PeaceGen
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,889
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
As i post this, over in Poland they're trying to hammer out how to avert a big increase in climate-change related extreme weather events that are feared to cost both more in reconstruction costs, but more importantly also in lives.
CNN-US, which i watch from time to time, reported that apparently the big stumbling block is that no-one knows how to take CO2, which together with methane forms the biggest climate threat to life on this planet,
out of the atmosphere.
so i did a little googling, and came across this :
https://physicsworld.com/a/how-to-efficiently-capture-carbon-dioxide-out-of-thin-air/
and this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber
more can be found via https://www.google.com/search?q=att...rome..69i57.5830j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
regardless of what liar Trump says,
we have to start making machines that can cheaply be built (because we're going to need a lot of them)
which filter at least that CO2 out of the air at various strategic spots around the world,
strip it down into O2 and C, and use the C to make commercial products.
and we need to turn this into a business-model that allows for rapid growth of the number of installations that capture carbon.
as i said, we need to take hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 out of the air, coz that's what we added into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution with our cars, factories, etc, etc, etc.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/doha-infographic-gets-the-numbers-wrong-underestimates-human-emissions
CNN-US, which i watch from time to time, reported that apparently the big stumbling block is that no-one knows how to take CO2, which together with methane forms the biggest climate threat to life on this planet,
out of the atmosphere.
so i did a little googling, and came across this :
https://physicsworld.com/a/how-to-efficiently-capture-carbon-dioxide-out-of-thin-air/
How to efficiently capture carbon dioxide out of thin air
16 Apr 2015
Captive gas: prototype carbon-collection system
A novel synthetic material that is a thousand times more efficient than trees at capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was presented by Klaus Lackner, director of Arizona State University’s new Center for Negative Carbon Emissions, at a meeting of the American Physical Society in Maryland last Sunday. According to Lackner, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached the point where simply reducing emissions will not be enough to tackle climate change. Referring to recent environmental reports, Lackner emphasized the need for prolonged periods of carbon capture and storage – also known as “negative carbon emission”.
Trees and other biological matter are natural sinks of carbon dioxide but they do not trap it permanently and the amount of land required is prohibitive. “There is no practical solution that doesn’t include large periods of negative emission,” says Lackner, adding that “we need means that are faster than just growing a tree.” During the past few years, Lackner and his colleagues have developed a synthetic membrane that can capture carbon dioxide from the air passing through it. The membrane consists of an “ion-exchange” resin – positive anions in the resin attract carbon dioxide, with a maximum load of one carbon-dioxide molecule for every positive charge. This process is moisture sensitive, such that the resin absorbs carbon dioxide in dry air and releases it again in humid air. As a result, this material works best in warm, dry climates.
Show and tell
Lackner plans to install corrugated collecting panels incorporating the membrane material on the roof of the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions this summer. The researchers hope that this public installation will demonstrate the economic feasibility and efficiency of a new technology that can address the issue of climate change, and help shift the debate from reduced carbon emissions to negative carbon emissions.
To keep costs low, the first step – capturing the carbon from the air – is free. “We made it cheap by being passive. We can’t afford to be blowing air around,” says Lackner. The resin itself is readily available and can be mass-produced, because it is already widely used to soften and purify water. The collectors trap between 10 and 50% of the total carbon dioxide that passes through. Compared with the amount of carbon dioxide that a typical tree collects during the course of its lifetime, these panels are a thousand times more efficient.
Able membrane: panels of carbon-capture resin
“I believe we have reached a point where it is really paramount for substantive public research and development of direct air capture,” says Lackner. “The Center for Negative Carbon Emissions cannot do it alone.”
Post trappings
Lackner estimates that about a hundred-million shipping-container-sized collectors would be needed to deal with the world’s current level of carbon emissions. As these collectors would typically become saturated within an hour, Lackner envisions a possible “ski-lift” approach where saturated panels are taken away to a humid environment to release their carbon dioxide and then recycled back to the dry air for more carbon capture.
