It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Material Can Scrub Carbon Dioxide Right Out of the Air at Unprecedented Rates

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Researchers claim this can scrub carbon dioxide emitted straight from the source, at unprecedented rates, be it an industrial smokestack or a car’s exhaust pipe and even the air. And it's reusable.

" Scientists are reporting discovery of an improved way to remove carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming -- from smokestacks and other sources, including the atmosphere. Their report on the process, which achieves some of the highest carbon dioxide removal capacity ever reported for real-world conditions where the air contains moisture. "

Source / Alternative source

If cleaning carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was easy, we’d already be doing it. But carbon capture has proven to be a tough technology to feasibly roll out on a grand scale, and that means all the things we do that produce carbon dioxide emissions--which seems to be just about everything these days--are still roughly as bad for the planet as they were several years ago. That’s a problem in a warming world, and one that a team of researchers may have just found a solution for via an inexpensive polymeric material.

edit on 9-1-2012 by Daedal because: spelling




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
So where can i get some of this material for my emergency survival pod???
now if they could develop a material that did both, create oxygen and scrub carbon dioxide simultaneously, then i could launch my pod into space and go hang out on MARS

edit on 9-1-2012 by sweetnlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Sounds Great! Should put an end to the argument that "Cap & Trade" will kill energy production, jobs and businesses. Every coal fired power plant should be required to clean up their emissions and this material sounds like it may just do the trick, not to mention all the other carbon dioxide emitters around the globe.

Good find, S&F



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedal
Source / Alternative source
I was wondering how the extracted CO2 would be sequestered, but the article doesn't say:


After capturing carbon, the material also gives it up easily so it can be sequestered or recycled through the manufacture of other substances.
Even if it's extracted, and sequestering is as simple as pumping it into a storage tank, how many storage tanks will we need to have any impact?

However, this is interesting news, thanks for sharing it.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Very interesting! I'm always interested in advances in science. In the alternative source it reads:


After capturing carbon dioxide, the materials give it up easily so that the CO2 can be used in making other substances, or permanently isolated from the environment.


I think the real issue is what to do with the CO2 once it is removed from this substance. Store it like they do with nuclear waste? How about pumping it underground like fracking fluid?

I think this has some great uses but it no way would this be a large scale 'solution' to 'climate change'.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Thanks... this is great news.

It is very interesting to note that:



Their tests showed that these inexpensive materials achieved some of the highest carbon dioxide removal rates ever reported for humid air, under conditions that stymie other related materials. After capturing carbon dioxide, the materials give it up easily so that the CO2 can be used in making other substances, or permanently isolated from the environment. The capture material then can be recycled and reused many times over without losing efficiency.


So, this is a cheap, reusable, recyclable material which lets you either reuse the captured CO2 or isolate it... hard to find a down side to this one.

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Could always convert it to dry ice and drop into the frozen depths of the ocean or take it somewhere like Antarctica where it should be just fine, unless the earth's poles relocate.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Could always convert it to dry ice and drop into the frozen depths of the ocean or take it somewhere like Antarctica where it should be just fine, unless the earth's poles relocate.


How about giving it to hydroponic farmers to utilize for food production...



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It'd be handy if we could break the Carbon from the Oxygen and go from there.

New fresh oxygen, and carbon for our carbon technology!



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
Could always convert it to dry ice and drop into the frozen depths of the ocean or take it somewhere like Antarctica where it should be just fine, unless the earth's poles relocate.
Who starred your post?

You need to read up on dry ice. It would not be just fine in Antarctica, it's not consistently cold enough there to keep dry ice frozen. If you dropped it into the ocean it would sublimate before it could reach any frozen depths.

Sounds like you need to read up on dry ice: en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 9-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
you could use the frozen Co2(dry ice) to make energy, just like you use heat to produce steam



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedal
How about giving it to hydroponic farmers to utilize for food production...
Good idea. The only problem I see with that is, the supply of CO2 to have any significant effect on the Earth would far exceed the demand by farmers. But if we could find many other uses, that could definitely be one of them.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetnlow
you could use the frozen Co2(dry ice) to make energy, just like you use heat to produce steam
On the contrary, it takes energy to make frozen CO2.

This process doesn't freeze it, it only extracts it.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

a dry ice collector bag over a Co2 tank requires energy? i think if one was so inclined with a few resources and a little experimentation, one could create energy with dry ice, and make it cost effective


www.dryiceinfo.com...
edit on 9-1-2012 by sweetnlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sweetnlow
 

I didn't say you can't make energy once you have the dry ice.

I said it takes energy to make the dry ice. So there's a net energy loss.

This is basically the same fundamental law of physics that applies when you try to run your car on water.

Yes you can split H2O into H2 and O2, and yes you can make energy by recombining them. But there's a net energy loss, not a gain.

Same with your proposal. The extracted CO2 in the OP subject is on a polymer film. It's not really a viable source of energy in that format.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

no probably not



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Daedal
Source / Alternative source
I was wondering how the extracted CO2 would be sequestered, but the article doesn't say:


After capturing carbon, the material also gives it up easily so it can be sequestered or recycled through the manufacture of other substances.
Even if it's extracted, and sequestering is as simple as pumping it into a storage tank, how many storage tanks will we need to have any impact?

However, this is interesting news, thanks for sharing it.



Polyethylene imine has been around for this application for years. The work cited is based on many previous papers in the literature so this is not a new material; just a new formulation, if that. No basic material easily gives up CO2. The advantage to this type of material is that it is not an aqueous solution, like many traditional sorbents [e.g., ethanolamine] and so does not have the energy penalties associated with boiling water. In any of these sorbents, one has to balance the strength of binding with the ease of removal and recycle. The stronger and more completely the CO2 is bound, the more difficult and expensive it is to remove. The easier it is to remove captured CO2, the less CO2 it would capture. A 'goldilocks' sorbent would be reasonably good at capture without excess penalties of rejuvenation. It would be stable over many cycles of sorption-desorption and be relatively inexpensive to operate.
The possibilities of sequestration of CO2 are generally limited to injection into deep saline aquifers. Ocean disposal is not a good option for many reasons. One of them is formation of a CO2 hydrate [hydrates are stable combinations of ice and a gas that can form below the normal freezing point of water]. The problem is not so much the hydrate, but the heat released when it forms. When water warms, it rises. Ocean currents are not understood well enough to ensure that any disruption would be reversible. The risk of permanently changing the ocean currents and world climates is too great to risk ocean disposal. Any disruption of a metastable current anywhere could have permanent unintended consequences at unpredictable locations elsewhere.
With deep saline aquifer injection, the CO2 would be well below any useful aquifer. At those depths, the CO2 would have to be compressed to the point that it would likely be a fluid when injected. Technically, this is doable, although it would roughly double the cost of electricity to the consumer and seriously reduce the GNP of any nation that chose to do this. The big problem is one of legality and liability and that problem is what will prevent geological sequestration from ever being widespread. Because the CO2 is a liquid and a waste material, RCRA laws will apply, unless exceptions are made. Further, mineral and property laws come into effect if the gas crosses a property line and remediation of gas finding a fissure may not be possible. Long term monitoring will be required and the results made available. Should that sequestration be done under the seabed instead of on land where gas and mineral rights end at a property line, the expense will be so great that it will not be possible to do at any useful scale.
Don't expect sequestration at any significant scale anytime soon.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join