ronwagn

This Battery Uses Up CO2 to Create Energy

Recommended Posts

(edited)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191025170815.htm

Engineers develop a new way to remove carbon dioxide from air

The process could work on the gas at any concentrations, from power plant emissions to open air

Date:
October 25, 2019
Source:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Summary:
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.
 
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.
 
I am not concerned about CO2 myself, but what do you engineers and science types think of this idea? RCW
Edited by ronwagn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is claimed that this polyanthraquinone capture material is manufacturable in bulk, but not yet demonstrated.  I want to see that.

The paper claims that capture has been demonstrated down to CO2 concentrations of 6000 ppm, which is a considerable ways from 400 ppm.  The exit CO2 concentration from the absorber was not mentioned to my recall.  If it has not gotten well below 400 ppm, it probably cannot do effective atmospheric CO2 capture.

I want this to be The Solution so bad I can taste it, but I gotta have proof.  Even 100 kJ/mol at 300 ppm will do if it WORKS!  I'm from Missouri, SHOW ME!  I WANT it to happen!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2019 at 1:50 AM, ronwagn said:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191025170815.htm

Engineers develop a new way to remove carbon dioxide from air

The process could work on the gas at any concentrations, from power plant emissions to open air

Date:
October 25, 2019
Source:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Summary:
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.
 
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.
 
I am not concerned about CO2 myself, but what do you engineers and science types think of this idea? RCW

 

 

We know that burning fossil fuels emits several air pollutants that are toxic to both the environment and public health. When fossil fuels are combusted, it delivers large amounts of carbon dioxide. https://rockher.com/  Carbon emissions enclose heat in the atmosphere and lead to climate variation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rockher jewellers said:

 

 

We know that burning fossil fuels emits several air pollutants that are toxic to both the environment and public health. When fossil fuels are combusted, it delivers large amounts of carbon dioxide. https://rockher.com/  Carbon emissions enclose heat in the atmosphere and lead to climate variation. 

yep I think we all know this

What is your point??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

yep I think we all know this

What is your point??

Sorry Robert.  We don't all know this.  Science proves CO2 lags temperature rise.  Temps go up and cause an increase in atmospheric CO2.

 

https://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/

Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE

Man-made global warming promoters claim the high correlation between carbon dioxide (CO2) and atmospheric temperature (T) in the 420,000 year ice core record proves CO2 causes T to change. Herein is demonstrated how the evidence conflicts with that belief.

Basics. First, correlation alone only proves correlation, not cause and effect. Physics is required to describe and prove cause and effect. Second if increasing CO2 did cause T to increase, there must be some physical lag or delay in the response of T to CO2; average T of whole atmosphere, oceans and land masses cannot respond instantaneously to CO2, no matter how strong the cause.

In fact many researchers claim CO2 actually lags T, proving CO2 cannot cause T changes at all. Rather T causes CO2.

What could cause CO2 to lag warming? Its solubility in water? Yes, that explains the data well. Simply put, when oceans warm due to greater solar energy absorption, they outgas dissolved CO2 just like soda water does because CO2 is less soluble in warm water than cold. When oceans are chilled, they absorb CO2 gas and hold it because CO2 is more soluble. Tropical seas hold less CO2/m3 than polar seas do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean#Mixing_Time

The lag is measured to be about 800 years and confirmed by theory.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gonna throw it out there as it's somewhat related . If there targetting CO2 due to green house gas effects would the energy not be better used for capturing moisture as it's a greenhouse gas much easier to capture and holding a majority of the greenhouse gas %. I dont know if it's self defeating but a energy plant that also dehumidified and purifies  the water (like Florida delsalination) solves water, greenhouse gasses and power shortage all spoken about by global warming crowd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2019 at 6:20 AM, ronwagn said:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191025170815.htm

Engineers develop a new way to remove carbon dioxide from air

The process could work on the gas at any concentrations, from power plant emissions to open air

Date:
October 25, 2019
Source:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Summary:
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.
 
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.
 
I am not concerned about CO2 myself, but what do you engineers and science types think of this idea? RCW

I am very concerned about CO2 (Methane as well), but as a scientist (Physics and Environmental Science), I can tell you that a battery which does not reduce net emissions is not much use on it's own. If, however, the discharge was used for CCS (carbon capture and storage), and the battery can capture carbon more cheaply than existing methods, then it may be of some use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite this being an old topic,  I must comment.   I have a very old, yet tried and true method of removing CO2 from the air - plant more trees. It has two main problems.  First, the climate change types don't like it because it actually works and reducing CO2 will ruin their push to eliminate fossil fuels.  Second, the capitalists don't like it because there's no money to be made.

