Could US scientist's 'CO2 catcher' help to slow warming?

[FourScore]

Source: The Guardian UK

It has long been the holy grail for those who believe that technology can save us from catastrophic climate change: a device that can "suck" carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air, reducing the warming effect of the billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas produced each year.

Now a group of US scientists say they have made a breakthrough towards creating such a machine. Led by Klaus Lackner, a physicist at Columbia University in New York, they plan to build and demonstrate a prototype within two years that could economically capture a tonne of CO2 a day from the air, about the same per passenger as a flight from London to New York.

The prototype so-called scrubber will be small enough to fit inside a shipping container. Lackner estimates it will initially cost around £100,000 to build, but the carbon cost of making each device would be "small potatoes" compared with the amount each would capture, he said...

SNIP

...Lackner told the Guardian: "I wouldn't write across the front page that the problem is solved, but this will help. We are in a hurry to deal with climate change and will be very hard pressed to stop the train before we get to 450ppm . This can help stop the train..."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/31/carbonemissions.climatechange

[heliarc]

1. I call it ....

a TREE!

[Fox Mulder]

2. I was just going to say the same thing.

[SpiralHawk]

27. "Trees are a big pollution problem. Smirk." - Ronald Reagan & republcion cronies

"You fact-based lib-ruls just need to start using our, um, republicon 'logic.' Smirk."

- Ronald Reagan (R - of course)

[lob1]

4. Where do I get one of these "tree" things?

[Canuckistanian]

16. LOL

I'm sure Ebay has 'em...

:rofl:

[truedelphi]

7. Good one! n/t

[Sam Ervin jret]

8. where's the profit margin in that?

[KaptBunnyPants]

36. Which tree can capture a tonne of CO2 per day?

Talk about fast growth forests.

[NickB79]

48. For the price of one CO2 scrubber, one can plant an entire forest of trees

Which will remove more than 1 ton per day over the lifespan of the trees, while providing wildlife habitat to numerous species.

[Javaman]

50. Some call it corn, we call it maize. ;) lol nt

[rockymountaindem]

3. Well, finally some good news.

I hope this works out. But what about the amount of power needed to run these things?

[salguine]

5. Surely somebody's thought of solar-powering it?

As long as you're building them, why not build that right into it? Otherwise, what's the point of building it at all?

[alfredo]

6. Add calcium to the soil, it will combine with the CO2 and form

CaCO3 Calcium Carbonate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration




Add calcium to your lawn.

[Igel]

33. Where does most of the commercially available calcium come from?

Bones and lime.

To produce either usually causes a lot of CO2 to be emitted--in the case of lime, producing the heat required for driving the CO2 out of the calcium carbonate (usually limestone, sometimes shells) produces a lot of CO2 itself.

[alfredo]

35. Animals die on their own. Certain crops do a better job of

sequestering CO2

[nebenaube]

38. yes

but we need to calculate the metabolic rate/cm2 for the crop you are thinking of and determine how many acres will sequester a ton of CO2/day... I think there are millions of labs already in existence that with a little additional instrumentation could readily determine that number.

[alfredo]

39. I think they are already looking at what crops would work best in what

soils. They also talk of manipulating soil content to make them better CO2 sinks.

[Lorien]

9. Just stop killing the rainforest, the oceans, and kowtowing to Big Oil

technology won't save us, ending corruption and stupidity will.

[bean fidhleir]

37. Exactly. It's like ending the killing in Iraq: just *stop*. Nobody needs anyone's permission.

Just stop already!

Having a technology to remove the existing buildup would be good, though. We could just grit our teeth for the hundred or two hundred years til it goes away on its own, but quicker would be nicer.

[The Diest]

10. In the book Mother of Storms (fiction) scientists do something

similar, it blows up in their face, everything is even more messed up. Yeah, its fiction but I can just see it happening. And I am a scientist, its not like I have a problem with them, but holy crap that would be playing with fire!

I vote for trees too!

[buckrogers1965]

11. I remember cities even having trees when I was a youngin.

Then in the 70's for some reason every city cut down all their trees, very strange.

I grew up in a small town that had both sides of every road lined with huge old trees and they are mostly gone now.

Sure did keep the houses a lot cooler to be shaded by giant trees.

[XemaSab]

21. Were they elm trees?

:shrug:

[amandabeech]

41. Yes, this does sound like Dutch Elm disease.

Now, in the areas around Detroit, the Emerald Ash Borer is killing all the ash trees, many of which were planted to replace elms.

