lab a new process for converting slow-weathering silicates into much more reactive minerals that capture and store atmospheric carbon quickly. A grant from the Sustainability Accelerator at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability is now supporting efforts to move the research into practical applications.

“We envisioned a new chemistry to activate the inert silicate minerals through a simple ion-exchange reaction,” said Chen, lead author of the study, who developed the technique while earning a chemistry PhD in Kanan’s lab. “We didn’t expect that it would work as well as it does.”
Many experts say that preventing additional global warming will require both slashing the use of fossil fuels and permanently removing billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. But technologies for carbon removal remain costly, energy-intensive, or both – and unproven at large scale. One of the technologies getting much interest and even early-stage investment lately is direct air capture, which uses panels of large fans to drive ambient air through chemical or other processes to remove CO2.
“Our process would require less than half the energy used by leading direct air capture technologies, and we think we can be very competitive from a cost point of view,” said Kanan, who is also a senior fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability.
Spontaneous Carbonation: Inspired by Cement Production
The new approach was inspired by a centuries-old technique for making cement.
Cement production begins by converting limestone to calcium oxide in a kiln heated to about 1,400 degrees Celsius. The calcium oxide is then mixed with sand to produce a key ingredient in cement.
The Stanford team used a similar process in their laboratory furnace, but instead of sand, they combined calcium oxide with another mineral containing magnesium and silicate ions. When heated, the two minerals swapped ions and transformed into magnesium oxide and calcium silicate – two alkaline minerals that react quickly with acidic CO2 in the air.
“The process acts as a multiplier,” Kanan said. “You take one reactive mineral, calcium oxide, and a magnesium silicate that is more or less inert, and you generate two reactive minerals.”
As a quick test of reactivity at room temperature, the calcium silicate and magnesium oxide were exposed to water and pure CO2. Within two hours, both materials completely transformed into new carbonate minerals with carbon from CO2 trapped inside.
For a more realistic test, wet samples of calcium silicate and magnesium oxide were exposed directly to air, which has a much lower concentration of CO2 than pure CO2 from a tank. In this experiment, the carbonation process took weeks to months to occur, still thousands of times faster than natural weathering.
The Stanford team says their approach can be used beyond the laboratory to capture CO2 at industrial scale.
“You can imagine spreading magnesium oxide and calcium silicate over large land areas to remove CO2 from ambient air,” Kanan said. “One exciting application that we’re testing now is adding them to agricultural soil. As they weather, the minerals transform into bicarbonates that can move through the soil and end up permanently stored in the ocean.”
Kanan said this approach could have co-benefits for farmers, who typically add calcium carbonate to soil to increase the pH if it’s too low – a process called liming.
“Adding our product would eliminate the need for liming, since both mineral components are alkaline,” he explained. “In addition, as calcium silicate weathers, it releases silicon to the soil in a form that the plants can take up, which can improve crop yields and resilience. Ideally, farmers would pay for these minerals because they’re beneficial to farm productivity and the health of the soil – and as a bonus, there’s the carbon removal.”
Scaling Up: From Lab to Global Impact
Kanan’s lab can produce about 15 kilograms (about 33 pounds) of material a week. But trapping CO2 on the scale required to meaningfully affect global temperatures would require annual production of millions of tons of magnesium oxide and calcium silicate.
The researchers say the same kiln designs used to make cement could produce the needed materials using abundant magnesium silicates such as olivine or serpentine, which is found in California, the Balkans, and many other regions. These are also common leftover materials – or tailings – from mining.
“Each year, more than 400 million tons of mine tailings with suitable silicates are generated worldwide, providing a potentially large source of raw material,” Chen said. “It’s estimated that there are more than 100,000 gigatons of olivine and serpentine reserves on Earth, enough to permanently remove far more CO2 than humans have ever emitted.” (A gigaton equals 1 billion metric tons, or about 1.1 billion tons.)
After accounting for emissions associated with burning natural gas or biofuel to power the kilns, the researchers estimate each ton of reactive material could remove one ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Scientists estimate global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels exceeded 37 billion tons in 2024.