The question also remains of what to do with the carbon dioxide once it is trapped. Burying it is one option, which is something Lackner says is likely, given the sheer quantity of carbon that must be captured. His centre is also testing ways to recycle the carbon dioxide and sell it to industries that could use it to make products such as fire extinguishers, fizzy drinks and carbon-dioxide-enhanced greenhouses, and even synthetic fuel oil.
and this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber
Carbon dioxide scrubber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
A carbon dioxide scrubber is a piece of equipment that absorbs carbon dioxide (CO2). It is used to treat exhaust gases from industrial plants or from exhaled air in life support systems such as rebreathers or in spacecraft, submersible craft or airtight chambers. Carbon dioxide scrubbers are also used in controlled atmosphere (CA) storage. They have also been researched for carbon capture.
Contents
Technologies[edit]
Amine scrubbing[edit]
Main article: Amine gas treating
The primary application for CO2 scrubbing is for removal of CO2 from the exhaust of coal- and gas-fired power plants. Virtually the only technology being seriously evaluated involves the use of various amines, e.g. monoethanolamine. Cold solutions of these organic compounds bind CO2, but the binding is reversed at higher temperatures:
CO2 + 2 HOCH2CH2NH2 ↔ HOCH2CH2NH3+ + HOCH2CH2NHCO2−
As of 2009, this technology has only been lightly implemented because of capital costs of installing the facility and the operating costs of utilizing it.[1]
Minerals and zeolites[edit]
Several minerals and mineral-like materials reversibly bind CO2.[2] Most often, these minerals are oxides or hydroxides, and often the CO2 is bound as carbonate. Carbon dioxide reacts with quicklime (calcium oxide) to form limestone (calcium carbonate),[3] in a process called carbonate looping. Other minerals include serpentinite, a magnesium silicate hydroxide, and olivine.[4][5] Molecular sieves also function in this capacity.
Various scrubbing processes have been proposed to remove CO2 from the air, or from flue gases. These usually involve using a variant of the Kraft process. Scrubbing processes may be based on sodium hydroxide.[6][7] The CO2 is absorbed into solution, transferred to lime via a process called causticization and released in a kiln. With some modifications to the existing processes, mainly an oxygen-fired kiln, the end result is a concentrated stream of CO2 ready for storage or use in fuels. An alternative to this thermo-chemical process is an electrical one in which a nominal voltage is applied across the carbonate solution to release the CO2.[citation needed] While simpler, this electrical process consumes more energy as it splits water at the same time. Since it depends on electricity, the electricity needs to be renewable, like PV. Otherwise the CO2 produced during electricity production has to be taken into account. Early incarnations of air capture used electricity as the energy source; hence, were dependent on a carbon-free source. Thermal air capture systems use heat generated on-site, which reduces the inefficiencies associated with off-site electricity production, but of course it still needs a source of (carbon-free) heat. Concentrated solar power is an example of such a source.[8]
Sodium hydroxide[edit]
Zeman and Lackner outlined a specific method of air capture.[9]
First, CO2 is absorbed by an alkaline NaOH solution to produce dissolved sodium carbonate. The absorption reaction is a gas liquid reaction, strongly exothermic, here:
2NaOH(aq) + CO2(g) → Na2CO3(aq) + H2O(l)
Na2CO3(aq) + Ca(OH)2(s) → 2NaOH(aq) + CaCO3(s)
ΔH° = -5.3 kJ/mol
Causticization is performed ubiquitously in the pulp and paper industry and readily transfers 94% of the carbonate ions from the sodium to the calcium cation.[9] Subsequently, the calcium carbonate precipitate is filtered from solution and thermally decomposed to produce gaseous CO2. The calcination reaction is the only endothermic reaction in the process and is shown here:
CaCO3(s) → CaO(s) + CO2(g)
ΔH° = + 179.2 kJ/mol
The thermal decomposition of calcite is performed in a lime kiln fired with oxygen in order to avoid an additional gas separation step. Hydration of the lime (CaO) completes the cycle. Lime hydration is an exothermic reaction that can be performed with water or steam. Using water, it is a liquid/solid reaction as shown here:
CaO(s) + H2O(l) → Ca(OH)2(s)
ΔH° = -64.5 kJ/mol
Lithium hydroxide[edit]
Other strong bases such as soda lime, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and lithium hydroxide are able to remove carbon dioxide by chemically reacting with it. In particular, lithium hydroxide was used aboard spacecraft, such as in the Apollo program, to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It reacts with carbon dioxide to form lithium carbonate.[10] Recently lithium hydroxide absorbent technology has been adapted for use in anesthesia machines. Anesthesia machines which provide life support and inhaled agents during surgery typically employ a closed circuit necessitating the removal of carbon dioxide exhaled by the patient. Lithium hydroxide may offer some safety and convenience benefits over the older calcium based products.
