Fastest carbon dioxide catcher heralds new age for direct air capture

[Meredith Poor + 883]

Quote

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/953826

Tokyo, Japan – Researchers from Tokyo Metropolitan University have developed a new carbon capture system which removes carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere with unprecedented performance. Isophorone diamine (IPDA) in a “liquid-solid phase separation” system was found to remove carbon dioxide at the low concentrations contained in the atmosphere with 99% efficiency. The compound is reusable with minimal heating and at least twice as fast as existing systems, an exciting new development for direct air capture.

...

A team led by Professor Seiji Yamazoe of Tokyo Metropolitan University have been studying a class of DAC technology known as liquid-solid phase separation systems. Many DAC systems involve bubbling air through a liquid, with a chemical reaction occurring between the liquid and the carbon dioxide. As the reaction proceeds, more of the reaction product accumulates in the liquid; this makes subsequent reactions slower and slower. Liquid-solid phase separation systems offer an elegant solution, where the reaction product is insoluble and comes out of solution as a solid. There is no accumulation of product in the liquid, and the reaction speed does not slow down much.

The team focused their attention on liquid amine compounds, modifying their structure to optimize reaction speed and efficiency with a wide range of concentrations of carbon dioxide in air, from around 400ppm to up to 30%. They found that an aqueous solution of one of these compounds, isophorone diamine (IPDA), could convert 99% of the carbon dioxide contained in the air to a solid carbamic acid precipitate. Crucially, they demonstrated that the solid dispersed in solution only required heating to 60 degrees Celsius to completely release the captured carbon dioxide, recovering the original liquid. The rate at which carbon dioxide could be removed was at least twice as fast as that of the leading DAC lab systems, making it the fastest carbon dioxide capture system in the world at present for processing low concentration carbon dioxide in air (400ppm).

The team’s new technology promises unprecedented performance and robustness in DAC systems, with wide implications for carbon capture systems deployed at scale. Beyond improving their system further, their vision of a “beyond zero” world now turns to how the captured carbon may be effectively used, in industrial applications and household products.

Isophorone diamine (IPDA) is a common chemical, often used as a catalyst for curing epoxy. it's easy to buy and cheap.

One easy to implement process once one has the CO2 is to convert it to CO (carbon monoxide), which reacts with itself to make CO2 and graphite. Graphite is an industrial feedstock. It could also be buried in old coal mines.

[markslawson + 1,042]

9 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

One easy to implement process once one has the CO2 is to convert it to CO (carbon monoxide), which reacts with itself to make CO2 and graphite. Graphite is an industrial feedstock. It could also be buried in old coal mines.

I have no objection to the article, although it is difficult to tell anything much from an article (I use to write about technology) .. I note this bit. 

They found that an aqueous solution of one of these compounds, isophorone diamine (IPDA), could convert 99% of the carbon dioxide contained in the air to a solid carbamic acid precipitate. Crucially, they demonstrated that the solid dispersed in solution only required heating to 60 degrees Celsius to completely release the captured carbon dioxide, recovering the original liquid. 

You're saying they can take another step of converting the CO2 to CO which converts to CO2 and graphite.. okay. Well the research is interesting but it still sounds a little complex for mass application... To clean the earth's atmosphere would require an enormous effort. It may be better to use the tech to scrub individual exhaust steams.. that is, if it be made to work commercially and at sufficiently low cost. Anyway, watch that space..  

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

3 hours ago, markslawson said:

I have no objection to the article, although it is difficult to tell anything much from an article (I use to write about technology) .. I note this bit. 

They found that an aqueous solution of one of these compounds, isophorone diamine (IPDA), could convert 99% of the carbon dioxide contained in the air to a solid carbamic acid precipitate. Crucially, they demonstrated that the solid dispersed in solution only required heating to 60 degrees Celsius to completely release the captured carbon dioxide, recovering the original liquid. 

You're saying they can take another step of converting the CO2 to CO which converts to CO2 and graphite.. okay. Well the research is interesting but it still sounds a little complex for mass application... To clean the earth's atmosphere would require an enormous effort. It may be better to use the tech to scrub individual exhaust steams.. that is, if it be made to work commercially and at sufficiently low cost. Anyway, watch that space..  

Well articulated Mr. markslawson. Your commentary runs in the same vein as Mr.Jan van Ecks. Quite refreshing!

Edited May 30, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[notsonice + 1,065]

3 hours ago, markslawson said:

I have no objection to the article, although it is difficult to tell anything much from an article (I use to write about technology) .. I note this bit. 