Then there's the oak disease in the West and is it the Hemlock problem in the East?

I was reading about the tree diseases, and efforts to hybridize North American specimens with their resistance overseas cousins for Ash, Elm and Chestnut. The goal was to get the gene for diseases resistance while keeping the genes that make the N. American tree look and grow the same.
Some researchers were trying to use gene transplant instead of normal hybridization because it may produce resistant trees more quickly.

[Hardrada]

23. Our neighbors cut some or all of their trees down (depending on neighbor).

We got rid of one huge old tree that was about to collapse after a lightning strike but we kept the other big ones and planted more or let small trees by the fence grow into big ones. One of our neighbors kept trying to get our trees condemned but he moved to a different part of town and we and our trees are still here. It is amazing how fast trees can grow once you just let them go and how they can recover from storms that tear off large branches.

[Tesha]

52. Dutch Elm Disease. And now, the Emerald Ash Borer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_elm_disease

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_ash_borer



Tesha

[Q3JR4]

12. I've always wondered when

full sized atmospheric carbon scrubbers would come into the picture.

Isn't that the right kind of cliché sci-fi thing we need in this world of ours?

Q3JR4.

[whistle]

13. The best CO2 catcher would be trees...millions of acres of them replanted

[WillyToad]

31. Trees alone wont do it...

We are releasing a few billion years worth of stored carbon into the atmosphere in a geological instant. We need to stop using petroleum based products for fuel.

[alfredo]

14. Spread bone meal everywhere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080331110057.htm

[tctctctc]

15. Well we better figure it out ASAP..Gore is about to strap US with

an international contract with international bankers...forever.

Before you all sign on the dotted line...you better seriously look into the secret government weather warfare/modification programs.

DAMNIT.

[Teaser]

18. I'm down with the international bankers.

I just want my world not to melt.

[Teaser]

19. BTW....

we pretty much all know what someone means when they say "international banker".


Better codewords, please.

[Hardrada]

24. Yeah, those goddamn Swiss!

[whistle]

32. What?

[gristy]

17. from the article

Lackner says that device works, but the "humidity switch" could slash the scrubber's energy use tenfold. He said: "We can do it coming out carbon positive."

Ten units of CO2 for every nine units of oil! Carbon positive!

The team is also working on ways to dispose of the pure CO2 gas produced by each scrubber.

One of those pesky last couple of problems...

[Teaser]

20. wait, it PRODUCES pure CO2 gas?

In what proportion to its intake?

[drm604]

22. When they say it "produces" CO2

they're talking about what it removes from the air. It's not creating new CO2.

[rasputin1952]

25. I was beaten to the punch in the beginning of this thread...

trees are one of the answers.

When I lived in the Pacific NW, i could ride along I-90 and see long stretches of road in the mts with beautiful trees for miles. But in some areas, if you stopped the car and walked into the greenbelts for 50 yards, you'd come across a moonscape. Entire mountains denuded of trees, literally everything. I had to ask why this was the way it was done, why not every 3rd or 4th tree, why destroy an entire mountain of it's foliage...it all came down to profit...nothing more, nothing less.

There are still stands planted by various groups during the Depression when people were hired to plant the trees that are now stripping carbon from air...that should be a priority...and the notion that Reagan brought in that trees cause pollution should be tossed out into the trash heap like so many other insane notions.

[DUlover2909]

26. CO2 electrolysis could create oxygen.

Temperature of 550C would be needed but that could be accomplished with a nuclear reactor. Radioactive isotopes of uranium are what heats the earth's mantle. There's plenty of it. When the fuel rods use up 5% of their U235 too many impurities make their use inefficient. So discard them in drums and put them under the ocean or wherever in blocks of cement. Rinse repeat. CO2 into oxygen. CO2 represents a very tiny percentage of our atmosphere. Only a small amount of these kinds of systems would be necessary if they were up and running continuously.

http://rtreport.ksc.nasa.gov/techreports/2002report/600%20Fluid%20Systems/609.html

Anyone have any engineering knowledge that would prevent this? Or any info on what I dumb-ass idea it is is appreciated too. =)

[drm604]

28. I don't think blocks of cement would hold up long enough.

I'm no expert on cement but I think it might breakdown or crack long before the uranium has become inert. If cement was the answer we'd have solved the disposal problem long ago.

In any case, if nuclear were cheap, clean, and safe enough to do what you suggest, then we wouldn't need to do this. We would just use nuclear instead of burning fossil fuels.

