Support NeoGAF

[Trojita]

http://news.mit.edu/2019/mit-engineers-develop-new-way-remove-carbon-dioxide-air-1025

A new way of removing carbon dioxide from a stream of air could provide a significant tool in the battle against climate change. The new system can work on the gas at virtually any concentration level, even down to the roughly 400 parts per million currently found in the atmosphere.


Most methods of removing carbon dioxide from a stream of gas require higher concentrations, such as those found in the flue emissions from fossil fuel-based power plants. A few variations have been developed that can work with the low concentrations found in air, but the new method is significantly less energy-intensive and expensive, the researchers say.

The technique, based on passing air through a stack of charged electrochemical plates, is described in a new paper in the journal Energy and Environmental Science, by MIT postdoc Sahag Voskian, who developed the work during his PhD, and T. Alan Hatton, the Ralph Landau Professor of Chemical Engineering.

The device is essentially a large, specialized battery that absorbs carbon dioxide from the air (or other gas stream) passing over its electrodes as it is being charged up, and then releases the gas as it is being discharged. In operation, the device would simply alternate between charging and discharging, with fresh air or feed gas being blown through the system during the charging cycle, and then the pure, concentrated carbon dioxide being blown out during the discharging.

As the battery charges, an electrochemical reaction takes place at the surface of each of a stack of electrodes. These are coated with a compound called polyanthraquinone, which is composited with carbon nanotubes. The electrodes have a natural affinity for carbon dioxide and readily react with its molecules in the airstream or feed gas, even when it is present at very low concentrations. The reverse reaction takes place when the battery is discharged — during which the device can provide part of the power needed for the whole system — and in the process ejects a stream of pure carbon dioxide. The whole system operates at room temperature and normal air pressure.

“The greatest advantage of this technology over most other carbon capture or carbon absorbing technologies is the binary nature of the adsorbent’s affinity to carbon dioxide,” explains Voskian. In other words, the electrode material, by its nature, “has either a high affinity or no affinity whatsoever,” depending on the battery’s state of charging or discharging. Other reactions used for carbon capture require intermediate chemical processing steps or the input of significant energy such as heat, or pressure differences.

We are going to turn this pollution into soda!

“This binary affinity allows capture of carbon dioxide from any concentration, including 400 parts per million, and allows its release into any carrier stream, including 100 percent CO2,” Voskian says. That is, as any gas flows through the stack of these flat electrochemical cells, during the release step the captured carbon dioxide will be carried along with it. For example, if the desired end-product is pure carbon dioxide to be used in the carbonation of beverages, then a stream of the pure gas can be blown through the plates. The captured gas is then released from the plates and joins the stream.

In some soft-drink bottling plants, fossil fuel is burned to generate the carbon dioxide needed to give the drinks their fizz. Similarly, some farmers burn natural gas to produce carbon dioxide to feed their plants in greenhouses. The new system could eliminate that need for fossil fuels in these applications, and in the process actually be taking the greenhouse gas right out of the air, Voskian says. Alternatively, the pure carbon dioxide stream could be compressed and injected underground for long-term disposal, or even made into fuel through a series of chemical and electrochemical processes.

The process this system uses for capturing and releasing carbon dioxide “is revolutionary” he says. “All of this is at ambient conditions — there’s no need for thermal, pressure, or chemical input. It’s just these very thin sheets, with both surfaces active, that can be stacked in a box and connected to a source of electricity.”

 

[jufonuk]

Cool.

 

[HoodWinked]

stuff like this is the best

when the morning after pill was developed the religious right were up in arms that it was available over the counter they argued that it was supporting abortion but that wasn't the case because the morning after pill's mechanism was actually to prevent or delay ovulation unlike RU486. This basically showed their hand, their main concern wasn't so much the anti abortion part but they simply didn't want people having sex before marriage and wanted to control people.

in the same way this type of thing will be attacked by the so called environmentalists because sure they say they're for the environment but their primary concern is about controlling behavior and being able to scold and berate as a means to be superior to other. Its why these same people don't advocate for nuclear power nor the carbon capture system being backed by bill gates.