I'm old enough to have witnessed green fields and tree covered areas replaced with shopping centers and housing over hundreds and hundreds of acres of land in my little corner of the world.  And we wonder why atmospheric CO2 is on the rise.  Fossil fuels do play a part, but so does our relentless destruction of green space.  

This change does not have a single cause, nor does it have a single solution.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, George8944 said:

plant more trees.

Mind blown!

2 hours ago, George8944 said:

I'm old enough to have witnessed green fields and tree covered areas replaced with shopping centers and housing over hundreds and hundreds of acres of land in my little corner of the world.  And we wonder why atmospheric CO2 is on the rise. 

Funny, this is super obvious yet I never hear it mentioned.

I wonder what it would take to offset human produced CO2 in terms of trees/acreage

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, wow, this is something to actually pursue. If this works in bulk then we are on our way to de-carbonize (if there is any word like that) the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a different thread @Douglas Buckland has been stating population growth and climate change are inextricably linked. I cant see an argument against that.

Some pressure on Brazil and their deforestation might just help, although that's not newsworthy anymore apparently.

However I still dont believe Co2 is the main problem, I'm more concerned with pollution than Co2.

Trump is on board with tree planting apparently, where the hell they will all go I have no idea. The world is becoming overcrowded.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/21/trump-hails-1tn-trees-plan-but-ignores-roots-of-problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, George8944 said:

Despite this being an old topic,  I must comment.   I have a very old, yet tried and true method of removing CO2 from the air - plant more trees. It has two main problems.  First, the climate change types don't like it because it actually works and reducing CO2 will ruin their push to eliminate fossil fuels.  Second, the capitalists don't like it because there's no money to be made.

I'm old enough to have witnessed green fields and tree covered areas replaced with shopping centers and housing over hundreds and hundreds of acres of land in my little corner of the world.  And we wonder why atmospheric CO2 is on the rise.  Fossil fuels do play a part, but so does our relentless destruction of green space.  

This change does not have a single cause, nor does it have a single solution.

So true.

Now, IF the bigots here can accept a few facts...

Since 1978, the evil, despicable, communists Chinese have planted 6 BILLION TREES in an effort to stem desertification. The results are mixed, however. Total success is not assured. Yet, research, efforts, and mega funds continue to be applied to the goal.  

Has ANY country come close to planting 6 billion trees? 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/04/china-great-green-wall-gobi-tengger-desertification/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not population tho ... it's how people want to live. Consumerism . In today's world massive weddings fast food, not making food at home, plastic packaging, one day deliver of single items , window shopping ,2 cars per family and on and on. If we lived in community towers and farmed around them had common car pools . Didnt replace cloths because there in to many pictures or TVs cell phone and computers cause the new ones better but cause the old one broke.

.... Long story short if you look at statistics across the board every area is touched by greed (over consuming). 

So if reducing life is your answer to staying greedy .... well I say that's messed up and I will not participate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on consumerism, however mankind is greedy as a species. Most people want to "better themselves" have a nicer car (or two) have a bigger house, have the latest cell phone etc etc. Its human nature!

1 hour ago, Rob Kramer said:

If we lived in community towers and farmed around them had common car pools . Didnt replace cloths because there in to many pictures or TVs cell phone and computers cause the new ones better but cause the old one broke.

This is never going to happen as if you have wealth you want your own things not shared with "others" or live in community towers.

 

1 hour ago, Rob Kramer said:

So if reducing life is your answer to staying greedy .... well I say that's messed up and I will not participate. 

Unfortunately Rob you most probably do participate if you are from Canada (which I think is where you are from) as you or your fellow Canadians are some of the "greediest" on the planet.

Global population control is essential IMO. As a species we are doomed if we don't seriously look at  this, the world is becoming too small.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

co2-emissions-per-capita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am from Canada. As consumers are the issue (I have to say I dont believe global warming) it's not the poor in countries like India (I know all countries have rich also) or africa that would be the ones over consuming.... it would be the trumps obamas trudos and royals that are the issue so if law was passed it would be here (1st world places). Who's gonna vote their family's? 

And I agree the people I know would never live like how I described. And most Canadians are grossly consuming... but as that's how they want to live it's their right ... as with free speech and pointing the finger at oil (lol). My family (wife+kids) dont over consume but that is all I can control but that's coming from someone who doesn't believe in global warming 1%. 

Were usually the ones buying the expired apples on sale that everyone thinks look gross and making apple crisp that's apparently delicious (if only they knew lol). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Were usually the ones buying the expired apples on sale that everyone thinks look gross and making apple crisp that's apparently delicious (if only they knew lol). 

