First Successful Demonstration of CO2 Air Capture Technology, a promising solution

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ Apr 27 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]431178[/snapback]</div>

cool!

so...

1. what do you do with the carbon you capture - how do you get rid of it?
2. is not co2 in the atmosphere a force for global cooling?
3. are the chinese going to do this since they are now the worlds # 1 or will be shorly producer of co2 and they no intention of doing kyoto or anything that will harm their economy. perhaps they should start buying carbon credits from algore?
4. how did the co2 levels from 100's of thousands of years ago return to baseline - just curious - much less how did they spike without humans on the planet?

 

I think CO2 levels would be taken very seriously on the International Space Stations and BioSphere II ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 ) While the Earth is much larger and more resiliant, I'm sure there is a breaking point in regards to supporting human life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 27 2007, 09:56 AM) [snapback]431187[/snapback]</div>

Put it back in the ground

What spike are you talking about? During the Cretaceous Period CO2 levels were considerably higher than they are now. There was no polar ice. Volcanic activity was much higher and the this all took millions of years. A considerably slower rate of change than what we're seeing now.

This is a cool development, coupled with the UCSD research team that has demonstrated that atmospheric CO2 can be removed via a solar powered process to make Carbon monoxide, which is a component of syn gas (article here). This would allow us to make plastics, oil, and all kinds of petrochemicals with CO2 already in the atmosphere.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 27 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]431229[/snapback]</div>

His level of questions show he is so far out of the loop as far as science and technology goes, it would take a bit of explanation to bring him up to speed. His extensive history here shows he isn't interested in learning anything new, so I wouldn't bother, he's just having more fun baiting people. If somebody had serious questions I'd be more than happy to help out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ Apr 27 2007, 08:47 AM) [snapback]431178[/snapback]</div>

Thanks. I am happier for having read this post. Now, how can I invest in this technology?

Unfortunately the article talks about how impractical it is to capture CO2 from a car's tail pipe. Well my prius emits half the CO2 (according to Toyota) than a regular car. A PHEV would be even better. Why isn't that fact more understood?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Apr 27 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]431273[/snapback]</div>

without going into the science that i do not understand - explain to me how you are going to deal with china now that they are the # 1 producer of co2 - try to keep it simple. seems that china alone will produce enough co2 to negate any measures the rest of the world takes to reign in co2 production - and then later we can discuss other countries whose co2 production is ramping up and who absolutely NO interestest in taming it like india or brazil.

and please dont tell me that that makes it the more urgent we do our best so china can keep making more co2 and keep their economy humming..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 27 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]431319[/snapback]</div>

I thought you didn't believe in human caused global warming?!
(you're right, though, you cannot stop China and India from burning oil, but dimishing oil production will!)


PEOPLE, please don't waste your breath debating AGW with Berman, he is a paid shill.
Also, peak oil will make global warming a moot point in a few years. Lets stop debating why we need to reduce oil consumption and switch to how.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 27 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]431334[/snapback]</div>

Why is it that everyone who disagrees with the idea that AGW is calamitous is a "paid shill"? I am so, so sick of that argument. If you don't agree with Berman, fine. There are plenty of opinions I don't agree with on this forum - but I've never accused anybody of being a "paid shill" for voicing their opinion.

I have observed that statements like that typically emanate from those who don't have an ability to convincingly argue their point.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 27 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]431334[/snapback]</div>

Do tell! Dr. Berman, you have been holding out! I may need a job in a few months ... how can I get on the "paid shill" gravy train?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 27 2007, 09:53 PM) [snapback]431503[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ Apr 27 2007, 10:47 AM) [snapback]431178[/snapback]</div>

Excellent post and thread. I think it would be difficult to store large quantities of C02 gas. Some, sure, but not a lot. Then I finally figured out what Tripp already knew, like here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70418091932.htm

Now I get it. It would be awkward at best to store that much gas. Far better to recycle it.

You can use energy and catalysts to split C02 to C0 + 0, then more energy to convert C0 into liquid hydrocarbons again.

1 - Assume unlimited cheap solar cells (free electricity).
2 - Put this device at the input to provide C02 feedstock. Add energy, get pure C02.
3 - Put the device above in line. Add energy. Get C0 + 0.
4 - Feed that into a synfuel plant. Add energy and hydrogen. Get hydrocarbon liquids.
5 - Burn hydrocarbons to release energy.
6 - Repeat

So, in the end, the same lingo that people apply to hydrogen becomes applicable to carbon. Carbon becomes your "energy transport vehicle", merely a way to story and move energy from one place to another. And, as with hydrogen, the ideal underlying energy source would ultimately be solar power.

