In Brief
- Machines with filters made from sorbent materials can bind carbon dioxide, extracting it from the air.
- With mass production,machines might capture CO2 at $30 a ton, less than the $100 or more charged for commercial CO2 supply.
- With improved sorbents, 10 million machines across the planet could reduce CO2 concentration by five parts per million a year, more than the rate of global increase right now.
The world cannot afford to dump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Yet it is not cutting back. All indications are that the concentration of CO2 will continue to rise for decades. Despite great support for renewable energy, developed and developing countries will probably burn more oil, coal and natural gas in the future.
For transportation, the alternatives to petroleum appear especially far off. Onboard energy storage for electric vehicles is difficult; for a given mass, batteries hold less than 1 percent of the energy stored in gasoline. Carrying hydrogen on vehicles requires 10 times the storage volume of gasoline, and the high-pressure tank needed to hold it is very heavy. Although a few maiden flights of airplanes powered by jet fuel derived from biomass have taken place, it is unclear that biofuels can be produced at the quantities and low prices required by airliners ... or by ships for that matter.
This article was originally published with the title Washing Carbon Out of the Air.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add Comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this�Carbon is already being washed out of the North American atmosphere by zebra & quagga mussels on a massive scale. They do this by absorbing carbon dioxide to form their shells which consist of calcium carbonate, which is 14% carbon.
Thereby sequestering the carbon as the solid mineral, commonly known aslim estone. The shoals of mussels also accumulate an anaerobic organic muck with their feces and pseudo-feces These shell layers interspersed with anaerobic organic (carbon containing) muck, slowly being buried under
more layers of shell, is what petroleum engineers refer to as "future reserves"
A NOAA report @ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981020074617.htm states that North America is absorbing carbon dioxide, not emitting it as iscommonly assumed. The authors are searching for the "unknown carbon sink" in North America. One of the authors Dr. Takahashi has
confirmed my guestimate that the total tonnage of mussel shell so far accumulated in our inland waterways has the possibility of being 2 billion tons of carbon per year. This is not accounting for the organic muck. The shell alone, would account for the unknown carbon sink.
At this point there seems to be no stopping their spread. It may well be that despite the problems they cause, these mussels may be the quick and easy solution to global warming.
Lackner neglects to mention a possibly more efficient CO2 capture technology that is currently being developed by Industrial Research Limited (IRL) in New Zealand based upon Robert Holt's discovery about how to use the same chunk of limestone (calcium carbonate) up to 100 times for capturing waste CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, limestone is a main ingredient in Portland cements, but the London-based startup Novacem uses magnesium oxides instead of limestone to make a cement which captures waste CO2. Further, the Massachusetts-based startups Joule Unlimited and Novomer can convert waste CO2 or CO into useful fuels or chemicals.
Finally, what about the possibility of using something like concentrated solar power (CSP) to heat waste CO2 up to a temperature of 2,400 C at which point the CO2 breaks down into O plus CO?
Thank you,
Charles Stromeyer Jr.
This ambient air CO2 capture technology that Lackner has been working on is by far the most promising of all of the competing options. He and his coworkers have been working on this the longest (more than 10 years*), and they did in fact try out most of the competing options in the early days, before moving on to discover the current low-energy-consuming technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this* See Lackner, K.S., H.-J. Ziock, and P. Grimes, Carbon Dioxide Extraction from Air: Is it an Option?, in Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Conference on Coal Utilization & Fuel Systems, B. Sakkestad, Editor. 1999: Clearwater, Florida. p. 885-896
And a recent article describing the current technology:
Lackner, K.S., Capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air. The European Physical Journal - Special Topics, 2009. 176(1): p. 93-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2009-01150-3
To those who will sarcastically (and obnoxiously, and ignorantly) say "I have the best new invention for capturing CO2 from the air.. You can simply plant it in the ground and it does it automatically.. It's called.... a tree!!", this non-biological air capture technology captures at much higher rates, requiring far far less land than trees or other biomass.
I think it is a step in the right direction to remove CO2 from the air, but only a half step. Why not go the whole way and use asynthetic photosynthesis process plus sunlight to produce O2 and water plus bioproducts. It is too complicated? Too expensive? I have not seen an article on it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoseph W. Palen
PhD, ChE Lehigh, 1988.
5243 Olympic Circle, Eugene OR 97402
Biomass Pyrolysis can convert atmospheric CO2 into biochar, biogas or biofuels. The technique was developped using donations over a ten year period and is now commercially viable, even without carbon credits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee www.eprida.com for full details. If 5,000,000 pyrolysis units were sold, we could eliminate excess Co2 from the air over the next couple of decades.