They found that an aqueous solution of one of these compounds, isophorone diamine (IPDA), could convert 99% of the carbon dioxide contained in the air to a solid carbamic acid precipitate. Crucially, they demonstrated that the solid dispersed in solution only required heating to 60 degrees Celsius to completely release the captured carbon dioxide, recovering the original liquid. 

You're saying they can take another step of converting the CO2 to CO which converts to CO2 and graphite.. okay. Well the research is interesting but it still sounds a little complex for mass application... To clean the earth's atmosphere would require an enormous effort. It may be better to use the tech to scrub individual exhaust steams.. that is, if it be made to work commercially and at sufficiently low cost. Anyway, watch that space..  

You're saying they can take another step of converting the CO2 to CO which converts to CO2 and graphite..????

Yep an  enormous effort we are better off letting mother nature grow vegetation and letting it accumulate

 

the proposed  isophorone diamine (IPDA) process would take more energy to produce the graphite than is released from the burning of the equivalent amount of coal ...

In other words Thermodynamics would have you losing energy in the whole process and no usuable energy would result expect in the form of waste heat.....

In the original article do they mention that the carbon capture scheme requires more energy than is gained in the burning of the fossil fuels to begin with????

The whole carbon capture science, to actually do anything beneficial requires massive amounts of energy gained from renewables or nuclear to do any good. Much easier just to store excess energy created by wind and solar to replace the need to burn coal or nat gas when you need energy  instead of the Carbon Capture that some of these wackos preach to begin with.

Does anyone study Thermodynamics when they come up with the Carbon Captures schemes ???????

 

Best way to capture carbon??? Grow massive amount of Trees and  never burned them , the old fashioned way that the earth heals itself.....IE as let vegetation accumulate into peat bogs and over time create coal once again.

Edited May 30, 2022 by notsonice

[nsdp + 449]

You don't capture carbon to reduce temps.  That merely transfers heat by a phase change.

Distinction Between Mechanics and Thermodynamics

The distinction between mechanics and thermodynamics is worth noting. In mechanics, we solely concentrate on the motion of particles or bodies under the action of forces and torques. On the other hand, thermodynamics is not concerned with the motion of the system as a whole. It is only concerned with the internal macroscopic state of the body.https://byjus.com/physics/thermodynamics/#classical-thermodynamics

You really need to focus on An Experimental Enquiry Concerning the Source of the Heat which is Excited by Friction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Experimental_Enquiry_Concerning_the_Source_of_the_Heat_which_is_Excited_by_Friction

This recovers a maximum of 59% of the energy available in the wind.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 5/29/2022 at 6:16 PM, Meredith Poor said:

Isophorone diamine (IPDA) is a common chemical, often used as a catalyst for curing epoxy. it's easy to buy and cheap.

One easy to implement process once one has the CO2 is to convert it to CO (carbon monoxide), which reacts with itself to make CO2 and graphite. Graphite is an industrial feedstock. It could also be buried in old coal mines.

You don't really "have" the CO2, but the carbonate salt of the amine in question. Arguably, this already may constitute a valid form of "carbon capture" on its own? Much any amine works the same way if you bubble the gas through it. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_gas_treating

(You usually want cheap over powerful there. Unless you are interested in extra large and beautiful crystals of methamphetamine. Yes, making crystal meth is pretty efficient carbon capture :) AFAIK, is the champion of fishing the CO2 out of ambient air the amine

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenethylamine#Chemistry

which is the base upon which most of the human neurotransmitters and pharmaceutical drugs are built. So, using such a relatively elaborate amine probably has something to do with trying to avoid it being a base for a novel recreational drug of some kind. This is bound to fail. You can safely assume that all the amines be useful precursors for (eventually) illicit drugs. Otherwise, you'd probably want to use the simplest and cheapest one, methylamine (a highly watched substance. It is the one they steal a drum of in "Breaking Bad

Additional problem with your scheme. Graphite is a very powerful heat sink, but very bad fuel. Will take 3000C and only generate 400C. You probably need pure oxygen to burn it all.

https://firefighterinsider.com/graphite-flammable/

Converting CO2 into CO is by no means easy. AFAIK, this is only amenable to electrochemical methods that tend to use very high levels of heat, too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemical_reduction_of_carbon_dioxide

(not 100% sure about this one) Once you've got your CO, you can add some H2 to make a classical

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas

Which can be turned into arbitrary liquid hydrocarbon with nothing but a catalyst. You can also make a classic Nazi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van

By which I primarily mean a vehicle converted to run directly on wood gas (dirty syngas produced from pyrolysis of any carbonaceous waste. Has about half the caloric value of methane) You can tell by the characteristic tall pot on the back of the van. Being deadly to undesirable Jewish/Communist inmates is only an added side benefit. Mostly, the Nazis were very short on liquid fuels.

