Breakthrough? Scientists devise way to pull carbon from the atmosphere
posted at 10:09 pm on July 24, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via Conservative Punk, it’s a few months old but potentially significant enough to earn a belated link, especially since (for once) the credentials of the people involved are solid.
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.
The scientists stress their invention is not a magic bullet to solve climate change. It would take millions of the devices to soak up the world’s carbon emissions, and the CO2 trapped would still need to be disposed of. But the team says the technology may be the best way to avert dangerous temperature rises, as fossil fuel use is predicted to increase sharply in coming decades despite international efforts…
He added: “Our project has reached the stage where it is quite clear we can do it. We need to start dealing with all these emissions. I’d rather have a technology that allows us to use fossil fuels without destroying the planet, because people are going to use them anyway.”
The breakthrough, if I understand it correctly, lies not in capturing the carbon dioxide but in disposing of it. Until now, the energy involved in processing it from the scrubber made the device prohibitively inefficient; now, thanks to some voodoo involving humidity changes, they can do it with one-tenth the amount. Even better: “The patent suggests the scrubber could be connected to greenhouses, where the CO2 would boost plant growth. Or the gas could be used to grow algae, for food, fertiliser or fuel. The latter could ‘close the carbon loop,’ Lackner said.”
Coming soon to a liberal bumper sticker near you: We can’t carbon-suck our way out of this problem. Think I’m kidding? Via Conservative Punk again, go see what Greenpeace et al. think of the device. In so many words, it’s simply not a punitive enough solution.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Ok, lets reduce it to the levels present in the Jurassic, that’d be pre-industrial. We’d have to reduce it from roughly 387ppm to about 3000ppm…oh wait.
Oldnuke on July 25, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Is Alah really advocating for this? Is that some sort of joke?
20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEJ5pHVKjiI
Please do some research and click on my name.
Poptech on July 25, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Yeah. They’re called plants.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 25, 2008 at 11:10 AM
That we have come to the point where we want to re-engineer the very climate/atmosphere which makes us a haven for life should show exactly how far this crap has gone.
We want to build “atmosphere processors” to “fix” the atmosphere/environment which allows life the thrive as it does?
catmman on July 25, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I wanted to thank y’all on this thread. I was feeling frisky and ripped into some Gore-worshipper, using things I learned here. I just posted about it on my blog.
I swear, we don’t need CO2 scrubbers, just a whole mess of duct tape. Apply over the faces of anybody that feels CO2 is a pollutant, and viola! Five minutes later, population and CO2 reduction in one fell swoop.
I’m kidding, btw. Just felt the need to toss that in there.
Anna on July 25, 2008 at 12:16 PM
A “scrubber” is a column used to remove a gas from an inlet gas stream by reacting it with a liquid stream. What liquid are they reacting the CO2 with?
Most scrubbers used to remove real pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, use either water or caustic (sodium hydroxide) solution as an absorbent.
Water will absorb CO2, but it’s very inefficient, and will release CO2 if it’s heated (to demonstrate this, leave a bottle of soda out in the sun, then open it!)
Caustic solution is more expensive, but does a much better job. Maybe these scientists plan to corner the market on baking soda, which is what you get when caustic is reacted with CO2. Beware, Arm & Hammer–which is owned by Armand Hammer, a good friend of Al Gore!
Steve Z on July 25, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Allah, you are no longer batting 1000, but your future induction into the Hall of Fame is assured.
JiangxiDad on July 25, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Some won’t be satisfied until we’re all living in yurts and mud huts and operating hand crank generators.
silverfox on July 25, 2008 at 1:45 PM
To innominatus:
I’m a math nerd too, but I prefer the metric system and scientific notation, so here goes:
Earth radius = 6.357*10^6 meters
Area, square that and multiply by 4*pi = 5.078*10^14 m2.
Atmospheric pressure, about 10^5 Newtons per square meter.
Area * pressure = weight = 5.078*10^19 Newtons
Divide by gravity = 9.81 m/s2 = Mass of atmosphere
= 5.177*10^18 kg.
When scientists measure parts per million of gases, it’s by moles = mass / molecular weight. For air, molecular weight is about 29, resulting in 1.785*10^17 kg-moles.
Estimated world-wide man-made emissions of CO2 in 2003 were about 22 gigatonnes/yr, or 2.2*10^13 kg/yr of CO2. Dividing by molecular weight of 44, comes out to 5.0*10^11 kg-moles/yr of CO2.
If all the emitted CO2 remained in the air, the CO2 concentration should be increasing at a rate of
5.0*10^11 kg-moles/yr / 1.785*10^17 kgmoles =
2.8*10-6 mole fraction per year, or 2.8 ppm/yr.
However, the average rate of increase of CO2 at Mauna Loa since 1970 is about 0.7 ppm/yr. Question: where is the other 2.1 ppm/yr of CO2 going? Only 25% of our man-made emissions end up in the atmosphere!
There are many processes on earth that absorb CO2, but green plants (both on land and plankton in the oceans) probably account for most of it.
Many scientific studies have shown that plants grow faster (and increase their CO2 consumption rate) in atmospheres artificially enriched in CO2, above the concentration in normal air.
So, if we do NOTHING and continue emitting CO2 at the current rate, the CO2 concentration will keep increasing until the rate of CO2 removal by plants catches up to the CO2 emission rate, then the CO2 concentration will level off at a higher value.
If we assume that the CO2 absorption rate is proportional to the CO2 concentration in the air (this assumption may be wrong–more research is needed!) the CO2 concentration would level off at about 2.8 / 2.1 times the current concentration, or about 500 ppm.
But we would also have plants growing 33% faster than they do now, with increased crop yields! With an increasing world population needing an increased food production rate, might that be a GOOD thing?
Earth to Al Gore: Maybe the best way to a greener, more fertile Earth is to NOT limit CO2 emissions!
Steve Z on July 25, 2008 at 2:03 PM
You have an awesome site Poptech, there is enough information there to debunk global warming about a thousand times over if people would only read it. It’s become my favorite site for rubbing Al Gore’s nose in shi….. well you know what.
Maxx on July 25, 2008 at 2:14 PM
We already have access to cheap and plentiful CO2 scrubber…they’re called “plants”.
Wyznowski on July 25, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]