[alfredo]

34. focused sunlight can reach high enough temps I believe.

[cascadiance]

29. I don't think we should dismiss this technology out of hand, but buying shade grown coffee...

... would probably help more in the immediate future now, to help stop the tearing down of nature's CO2 "capture machines"...

If we do put such devices in now, they should be looked at as a *supplement* to nature's natural plant mechanisms for providing photosynthesis, rather than what some might think o as a *replacement* for them. Ultimately we want to restore the natural balance we had before we started disturbing that balance by hacking down forests, etc.

If it can be shown these devices can be made and powered in a way that their manufacture has little effect on destroying the environment, consuming energy, etc. compared to what they yield back in terms of taking down CO2 content, then I think we should look at them as a means to help reverse the damaging conditions.

But anyone who thinks these are now "slick" ways of replacing what trees have been doing in the past should have their heads examined. They shouldn't be viewed as a permanent fixture in our Earth's ecosystem.

[FarCenter]

30. These carbon sequestration schemes sound bogus

First you take carbon (coal for example).

Then you combine it with oxygen ( C + O2 => CO2 + heat ).

However, the only cheap source of oxygen is the air, which is roughly 4/5 nitrogen.

So C + O2 + 4 N2 => CO2 + 4 N2 + heat, since the nitrogen is mostly inert, although you can get some oxides of nitrogen if you have too much air.

Then you pass this hot exhaust gas through a boiler to heat water to drive turbines, etc.

This results in still-warm exhaust gas with maybe 25% C02.

So how do you cool this down, separate it from the nitrogen, compress it, and pump it into the earth without using more energy than you got out of burning the coal in the first place?

[eppur_se_muova]

40. Separation processes don't *necessarily* require that much energy ...

that is what he is working on here. An absorption/desorption process could, in principle, be very energy-efficient.

In principle, the energy difference between a mixture of air + CO2, and air and CO2 separated from each other, is very small (the "energy of mixing"), but the practical matter of moving all that mass around does consume a fair amount of energy. Obviously, the more conc'd the CO2 to begin with, the easier the further separation.

It should be stressed that what this device does is *separate* CO2 from air or exhaust -- it does not convert the CO2 into any other form, so it is not 'sequestering' CO2. It might prove useful in combination with other technologies -- for example, if some carbon-neutral process can be used to create H2, the combination of CO2 and H2 would generate methane (CH4), which could then be burned as fuel again. The CO2 and CH4 would be continually reprocessed, without drawing more carbon out of biomass or fossil fuels, making the overall process carbon-neutral. I beleive NNadir posted a description of a process (due to George Olah) by which CO2 could be electrolytically reduced to methanol, another fuel -- the same reuse/recycle argument would then apply. The CO2 could also be blown into algal growth tanks, for conversion back to fuels.

(I'm not at all sold on the idea of pumping it into the earth. There have been several projects which have studied this possibility, and they have all tapered off into nothing, AFAIK.)

[FourScore]

45. Excellent information. Thank you.

[ohio2007]

42. a device that can "$uck" carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air

$ure, I'll buy that ;)

[daleo]

43. The CO2 thus captured could be sequestered in giant gasbags

Finally, a practical application of right-wing talk radio.

[whistle]

46. Great point turn on the CO2 machine at full speed and watch Rush

...Limpballs get sucked right out of his studio chair headphones and all! :rofl: :spray:

[RL3AO]

44. CO2 catcher? It already exists.

There called trees.

[lapfog_1]

47. Let's do a little math shall we..

current rate of CO2 production from man made sources... 30 BILLION metric tonnes per year.

This device...365 tonnes per year removed. Cost 100,000 pounds or $200,000.

Cost to eliminate CO2 (not reduce what is in the atmosphere already, but simply NOT increase it further)

30,000,000,000 / 365 = 82,191,780 devices at a cost of about $16,438 BILLION dollars.

Or $16.5 Trillion.

Now, building 82 million of the devices might cause a significant per device price drop.

So... maybe only $1.6 Trillion.

Better call the Chinese and ask about another loan.

[NickB79]

49. It also appears that it captures CO2 as a gas, not a solid

Not reacted with another chemical to create easily stored solids.

Storing gases is a major headache from a geological standpoint. Pumping it underground means you have to find formations that won't leak for MILLIONS of years, or you risk a future release of dangerous levels of CO2.

[Javaman]

51. what does the carbon look like once it's removed from the scrubbers?

is it in gas form?