 

[Tesseract]

some positive vibes from this on the fsu channels this morning, appears to be massively scale able

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

In two decades, we'll be pulling carbon dioxide out of the air, breaking it further down into carbon, and pumping that back into the soil as amendments, not only completely offsetting fossil fuel carbon increase in the atmosphere but also enriching our soils. Gas enrichment/purification is already a massive industry worth billions. Consider the industrial and medical applications, alone. I believe fracking (hello shale) could make great use of these purified gasses. One might even be able to make a fracking rig carbon neutral, wouldn't that be hilarious?

You think we wouldn't find out how to mine our own air? Of course things were headed in this direction.

Look up that terra preta soil. It has crazy concentrations of carbon, which plants love.

Farmers are already doing low-tech carbon sequestration at remarkable rates (biochar + regenerative agriculture/silvapasture). Add in the technology to sequester more carbon and we can start offsetting for developing third-world countries who cannot afford to use carbon-neutral energy sources.

Sequestration, baby. Forget what the pundits tell you about emission reduction and "renewable energy" sources. Sequestration makes all of that mostly irrelevant.

 

[Kenpachii]

Dam now that's going to be fixed, what dooms day scenario is next?

 

[Tesseract]

Dam now that's going to be fixed, what dooms day scenario is next?

how dare you

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Dam now that's going to be fixed, what dooms day scenario is next?

They've already thought ahead, matey!

Meet N2O, the greenhouse gas 300 times worse than CO2

When we talk about greenhouse gases we usually talk about carbon dioxide. When media reports depict climate change, we invariably see the cooling towers of a coal power station. Which is fair, because…

theconversation.com

If carbon dioxide gets "fixed" by sequestration techniques, they will shift to Nitrogen emissions being a far greater threat than Co2 ever was. We produce a lot of it in our agriculture industry, it causes environmental damage, and tillage on farmland releases huge amounts of nitrogen into the atmosphere. Furthermore, when we disrupt a landscape's natural nitrogen cycling, more of it spills into the atmosphere without being drawn down, increasing Nitrogen more and more.

See where this is going? Heard this all before, haven't you?

Thing is, Nitrogen can be solved by low-tech agriculture/silvapasture techniques, too. Plants love nitrogen and it can be sequestered using regenerative agriculture: restoring the soil's biology, planting nitrogen-fixing plants like legumes (hello future Asia continent customers), and increasing carbon and humic content in the soil all help draw nitrogen down and sequester it too.

But just you watch, BigAg (Monsanto et al) and the politicians would be more than happy to step in and demand "nitrogen tax credits" all over again. Y'know, to keep this new runaway greenhouse gas in check. Winky. Face. Emoji.

 

[Lanrutcon]

Man, I dream of the day we use science to get our environment under control. Balance out the price of progress. Truly become masters of our surroundings without the fine print.

Go go Science, you glorious bastard you.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

Dam now that's going to be fixed, what dooms day scenario is next?

"racism" will be the gift that keeps on giving

 

[infinitys_7th]

That sounds a lot like a combustion gas electrostatic precipitator. I'm surprised it would work because CO2 is nonpolar and highly stable due to its adjacent double bonds.

I imagine this could be useful for greenhouses, on a small scale - you can lock it down and turn on the CO2 concentrator to throw food at the plants.

 

[Tesseract]

my brother uses something like this on his farm, wish he was around for me to pick his brain

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Carbon neutral fracking

The well-documented downsides of solar and wind are plentiful. Nuclear is its own topic (personally, jump on those molten salt reactors and let's get nukin') and other than that we don't have any viable non-fossil energy sources.

Natural gas has already cut our emissions, and fracking has allowed the USA to become #1 fossil fuel exporter. Natural gas as an energy-making technology can seamlessly transition into a true renewable energy source by burning gas (mostly methane and nitrogen) from agricuultural waste. We already have tech where manure compost can be sapped for its flammable gas offput. Then if/when the natural gas in the ground runs dry, we will just be creating an infinite supply of renewable biogas. Cowfarts indeed.