2 LiOH(s) + 2 H2O(g) → 2 LiOH·H2O(s)
2 LiOH·H2O(s) + CO2(g) → Li2CO3(s) + 3 H2O(g)
The net reaction being:
2LiOH(s) + CO2(g) → Li2CO3(s) + H2O(g)
Lithium peroxide can also be used as it absorbs more CO2 per unit weight with the added advantage of releasing oxygen.[11]
Regenerative carbon dioxide removal system[edit]
The regenerative carbon dioxide removal system (RCRS) on the space shuttle orbiter used a two-bed system that provided continuous removal of carbon dioxide without expendable products. Regenerable systems allowed a shuttle mission a longer stay in space without having to replenish its sorbent canisters. Older lithium hydroxide (LiOH)-based systems, which are non-regenerable, were replaced by regenerable metal-oxide-based systems. A system based on metal oxide primarily consisted of a metal oxide sorbent canister and a regenerator assembly. It worked by removing carbon dioxide using a sorbent material and then regenerating the sorbent material. The metal-oxide sorbent canister was regenerated by pumping air at approximately 400 °F (204 °C) through it at a standard flow rate of 7.5 cu ft/min (0.0035 m3/s) for 10 hours.[12]
Activated carbon[edit]
Activated carbon can be used as a carbon dioxide scrubber. Air with high carbon dioxide content, such as air from fruit storage locations, can be blown through beds of activated carbon and the carbon dioxide will adsorb onto the activated carbon. Once the bed is saturated it must then be "regenerated" by blowing low carbon dioxide air, such as ambient air, through the bed. This will release the carbon dioxide from the bed, and it can then be used to scrub again, leaving the net amount of carbon dioxide in the air the same as when the process was started.
Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs)[edit]
Metal-organic frameworks are one of the most promising new technologies for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration via adsorption. Although no large-scale commercial technology exists nowadays, several research studies have indicated the great potential that MOFs have as a CO2 adsorbent. Its characteristics, such as pore structure and surface functions can be easily tuned to improve CO2 selectivity over other gases.[13]
A MOF could be specifically designed to act like a CO2 removal agent in post-combustion power plants. In this scenario, the flue gas would pass through a bed packed with a MOF material, where CO2 would be stripped. After saturation is reached, CO2 could be desorbed by doing a pressure or temperature swing. Carbon dioxide could then be compressed to supercritical conditions in order to be stored underground or utilized in enhanced oil recovery processes. However, this is not possible in large scale yet due to several difficulties, one of those being the production of MOFs in great quantities.[14]
Another problem is the availability of metals necessary to synthesize MOFs. In a hypothetical scenario where these materials are used to capture all CO2 needed to avoid global warming issues, such as maintaining a global temperature rise less than 2oC above the pre-industrial average temperature, we would need more metals than are available on Earth. For example, to synthesize all MOFs that utilize vanadium, we would need 1620% of 2010 global reserves. Even if using magnesium-based MOFs, which have demonstrated a great capacity to adsorb CO2, we would need 14% of 2010 global reserves, which is a considerable amount. Also, extensive mining would be necessary, leading to more potential environmental problems.[14]
In a project sponsored by the DOE and operated by UOP LLC in collaboration with faculty from four different universities, MOFs were tested as possible carbon dioxide removal agents in post-combustion flue gas. They were able to separate 90% of the CO2 from the flue gas stream using a vacuum pressure swing process. Through extensive investigation, researchers found out that the best MOF to be used was Mg/DOBDC, which has a 21.7 wt% CO2 loading capacity. Estimations showed that, if a similar system were to be applied to a large scale power plant, the cost of energy would increase by 65%, while a NETL baseline amine based system would cause an increase of 81% (the DOE goal is 35%). Also, each ton of CO2 avoided would cost $57, while for the amine system this cost is estimated to be $72. The project ended in 2010,estimating that the total capital required to implement such a project in a 580 MW power plant was 354 million dollars.[15]
Other methods[edit]
Many other methods and materials have been discussed for scrubbing carbon dioxide.