It is a beautiful example of a Wiki article which is perpetually locked for edits, has a completely  unscientific hogwash for text, but a single correct picture which explains everything. You cannot kill Jewish/Communist inmates (not to speak of gypsies!) by redirecting the engine exhaust into an enclosed volume, your engine is going to choke first.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 5/30/2022 at 4:05 AM, markslawson said:

I have no objection to the article, although it is difficult to tell anything much from an article (I use to write about technology) .. I note this bit. 

They found that an aqueous solution of one of these compounds, isophorone diamine (IPDA), could convert 99% of the carbon dioxide contained in the air to a solid carbamic acid precipitate. Crucially, they demonstrated that the solid dispersed in solution only required heating to 60 degrees Celsius to completely release the captured carbon dioxide, recovering the original liquid. 

You're saying they can take another step of converting the CO2 to CO which converts to CO2 and graphite.. okay. Well the research is interesting but it still sounds a little complex for mass application... To clean the earth's atmosphere would require an enormous effort. It may be better to use the tech to scrub individual exhaust steams.. that is, if it be made to work commercially and at sufficiently low cost. Anyway, watch that space..  

The first step is trivial and is the basis of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_gas_treating

(aka the industrial sour gas scrubbing) Binds a lot of CO2 as a carbonate salt of anything that is an amine.

The second state, CO2 -> CO is very difficult/energy intensive.

If it were that easy, you could make syngas CO+H2 mixture, which can be turned into pretty much any liquid hydrocarbon fuel with nothing but a catalyst. This is how the GTL (gas-to-liquid fuels) are made.

Ergo, Meredith needs to work on stage 2/3, CO2 -> CO

Edited June 15, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 6/4/2022 at 9:24 AM, nsdp said:

You don't capture carbon to reduce temps.  That merely transfers heat by a phase change.

Distinction Between Mechanics and Thermodynamics

The distinction between mechanics and thermodynamics is worth noting. In mechanics, we solely concentrate on the motion of particles or bodies under the action of forces and torques. On the other hand, thermodynamics is not concerned with the motion of the system as a whole. It is only concerned with the internal macroscopic state of the body.https://byjus.com/physics/thermodynamics/#classical-thermodynamics

You really need to focus on An Experimental Enquiry Concerning the Source of the Heat which is Excited by Friction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Experimental_Enquiry_Concerning_the_Source_of_the_Heat_which_is_Excited_by_Friction

This recovers a maximum of 59% of the energy available in the wind.

Capturing CO2 in a form of carbonated beverages does not obviously take or produce any heat. There is a lot of mechanical energy in there, though. (Think Diet Coke + Smarties hack, which releases it all)

The amount of energy available in the wind is not even 1% tapped in the first 100m where the stupid windmills live. Complete waste of effort, unless you put one horizontally on top of a nuclear power plant's cooling tower. That will get you a solid updraft, I reckon.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 5/30/2022 at 7:23 AM, notsonice said:

In the original article do they mention that the carbon capture scheme requires more energy than is gained in the burning of the fossil fuels to begin with????

The whole carbon capture science, to actually do anything beneficial requires massive amounts of energy gained from renewables or nuclear to do any good. Much easier just to store excess energy created by wind and solar to replace the need to burn coal or nat gas when you need energy  instead of the Carbon Capture that some of these wackos preach to begin with.

Does anyone study Thermodynamics when they come up with the Carbon Captures schemes ???????

 

Best way to capture carbon??? Grow massive amount of Trees and  never burned them , the old fashioned way that the earth heals itself.....IE as let vegetation accumulate into peat bogs and over time create coal once again.

 

Most of the CO2 around is dissolved in the ocean, making it a carbonated beverage. Doing so does not  involve any thermodynamics (no heat is consumed / released)  You can view it as a storage medium for mechanical energy / pressure.

Old, fully grown-up trees are very inconsequential capturers of carbon.  Replacing them with young saplings does better. Blue-green algae i.e. pond scum do even better still. A lot of the environmental lobbyists remind me of those guys intellectually, no wonder they are such friends.