Earth is an ecosystem. We posses 100% of the knowledge about our ecosystem to alter it and we are now entering the phase of human history where ecological problems can solved instead of doomsday-preached from a soapbox. We'll see it in our lifetimes, I believe. We all read about this stuff in sci -fi books, the books that were hopeful about the future, at least.

Thanks for posting the thread Trojita you got me fired up.

 

[Insane Metal]

Cool.

Yes please, let's cool the shit out of this planet now.

 

[iconmaster]

when the morning after pill was developed the religious right were up in arms that it was available over the counter they argued that it was supporting abortion but that wasn't the case because the morning after pill's mechanism was actually to prevent or delay ovulation unlike RU486. This basically showed their hand, their main concern wasn't so much the anti abortion part but they simply didn't want people having sex before marriage and wanted to control people.

I do t know why you’re bringing this in but Plan B is arguably an abortifacient. From WebMD:

It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.

You may not consider that an abortion, but some do, and oppose the medication on that ground.

 

[HoodWinked]

I do t know why you’re bringing this in but Plan B is arguably an abortifacient. From WebMD:



You may not consider that an abortion, but some do, and oppose the medication on that ground.

this is where the disingenuous part of the argument comes to play, from the page you linked

Depending upon where you are in your cycle, levonorgestrel may work in one of these ways:

• It may prevent or delay ovulation.
• It may interfere with fertilization of an egg.

It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.

Levonorgestrel is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it.

The majority of the article is essentially arguing my point you're basically having the same selective blindness as the two groups that i'm pointing out.

 

[V4skunk]

C02 has nothing to do with climate change. You have been brainwashed by the msm and deny basic science if you believe this shit.

 

[Trojita]

C02 has nothing to do with climate change. You have been brainwashed by the msm and deny basic science if you believe this shit.

When asking for a multi-vitamin, you posted a link to Alex Jones' supplement store.

 

[Mihos]

I am old school, this was going to kill us when I was a kid.

| EarthSky

Thanks to abnormal weather patterns in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica, this year's ozone hole is the smallest since the ozone hole was 1st observed in 1982.

earthsky.org

not sure what I did to fix it.....

 

[V4skunk]

When asking for a multi-vitamin, you posted a link to Alex Jones' supplement store.

Yeah because the multi vitamins at Infowars are way more concentrated than anything you'll find in a store. You must be too stupid to check the facts. Try harder comrade! And keep watching the fake news.

 

[godhandiscen]

I am old school, this was going to kill us when I was a kid.

| EarthSky

Thanks to abnormal weather patterns in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica, this year's ozone hole is the smallest since the ozone hole was 1st observed in 1982.

earthsky.org

not sure what I did to fix it.....

Well, you should read the article you posted:

In 1987, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This agreement regulated the consumption and production of ozone-depleting compounds. Atmospheric levels of human-made ozone-depleting substances increased up to the year 2000. Since then, they have slowly declined but remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as banned CFCs continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone to recover back to the 1980 level around 2070.

Bottom line: The 2019 ozone hole is the smallest since it was first observed in 1982, thanks to abnormal weather patterns in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica,

 

[iconmaster]

The majority of the article is essentially arguing my point you're basically having the same selective blindness as the two groups that i'm pointing out.

Yes, the majority of the article. But apparently there’s still a chance.

Cue Jim Carrey

 

[vpance]

That's nice but Is Greta still upset though?

 

[MetalAlien]

Dam now that's going to be fixed, what dooms day scenario is next?

Nuclear waste or masculinity.

 

[Ornlu]

They've already thought ahead, matey!

Meet N2O, the greenhouse gas 300 times worse than CO2

When we talk about greenhouse gases we usually talk about carbon dioxide. When media reports depict climate change, we invariably see the cooling towers of a coal power station. Which is fair, because…

theconversation.com

If carbon dioxide gets "fixed" by sequestration techniques, they will shift to Nitrogen emissions being a far greater threat than Co2 ever was. We produce a lot of it in our agriculture industry, it causes environmental damage, and tillage on farmland releases huge amounts of nitrogen into the atmosphere. Furthermore, when we disrupt a landscape's natural nitrogen cycling, more of it spills into the atmosphere without being drawn down, increasing Nitrogen more and more.