Haha yeah in the UK we dont even get the chance to buy weird shaped veg as "it doesnt look normal so nobody will buy it"

Carrots have to be straight or they are used as animal feed, ridiculous!

Food waste is a real problem.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fruit-vegetables-food-waste-farms-uk-birmingham-manchester-feedback-a8220171.html

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to drag it out but to explain my full opinion: a few more issues with over population laws would be : 1) allowing the greeds of consumerism in its various forms over the greed of too large a family. What would make overconsumption right vs a big family. 2) the heart of the issue would remain  overconsumption .would the scale of it just grow? The carbon footprint says yes. 3) who could have a family ? Would the poor or unhealthy be excluded? 4) would family wanting males ect bring about future issues? . 

All in I think it would be a death spiral for freedom and over regulation while the issue remained. 

On the Green House Gas issue .... can anyone explain how / if basically dehumidifying the atmosphere would / wouldn't work? I saw some stats that 95% of GHG are water vapors? ...I didnt look to far into it because I'm not in agreement with global warming. But if I were .... would targeting the most populous gas with very simple technology not work? Hot air balloon with a dehumidifier and power cord on solar? Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL - I made a battery that makes energy out of absorbing political arguments with your family and expels only rainbow vapor and antioxidants. 

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not time to do some physics experiments relating to the supposed effects of carbon dioxide? I suggest firing a carbon dioxide laser at the moon and measuring the amount of radiation absorbed on return to earth,through the atmosphere. As the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is lower during the northern hemisphere summer,due to plant growth,the variation in radiation absorbed,against carbon dioxide concentration,could be measured. I am getting sick of the selective use of unreliable statistics by the global warmers. The great English Elizabethan thinker Francis Bacon said that the Scientific Method is to propose a theory and then to test it by observation,followed by reasonable discussion of the results. At school we were taught that an equation with an unknown in it cannot be solved. The global warmers need to go back to school. My guess is that there is possibly something untoward happening in the Arctic Circle. This could be due to the great Russian nickel smelter at Norilsk. This is the largest point source of sulphur dioxide in the world. Explorers have said that Arctic air smells of sulphur dioxide. The mist of sulphuric acid that it creates is likely to reduce the radiation of heat at latitudes where it should be at the greatest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2020 at 11:25 PM, PE Scott said:

I wonder what it would take to offset human produced CO2 in terms of trees/acreage

I doubt at this point we could fully offset human produced CO2.   However, I'm of the mind that every little bit helps or put another way, every removed green area hurts.  I believe the best solution attacks the problem by reducing the source and cleaning up the damage.   I don't know of any downside to planting trees.  I live in suburbia.  When a new housing development goes in, the first thing to go are the trees.  These are sold for firewood or ground for mulch.  Besides extra income for the developer, it's easier to build houses when the trees are gone.  I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but this practice really bothers me.

We also do crazy stuff like cut grass along the hundreds of thousands of miles of interstate highway.  This is a double edged problem.  First we use ICE based mowers and second, the by product of decomposition is CO2 and CO depending upon the oxygen availability. 

My favorite green insanity is cutting down trees and/or covering green space with solar panels.  I keep asking myself, what's wrong with this picture?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, George8944 said:

I doubt at this point we could fully offset human produced CO2.   

A little off the cuff math based on google findings says it would take about half of north america covered in 50yo forest. Or about 1.6 billion acres of forest. 

So, that's unlikely to happen. All though, even a significant fraction of that spread across the globe would make a difference  -  both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I believe that long term, planting trees is CO2 neutral - when the tree is harvested for fuel or falls to the forest floor to decompose all of the CO2 absorbed to support growth is released back into the environment.  On the other hand a large part of the 400ppm is the result of the net reduction in forests so recovering those trees would be a benefit as the CO2 released by their harvest would be reabsorbed.  I have not seen any stats to indicate the amount of carbon released by the harvest of trees in the last 50 or 100 years.

Edited by OHMO
spelling
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OHMO said:

I believe that long term, planting trees is CO2 neutral - when the tree is harvested for fuel or falls to the forest floor to decompose all of the CO2 absorbed to support growth is released back into the environment.  On the other hand a large part of the 400ppm is the result of the net reduction in forests so recovering those trees would be a benefit as the CO2 released by their harvest would be reabsorbed.  I have not seen any stats to indicate the amount of carbon released by the harvest of trees in the last 50 or 100 years.

Long term yes, short term no.  They can be used to "buy us time."

Harvesting the wood and sequestering it in construction does make the forest a carbon sink.  Forestry industry should be advertising this more often.

People who think trees solve everything have obviously never have seen a giant forest fire (Fort McMurry for example).

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87988/wildfire-spreads-in-fort-mcmurray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.