CaCO3 Limestone will not form if the ocean Ph continues to drop, especially in warm or hot climates.
Using solar thermal at a temperature of 1,500 degrees celsius it is possible to split waste CO2 into O plus CO:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23996/
Please note that CO (carbon monoxide) can be used as a source for making various useful liquid fuels or chemicals. For example, the CO can be used with hydrogen via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to produce syngas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_Tropsch
Or the CO could be used as a main ingredient in one of these processes:
http://www.coskata.com
http://www.novomer.com
http://www.syntheticgenomics.com
However, these other methods appear to be perhaps the most efficient way to turn waste CO2 into useful liquid fuels:
http://www.jouleunlimited.com
http://www.biocee.com
Best,
Charles Stromeyer Jr.
The information on at www.eprida.com is very compelling. I would love to see a comment from the author on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bottom line to me is that there are several ways to work on this problem that are available now. The problem is that the need to be implemented on a huge scale, which normally means government intervention and cooperation, and that can take time.
Here is the part of this article that I don't understand:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author suggests using a process that will pump 3.5 tons of water vapor into the atmosphere for every 1 ton of carbon dioxide that is removed. Water vapor has a geat capacity that is 2-3 times greater than that of carbon dioxide. How is this process not going to greatly increase global warming?
I guess this leaves the even more basic question of: how does a gas (carbon dioxide at <1% of the atmosphere) with a lower heat capacity than nitrogen (at 70% of the atmosphere) lead to global warming in the first place? Shouldn't more carbon dioxide lead to global cooling?
If you don't put it there you don't need to capture it. Obvious solution to obvious problem. CO2 levels will decrease by natural capture mechanisms. PS: no charge for this idea either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen cars and trucks become "cleaner" than the average atmosphere they change from being polluters to being scrubbers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust scanned every one of the above posts and there seems to be agreement we need to start doing something. While all of the ideas have merit, NONE will be implemented until we find the one thing they all seem to need or have in common.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLEADERSHIP - what we need is leadership. Nothing will change until oil companies begin to think - why are we doing this to our environment. Nothing will change until people stop buying SUV's and start buying vehicles which meet their transportation needs instead of their ego's. Nothing will change until we stop building coal or natural gas plants and start building solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and maybe nuclear plants. Nothing will change until we start demanding hybrid and/or electric vehicles. Buying a car with a 250 hp engine to sit idling in traffic just might not make us the smartest cheddar in the deli case. Nothing will change until we build every new home pre plumbed and pre wired for solar and/or geothermal heating & cooling systems. Nothing will change until we begin to value conserving energy instead of wasting it. In my not so humble opinion I believe we need an energy attitude adjustment.
Of course everyone knows none of the above are going to happen or change until we find someone who has the ability to lead our country in the right direction. Our members of Congress seem to be either unwilling or incapable of making the right choices for the American people. It has been reported that about 50% of Congressional member time is used just to obtain the money they will need to run their next re-election campaign. Lobbyist run wild in Washington writing 2,000 page bills with all kinds of hidden perks, bailouts and other wasteful items while we continue to pollute our environment and use 25% of all the resources on this planet. Our President and member of Congress are not stupid and KNOW what is coming. With peak oil projected to occur sometime between 2013-2020 we can expect to see gasoline jump to $6 or $7 or even $8 per gallon yet none of our leaders seem to care enough to prepare our country for this transition from $3 gas. We need a LEADER who can explain to the American people why it is so important for us to change our behaviors NOW. We can not [literally] afford to wait much longer.
That's my opinion - what's yours?
tomgarven@hotmail.com
If you write please put SA in caps on the Subject Line
No offense people, I know you may be brilliant in your own right, but you forget the basics of tactics: small moves. This is awesome, and I think every person in the world should have the option of getting one. We need to move on this quickly, because the adaptation for the technology is huge. Think space travel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre all carbonaceous minerals produced by carbon sequestration processes water soluble? In other words, could a local flood or change to a wetter environment release all of the captured carbon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny process that does not securely sequester carbon for long durations is of limited value, especially those that produce chemicals or fuels that would be used to produce CO2...