See also[edit]
- Adsorption[16]
- Regenerative carbon dioxide removal system (RCRS)
- Photosynthesis: e.g. Algae based carbon sink
- Polymer membrane gas separators
- Reversing heat exchangers
References[edit]
- Carbon capture and storage
- Carbon dioxide removal
- Greenhouse gas
- Rebreather – Apparatus to recycle breathing gas
- Sabatier reaction
v
- ^ Gary T. Rochelle (2009). "Amine Scrubbing for CO2Capture". Science. 325 (5948): 1652. Bibcode:2009Sci...325.1652R. doi:10.1126/science.1176731.
- ^ Sunho Choi; Jeffrey H. Drese; Christopher W. Jones (2009). "Adsorbent Materials for Carbon Dioxide Capture from Large Anthropogenic Point Sources". ChemSusChem. 2 (9): 796–854. doi:10.1002/cssc.200900036. PMID 19731282.
- ^ "Imagine No Restrictions On Fossil-Fuel Usage And No Global Warming". ScienceDaily. April 15, 2002.
- ^ "Natural Mineral Locks Up Carbon Dioxide". Sciencedaily. September 3, 2004. Retrieved 2011-06-01.
- ^https://web.archive.org/web/20060709000905/http://www.tececo.com/sustainability.tececo_kiln.php. Archived from the original on July 9, 2006. Retrieved January 13, 2009.Missing or empty |title= (help)
- ^ Kenneth Chang (February 19, 2008). "Scientists would turn greenhouse gas into gasoline". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-29.
- ^ "Chemical 'sponge' could filter CO2 from the air – environment". New Scientist. October 3, 2007. Retrieved 2009-10-29.
- ^ "Can technology clear the air? – environment". New Scientist. January 12, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-29.
- ^ Jump up to:a b F. S. Zeman; K. S. Lackner (2004). "Capturing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere". World Resour. Rev. 16: 157–172.
- ^ J.R. Jaunsen (1989). "The Behavior and Capabilities of Lithium Hydroxide Carbon Dioxide Scrubbers in a Deep Sea Environment". US Naval Academy Technical Report. USNA-TSPR-157. Retrieved 2008-06-17.
- ^ Petzow, G. N.; Aldinger, F.; Jönsson, S.; Welge, P.; Van Kampen, V.; Mensing, T.; Brüning, T. (2005). "Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds". Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. doi:10.1002/14356007.a04_011.pub2. ISBN 3527306730.
- ^ "Carbon Dioxide Removal". Hamilton Sundstrand. Archived from the original on 2007-10-31. Retrieved 2008-10-27. The new metal-oxide-based system replaces the existing non-regenerable lithium hydroxide (LiOH) carbon dioxide (CO2) removal system located in the EMU's Primary Life Support System.