You start with the low-energy form of the molecule (H20 for hydrogen, C02 for carbon), input solar electric energy to create the high-energy form, them move the high energy form to where you need it, then burn it.

So instead of hydrolysis of H2O its "hydrolysis" of C02. The only difference is the added step of having to convert the carbon into fluid hydrocarbons to burn, instead of hydrogen gas. But with the benefit that fluid hydrocarbons are easier to handle.

So, in the end, if these people really can take CO2 out of the air efficiently, and if you had unlimited cheap electricity, you'd take carbon at its lowest energy state (C02) out of thin air, add energy to convert it to hydrocarbons, transport the hydrocarbons to where you want them, then release the energy as you burn the hydrocarbons and disperse the carbon back into the air. And repeat.

Something tells me that's unlikely to be practical. There's a lot of overcoming entropy there. But in effect, it's artificial photosynthesis -- not in the chemical sense, but in the sense that it replaces photosynthesis as a way to convert energy + atmospheric C02 into burnable materials.

I was going to say it'll never be economic, as Nature provides us now with the output of step 4, just for the cost of extracting it. But I wonder if electricity were nearly free, and as the fossil fuels with highest net free energy (easy-to-extract-and-refine) run out, whether this might some day become economic? That the cost of the extraction and refining of fossil fuels might be higher than the energy cost of the "hydrolysis" and conversion into liquid hydrocarbons?

When you get right down to it, I sort of come back to darelldd's viewpoint on hydrogen: if you have that much cheap electricity, you ought to use electrical power directly rather than go through this process. Better not to burn the fossil fuels in the first place.

 

CO is a very useful gas in and of itself, so there are lots of uses of this beyond FT fuels.

Oh, and "hydrolysis" CO2 -> CO is a reduction reaction.

 

great technology although it has been in the works for years. still, they push the upside and ignore the downside.

i highly doubt that there will be any investment opportunities since the world governments needs to coordinate the money and who is going to pay to extract chinas CO2... iceland??. i dont think so.

forget the storage of all that CO2 issues... it will take YEARS for anyone to agree on how to pay for and implement this technology. what will probably happen eventually (probably too late) is that we will pay for most of it.

 

One could simply put an import tariff on Chinese (to use them as an example) products to cover the costs. The process, might, itself be profitable at some point, in which case it would stand on its own.

 

what i would like to see it an unbiased study that determines each countries contribution to the world's CO2 supply and to charge them accordingly.

now that solves one problem. i saw a show that mentioned pitfalls of this technology and that is what to do with the CO2. one scenario played out describes a large cache of CO2 suddenly being released in an area and almost instantly killing every animal or human in the area.

there have been documented cases where large CO2 (methane has also been reported in these incidences) bubbles emerged from the ocean and caused large local kills of fish and birds. also plane crashes due to the sudden change in the air density since these gasses are so much lighter than the regular atmosphere.

i guess the big question is... is concentrated CO2 able to be made into something else that might be useful?. i suppose a process to convert it back to carbon and oxygen is not current feasible?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 27 2007, 04:00 PM) [snapback]431334[/snapback]</div>

This is precisely why many (including myself) simply do not believe in the concept of AGW. You lend very little credence to yours and the AGW camps arguments.

Peak oil? When? Where? I've been hearing that argument since the 70's. (And THAT was before Global Cooling if you were even around then). You may want to simply stop debating the subject but many other developing nations (who BTW are very powerful militarily) may give the AGW camps plenty of lip service but I promise you they will make little if no effort to curb their demand of oil. And there is not much you can do to stop them either.

We could cripple our own economy with AGW carbon schemes and high taxes on fuel and soon China and India will be calling the shots. Do you wish to be in that position? Do you think for a New York second that China and India will have anything to do with some bonehead US or UN AGW scheme to limit their access to oil?? Push them into the corner too far and they bite back... Hard...

Rick
#4 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 27 2007, 04:00 PM) [snapback]431334[/snapback]</div>

This is precisely why many (including myself) simply do not believe in the concept of AGW. You lend very little credence to yours and the AGW camps arguments.

Peak oil? When? Where? I've been hearing that argument since the 70's. (And THAT was before Global Cooling if you were even around then). You may want to simply stop debating the subject but many other developing nations (who BTW are very powerful militarily) may give the AGW camps plenty of lip service but I promise you they will make little if no effort to curb their demand of oil. And there is not much you can do to stop them either.

We could cripple our own economy with AGW carbon schemes and high taxes on fuel and soon China and India will be calling the shots. Do you wish to be in that position? Do you think for a New York second that China and India will have anything to do with some bonehead US or UN AGW scheme to limit their access to oil?? Push them into the corner too far and they bite back... Hard...

Rick
#4 2006