rhehudio - Soory, but I'm more concerned about the ability of the billions of humans that must learn how to survive on the nearly perfect planet to get real exited about space travel. Think long term survival of billions, not just a few for just a while!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismslohman66 : The eprida theory was concieved some ten years ago. It first had to be thoroughly tested under a wide variety of conditions to obtain scientifiv validation. Now it is in the stage of industrialistion, as investors have now also realised the potential. 5,000,000 units need to be produced to reduce atmospheric CO2, and Eprida is pulling out all the stops to try to get the technology implemented world-wide whilst ensuring that the technology be properly and honestly implemented. The Eprida foundation is actively continuing fundamental research in parallel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are riding the energy train downhill in the process of converting hydrocarbons to water and CO2. Entropy would suggest that the energy used no push the train uphill again, in order to convert CO2 into something else, would be better utilised if it replaced the energy we got from riding the train downhill in the first place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thing I am missing in this article is the energy requirement: how many kWh does it take to capture 1 kg of Carbon doixide?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrogen storage for cars is not a problem. Just hook up a very small trailor with a biomass pyrolysis gas generator behind, and produce hydrogen on demand. The exhaust is water and charcoal. To fill up, drive into a garage and swap trailors. The car takes ten minutes to start, but the range is no problem. Such vehicles were used in France until the mid-fifties. Petrol was more convenient, but today is getting scarce...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal is fossilized plant material, and oil and gas may also have biological origins. Extracting and burning these fuels is an efficient means of distributing lost carbon back into the environment so carbon shortage does not limit growth. We may be trying to answer the wrong question by attempting to limit or capture carbon dioxide emissions. The real question is, "Why are the earth's ecosystems not sufficiently effective in taking up the offered carbon?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCap-and-trade and non-natural capture schemes only increase the expense of energy and add to the burden of poverty. Increasing the productivity of plant life, on the other hand, can lead to economic gain, especially for the poorest nations. It is better to treat the problem rather than the symptom.
We should concentrate on rehabilitating desert lands in north-central Africa and other regions that are biologically under-productive. The greatest environmental problem we face is not a surplus of carbon dioxide, but the loss of agricultural-grade water and arable land.
We should also reduce the need for firewood in the developing nations. It is understood that deforestation reduces available water and increases desertification. Therefore, rather than making natural gas and electricity less available through cap, tax and capture schemes, we should make them more accessible to the masses in these countries. These are more efficient and environmentally less destructive than the current practice of over-exploiting woodlands for basic survival energy needs.
All that being said, if K. S. Lackner's invention can obtain commercial carbon dioxide for 1/3 the price of other processes, he should be able to get capital backing in the marketplace, and he deserves to profit from its production and sales. However, forcing its use beyond the demand for commercial CO2 is perhaps a needless and counterproductive expenditure of energy and material resources that could be better used in desalination or other means of improving plant production.
My cynical side says this capitalism-and-growth-oriented approach will be rejected because it limits the political power inherent in implementing CO2 control plans. I hope, for the sake of the poor peoples, that will not be the case.
It seems almost too easy. Dr.Lackner may be the man who saves life (and ice) on the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you joking tomgarven? I don´t agree with you about the need of acting, nor the need of "leadership". I am aware of global warming but CO2 seems not to be the reason for warmer climate since 1750. We can discuss that of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut "leadership"? A person or leaders that "explain" to people something they don´t believe in? Once there were these camps in China where people were sent so the party could "explain" how they should think - is it something like that you mean? If not (hope not) - explain to me!
Well, if real science proves we must remove 'carbon', or specifically Carbon Dioxide from the air, totally ignoring the 40,000 ppm equivalent of CO2 on Mars, which has NO greenhouse effect whatsoever, then remove it we must.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fear that the agricultural union will violently react to having any of these machines in their areas.....It's proven without question that increasing CO2 by 100% causes 50% increase in photosynthetic productivity.....So, less CO2, then less crops, and less need for the crop pickers. We must realize also that the present epoch is only the 2nd time in geologic history that CO2 is less than 1,000 ppm. It only represents about 5% of the Earth's history it has been this way. So, low CO2, below 1,000 ppm, is indeed exceptional.
When the "Washing Carbon out of the Air" becomes commonplace, we must make absolutely certain that the control of this process remains with the 'righteous' of the world.....After all, compared to all machines, all processes, all chemistries, all quantum physical processes that Man has created, removing CO2 from the air can be used as a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" without equal.....How? There are only 4 things essential to life. Sun's light and warmth, water, oxygen, and CO2. No CO2, no plants. No plants, no animals. A few tube worms at black smokers, but that's all.