- ^ Li, Jian-Rong (2011). "Carbon dioxide capture-related gas adsorption and separation in metal-organic frameworks"(PDF). Coordination Chemistry Reviews. doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2011.02.012.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Smit, Berend; Reimer, Jeffrey R.; Oldenburg, Curtis M.; Bourg, Ian C. (2014). Introduction to Carbon Capture and Sequestration. Imperial College Press. ISBN 978-1-78326-327-1.
- ^ Willis, Richard; Lesch, David A. (2010). "Carbon Dioxide Removal from Flue Gas Using Microporous Metal Organic Frameworks". Final Technical Report. DOE Award Number: DE-FC26-07NT43092. OSTI 1003992-YRfi3u/.
- ^ "Adsorption and Desorption of CO2 on Solid Sorbents"(PDF). netl.doe.gov.
Underwater breathing apparatus
Breathing gas
- Cascade filling system
- Diving air compressor
- Electro-galvanic oxygen sensor
- Gas blending
- Gas blending for scuba diving
- Helium analyzer
- Nitrox production
- Oxygen compatibility
Diving cylinders
Diving regulators
- Burst disc
- Cylinder valve
- Hydrostatic test
- Sustained load cracking
- Testing and inspection of diving cylinders
Helmets and masks
Open-circuit scuba
- Anti-fog
- Band mask
- Diving helmet
- Diving mask
- Full-face mask
- Free-flow helmet
- Lightweight demand helmet
- Reclaim helmet
- Standard diving helmet
Rebreathers
- Alternative air source
- Aqua-lung
- Bailout bottle
- Decompression cylinder
- Independent doubles
- Manifolded twin set
- Pony bottle
- Scuba set
- Sidemount
- Sling cylinder
Surface-supplied
- Carleton CDBA
- CDLSE
- Cis-Lunar
- Cryogenic rebreather
- CUMA
- DSEA
- Dolphin
- FROGS
- Halcyon PVR-BASC
- Halcyon RB80
- IDA71
- Interspiro DCSC
- KISS
- LAR-5
- LAR-6
- LAR-V
- LARU
- Porpoise
- Ray
- Siebe Gorman CDBA
- Siva
- Viper
Other related
- Bailout bottle
- Diver's umbilical
- Diving air compressor
- Sea Trek diving system
- Snuba
- Standard diving dress
Categories:
- Scrubbers
- Carbon dioxide
- Space suit components
- Spacecraft life support systems
- Rebreathers
- Gas technologies
Navigation menu
Search
- Not logged in
- Talk
- Contributions
- Create account
- Log in
Interaction
- Main page
- Contents
- Featured content
- Current events
- Random article
- Donate to Wikipedia
- Wikipedia store
Tools
Print/export
- What links here
- Related changes
- Upload file
- Special pages
- Permanent link
- Page information
- Wikidata item
- Cite this page
Languages
Edit links
- This page was last edited on 11 December 2018, at 14:00 (UTC).
,_is_fitted_with_a_Kirby_Morgan_37_Dive_Helmet.jpg)
more can be found via https://www.google.com/search?q=att...rome..69i57.5830j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
regardless of what liar Trump says,
we have to start making machines that can cheaply be built (because we're going to need a lot of them)
which filter at least that CO2 out of the air at various strategic spots around the world,
strip it down into O2 and C, and use the C to make commercial products.
and we need to turn this into a business-model that allows for rapid growth of the number of installations that capture carbon.
as i said, we need to take hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 out of the air, coz that's what we added into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution with our cars, factories, etc, etc, etc.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/doha-infographic-gets-the-numbers-wrong-underestimates-human-emissions
Doha infographic gets the numbers wrong, underestimates human emissions
An extract from the infographic – click to enlarge © Information is Beautiful
There’s a startling infographic on the Guardian’s datablog today from designers Information is Beautiful. Timed for UN climate talks in Doha, it presents some top-line numbers about human-caused carbon emissions, followed by a whole page listing potential impacts of climate change according to temperature rise.
But one of the key top-line figures is wrong, and several others are confusingly presented – so we’re happy to report that the graphic is being revised.