Reimagining Kilns for a Carbon-Free Future
Kanan is also collaborating with Jonathan Fan, associate professor of electrical engineering in the School of Engineering, to develop kilns that run on electricity instead of burning fossil fuels.
“Society has already figured out how to produce billions of tons of cement per year, and cement kilns run for decades,” Kanan said. “If we use those learnings and designs, there is a clear path for how to go from lab discovery to carbon removal on a meaningful scale.”
Reference: “Thermal Ca2+/Mg2+ exchange reactions to synthesize CO2 removal materials” by Yuxuan Chen, and Matthew W. Kanan, 19 February 2025, Nature.
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-08499-2
Matthew Kanan is also director of Stanford’s TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy. Yuxuan Chen is a postdoctoral scholar in materials science and engineering in the School of Engineering.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
23 Comments
“You can imagine spreading magnesium oxide and calcium silicate over large land areas to remove CO2 from ambient air,”
Has anyone calculated the amount of CO2 released by tractors or crop-dusting aircraft to apply the heat-treated alkali — or to mine, transport, crush, and apply the heat treatment to the olivine? This has to be done to see if the proposed process sequesters enough net CO2 to make the effort worth while. Once again, what has been demonstrated is the POSSIBILITY of a solution, based on laboratory experiments, NOT the practicality or economic feasibility of doing it at the scale necessary to significantly reduce atmospheric CO2.
This work may have gotten Chen his PhD, but it doesn’t convince me that Stanford is teaching their students to think ‘outside the box.’
I have observed serpentinites that are various shades of green, lime yellow, black, red, and even mottled with the aforementioned colors. These are colors usually associated with iron (ferric and ferrous) ions. However, I have never seen blue, which is usually associated with copper, boron, or vanadium.
Sometimes native copper is found associated with serpentinites, probably a derivative of copper-bearing serpentinized olivine basalts. However, while I suppose that the illustration of the blue rocks could be serpentine, it seems unlikely to be a common form that represents what the authors were working with. If so, then it may be difficult to find in abundance.
The article also shows Chen holding a tray of reddish material that is represented as being the heat-treated ultramafic rock transformed to magnesium oxide and calcium silicate. It doesn’t make sense what these differently colored examples are supposed to represent.
Can anyone explain?
I’d love to see this tested in the ocean.
Container ships could all carry extra containers and dust the shipping lanes as they travel.
That provides free distribution and the ocean has a much higher concentration of CO2 than the air. The end product also gets to the bottom of the ocean faster.
That solar mirror plant in Southern California is being decommissioned. I’ve always thought something like that could be used to create industrial heat. Heating salt and then piping molton salt to an industrial park was the concept. Even if you used something like that for some of your heat it could make a big impact on the footprint.
Seriously? You need an explanation for why a graphic artist picked a picture for their article without running it by the study author?
It’s because most people aren’t like you.
Leave the planet alone. How arrogant you are to think you know an iota of how it works.
Reality and truth aren’t concerned about human personalities. If the picture was worth including, then it should contribute something to the article, which is, hopefully, more information. Otherwise, it is just an exercise in putting lipstick on a pig.
Why absorb the gas the plants use? It’s a tiny portion of our atmosphere. Did anyone share this NYC winter with me? What warming? This is a cult, understand?
I understand and completely agree. Does anyone know what our current CO2 level is? As of the latest measurements, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere is around 427 parts per million (ppm), which translates to roughly 0.0427% of the atmosphere. Yeah that’s it. And if it gets much lower. More Trees will die. Carbon Monoxide is the culprit. And even then we are surrounded by the icy cold vacuum of space. The only reason it’s getting warmer is next the sun and the earth want it too. I was even told over 15 years ago by a professors at SLCC that this climate change go green is all a marketing gimmick.
I cannot imagine a more useless and pointless, or even evil, activity than sequestering the 0.037% of the atmosphere needed by trees, plants, algae, and kelp to survive and make air. Nothing convinces me more than Silica based aliens or Malthusians that hate organic life are trying to ruin the world than this. Imagine this done at scale. Completely insane. Climate change comes from solar forcing and the Schnoll Effect. If you have a hatred for carbon, seek help.