See where this is going? Heard this all before, haven't you?

Thing is, Nitrogen can be solved by low-tech agriculture/silvapasture techniques, too. Plants love nitrogen and it can be sequestered using regenerative agriculture: restoring the soil's biology, planting nitrogen-fixing plants like legumes (hello future Asia continent customers), and increasing carbon and humic content in the soil all help draw nitrogen down and sequester it too.

But just you watch, BigAg (Monsanto et al) and the politicians would be more than happy to step in and demand "nitrogen tax credits" all over again. Y'know, to keep this new runaway greenhouse gas in check. Winky. Face. Emoji.

Cuz you know Nitrogen, being 78% of our atmosphere, will be the problem.

 

[Hero Of Gallowmere]

That's nice.

Now how do we monetize this so that those reptilian motherfuckers at those big corporations get on board?

 

[triplestation]

big ass titties

good shit

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

You know what pisses me off? Activists. They bitch about the rain forests and shit yet live in a country with no forests and live in the comfort of their home/city/central ac. Then they point the finger on the fucking natives that want the same way of life. Get off your high horse and either plant a tree or two outside your home and stop using comforts that "destroy" the planet before you preach Eric.

Y...yeah!

 

[infinitys_7th]

Yeah because the multi vitamins at Infowars are way more concentrated than anything you'll find in a store. You must be too stupid to check the facts. Try harder comrade! And keep watching the fake news.

 

[MaestroMike]

Carbon neutral fracking

The well-documented downsides of solar and wind are plentiful. Nuclear is its own topic (personally, jump on those molten salt reactors and let's get nukin') and other than that we don't have any viable non-fossil energy sources.

Natural gas has already cut our emissions, and fracking has allowed the USA to become #1 fossil fuel exporter. Natural gas as an energy-making technology can seamlessly transition into a true renewable energy source by burning gas (mostly methane and nitrogen) from agricuultural waste. We already have tech where manure compost can be sapped for its flammable gas offput. Then if/when the natural gas in the ground runs dry, we will just be creating an infinite supply of renewable biogas. Cowfarts indeed.

Earth is an ecosystem. We posses 100% of the knowledge about our ecosystem to alter it and we are now entering the phase of human history where ecological problems can solved instead of doomsday-preached from a soapbox. We'll see it in our lifetimes, I believe. We all read about this stuff in sci -fi books, the books that were hopeful about the future, at least.

Thanks for posting the thread Trojita you got me fired up.

where u learn this stuff???

 

[Foamy]

Hopefully China steals this technology.
.....




Like they steal everything else.

 

[Mistake]

If connected to solar or wind power, this seems pretty cool, but I imagine that isn’t going to be the case

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

where u learn this stuff???

There are a surprising number of peer-reviewed studies from various universities available online. The pieces are still being put together, mostly by independent farmers and independent entrepreneurs. Or, if you prefer the summary via video content:

 

[MaestroMike]

There are a surprising number of peer-reviewed studies from various universities available online. The pieces are still being put together, mostly by independent farmers and independent entrepreneurs. Or, if you prefer the summary via video content:

hmmm i need to check out the second video i was trying to read about this stuff like last month i figure plants and animals are very similar we need a lot of the same minerals and nutrients but plants...different type of plants have their own specific diet that they need to be fed..so I was like what if I buy like piece of land in the middle of nowhere start putting nutrients in the soil...maybe already transplant some adult plants/trees there and just continue taking care of that piece of land until it grows into a beautiful forest ages from now...I kind of want to buy some land that is already near some grown forests where the plants/trees can siphon off some of the nutrients in the neighboring nutrient rich soil. Obviously little by little I will want to introduce animals from the bottom to the top of the food chain to make sure energy and nutrients are spread around accordingly and are recycled. So then my land will be a sustainable ecosystem...then when my land is nice, beautiful, luscious and full of life I will start cutting down trees to build my Ark for the upcoming floods...remember u have all been judged !!