We’ve focused on trying to understand where the top line numbers come from and haven’t gone over the whole graphic in detail. The infographic asks: “How many gigatons of carbon dioxide have we released to date?”. It also suggests figures for how much we can “safely release” based on a global carbon budget, and how much carbon dioxide there is “left to release” if remaining fossil fuel reserves were burned.
Let’s take each of them in turn.
How many gigatons of carbon dioxide have we released to date?
The graphic states the world released 530 gigatons of carbon dioxide between 1850 and 2000, and 380 gigatons of carbon dioxide since 2000.
This makes a total of 910 gigatons of carbon dioxide released by human activity.
This seems low – the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO)’s annual greenhouse gas bulletin, released two weeks ago, gives a higher figure:
“Since the industrial revolution, about 375 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2).”
Converting this (roughly ) to a tonnage of carbon dioxide gives 1,374 gigatons – substantially higher than the infographic estimate.
One of the researchers explained to us how the figures had been calculated. They were done in two parts. The figure for emissions since 2000 is based on analysis in a recent report from NGO Carbon Tracker, and appears to be right.
But the 520 gigatons figure for pre-2000 emissions is, we think, wrong, and underestimates human carbon dioxide emissions.
An Information is Beautiful researcher told us how it was calculated. It’s based on the increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from before the industrial revolution to now. For every eight gigatons of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide goes up by approximately one part per million.
This means that according to Information is Beautiful’s analysis, there is 851 gigatons more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than in 1850. The researchers then subtracted a figure for human-caused carbon dioxide emissions since 2000, to get a number for emissions pre-2000.
But unfortunately, this rough calculation ends up producing the wrong number. This is because natural carbon sinks absorb just over half of human carbon emissions. So the amount of carbon dioxide that stays in the atmosphere is only about half of the carbon dioxide humans emit – the planet absorbs the other half.
As the WMO notes, manmade emissions before 2000 were actually significantly higher.
How many more gigatons of carbon dioxide can we safely release?
Carbon Tracker’s report cites a global carbon budget, giving the amount of carbon dioxide the world can release while staying below a temperature rise of two degrees above pre-industrial levels. It says:
“Research by the Potsdam Institute calculates that to reduce the chance of exceeding 2°C warming to 20%, the global carbon budget for 2000-2050 is 886 gigatons CO2.”
Information is Beautiful calculates that 500 gigatons is the (rough) amount left in this budget, taking emissions between 2000 and now into account.
How many more gigatons of carbon dioxide are there “left to release” in fossil fuel reserves?
The graphic states that based on the reserves of the top 100 coal, gas and oil companies, they are capable of releasing a further 745 gigatons of carbon dioxide. This figure is also from the Carbon Tracker report.
But the graphic is unclear here. Carbon Tracker actually calculates that the 745 figure accounts for the potential emissions from the reserves of the top 100 coal, and top 100 oil and gas companies listed on the stock exchange. So, that’s 200 listed companies. It seems likely that this is just some confusing grammar, rather than an error. (As we publish, this has just been corrected.)
Finally, the graphic says that there are 2,050 gigatons of carbon dioxide left to release from all known fossil fuel reserves.
This is calculated from the same Carbon Tracker report but appears to be based on some incorrect arithmetic. Carbon Tracker estimate that there are 2,795 gigatons of potential carbon dioxide emissions remaining in all the earth’s proven reserves. Information is Beautiful appears to have subtracted the 745 figure that apparently accounts for coal, oil and gas companies’ potential emissions, leaving 2,050 gigatons of carbon dioxide from all fossil fuel reserves. (This has also just been corrected.)
Overall, it’s a shame that the numbers at the top of the graphic ended up being unclear or incorrect. Infographics are really powerful ways to get across complex information to a wide audience. But unfortunately if the information is wrong, that rather defeats the purpose.
However, good news! Information is Beautiful has been quick to respond to our questions, which we really appreciate. It’s going to update the graphic addressing the issues we’ve raised, with revised figures based on the World Meteorological Organisation data.