0.042% would be closer. If you’re going to use unit exaggeration at least try to be accurate. Unit exaggeration, where you use various units that make a figure look large or small to help illustrate your case. I want it to be big, ppt, I want it to be small, use %. Sometimes can work in reverse if u have tiny little numbers. Jedi mind trick.
If you believe what you just said why would you care if CO2 was returned to levels from 100 years ago?
Do you think plants are doing better now than they were 100 years ago?
Wow, I didn’t think the first 4 comments would be so unhelpful, Clyde Spencer, Eric Sanders, and Sf. R.
-learn to leave constructive criticism
-no wonder you guys haven’t come up with any of your own ideas, you think pollution is slowing down and nature will correct what we trash and shove into the air, pituful
Since when is pointing out obvious problems or asking a question considered unconstructive criticism?
Am I to assume that you uncritically accept proposals that don’t look at ‘solutions’ that go beyond the simple technical possibility without concern for economics or scaling barriers?
Am I to assume that your uncritical reading doesn’t raise questions about why the two samples shown are different colors or why the supposed natural material is an unnatural color?
I’m reminded of a great skit in the ‘Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy’: The B Ark has crashed on the primordial Earth and the useless (which is why they were assigned to the B Ark) survivors were assigned the task of re-inventing some of the most basic technology of their society. The convener and leader of the periodic progress assessment reviews had taken on the task of re-inventing the wheel. She provides a model, which is an octagon, with each of the eight different triangular sections painted a different color, with the axle coming out parallel to the plane of the ‘wheel’ instead of perpendicular. The ‘hero’ of the series, Arthur Dent, slaps his forehead and exclaims, “The most simple invention in the universe, and you can’t even get that right!” The woman is incensed and strikes a petulant pose, feet spread, hands on hips, and tells Dent, “I’ll have you know that I’m a certified marketing manager. If you are so smart what color would you paint it?”
So I’ll ask you, if you are smart enough to criticize us for our opinions, what is your creative idea and what color would you recommend for the field additive?
If every transport vehicle in the world was equipped with an intake system and these new materials we can develop a mechanism to reduce CO2 emissions from the source. Nature will clean up the balance.
Pitiful
“One exciting application that we’re testing now is adding them to agricultural soil. As they weather, the minerals transform into bicarbonates that can move through the soil and end up permanently stored in the ocean.”
Do the authors actually think that increasing the bicarbonate load delivered to the oceans will have no consequences when done at agricultural scales? Why don’t they discuss the issue?
You’re being pedantic, nit picking & superior – drawing attention to how clever you are, rather than being constructive. Your first comment has this “I’m smarter than you” vibe.
And your defence shows you’re not aware enough to understand that.
It’s a promising research report, not a successful moon shot: most ppl get that, but you’re cleverer than the average bear, aren’t you! Tell us again.
That’s why you’re getting push back.
My first two postings asked questions, which no one responded to. You accuse me of having an attitude of being the smartest bear in the park because I asked a couple of questions. They were honest inquiries and you want me to believe that I got ‘push back’ for that reason? I wish it were true. However, I suspect a different reason.
carbon is life
removing carbon from the atmosphere reduces the amount of life that can exist on the planet
there is not too much CO₂ in the atmosphere
quite the contrary
CO₂ is close to a 542 million year low
the Earth is not too hot
quite the opposite
we are currently in a major ice age
carbon sequestration is biosphere suicide
Currently life has adapted to the levels we have now. Rapid changes are detrimental to that state, short term at least.
This article is for humans. We evolved to live in a climate that isn’t just an average of earth’s entire history.
If you’re a piece of granite yearning for a semi solid state I apologize for the inconvenience.
I am wondering if the researchers considered CO2 liberated during heating of calcium carbonate with a magnesium and silicate ions (equation displayed on the board in pic) ?
Energy/heat required to produce CaO and CO2 to capture CO2?
Sadly some investors and politicians will think it’s a good idea..