From the ‘CO2 must be assimilated’ department comes this press release from CSIRO. I have to wonder if this is a ‘spongeworthy’ project.
======================
CSIRO scientists have created a ‘solar sponge’ which captures and then releases carbon dioxide using the power of natural sunlight – as published today in scientific journal Angewandte Chemie.
The breakthrough presents a new way to recycle CO2 emissions using renewable energy. The ‘sponge’ which is made from a new smart material called a MOF – metal organic framework – adsorbs carbon dioxide, but when exposed to sunlight, instantaneously releases it.
Known as dynamic photo-switching, this capture-and-release method is extremely energy efficient and only requires UV light to trigger the release of CO2 after it has been captured from the mixture of exhaust gases.
“This is an exciting development for carbon capture because concentrated solar energy can be used instead of further coal-based energy to drive the process.”
Dr Matthew Hill, CSIRO research scientist
Dr Matthew Hill, who was awarded a 2012 Eureka Prize for his MOF research and led the CSIRO group conducting this research, said: “The capture and release process can be compared to soaking up water with a sponge and then wringing it out. When UV light hits the material its structure bends and twists and stored gas is released.”
“This is an exciting development for carbon capture because concentrated solar energy can be used instead of further coal-based energy to drive the process,” he added.
The traditional process for carbon dioxide capture has been to use liquid absorbers such as amines to remove flue gases at a coal-fired power station before they are released into the atmosphere. They are then heated to release the CO2 which is then stored and can be re-used. This process can consume as a much as 30 per cent of a power plant’s production capacity.
MOFs absorb as much as a litre of nitrogen gas in just one gram of material. This is possible because MOFs have the surface area of a football field in just one gram, meaning that gases can be soaked up like a sponge to all of the internal surfaces within.
In their paper titled ‘Dynamic Photo-Switching in Metal Organic Frameworks as a Route to Low Energy Carbon Dioxide Capture and Release’ CSIRO researchers show that when exposed to concentrated UV light the MOF sponge instantaneously releases up to 64 per cent of absorbed CO2.
Lead researcher and author of the paper, Richelle Lyndon, who is also a Monash University student, said: “The MOFs are impregnated with light-responsive azobenzene molecules which react to UV light and trigger the release of CO2. It is this reaction, and the material’s ability to bend and flex, which makes the material we have created so unique.”
Read more media releases in our Media section.
This work was funded by the Science and Industry Endowment Fund [external link].
Dynamic Photo-Switching in Metal–Organic Frameworks as a Route to Low-Energy Carbon Dioxide Capture and Release [external link], abstract in Angewandte Chemie.
I like this invention. For serpentization (conversion of CO2 + H2O -> CH4) you need lots of CO2. The usual way to extract this from the atmosphere is using a cryogenic pump and that takes a lot of energy. That apart, once the serpentization process is running it releases enough energy to drive itself. Dr. Hill’s MOF could be the key to limitless low-cost energy.
Solar anti-batteries.
My suspicion is that carbon sequestration will fall victim to another type of sequestration and die for lack of funds.
Prominent American Scientists Call For Eco-Dictatorship Under UN Rule
http://explosivereports.com/2013/02/19/prominent-american-scientists-call-for-eco-dictatorship-under-un-rule/
In a peer-reviewed paper by the American Institute of Biological Sciences titled “Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges” (available ahead of print), to be published in the march 2013 edition of the Institute’s yearly journal BioScience, a group of well-known scientists calls on government and scientists to start with the planned social engineering of “norms” and “values” in regards to environmental policies. In addition, they propose putting into effect all sorts of environmental fines and regulations in the spirit of Agenda 21 to hasten the social acceptance of increased governmental control. Also, they propose that the scientific community as a whole should align itself with government “through a concerted effort to change personal and social norms”.
“Substantial numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors to address this new class of global environmental problems. Alternative approaches are needed when education and persuasion alone are insufficient. Policy instruments such as penalties, regulations, and incentives may therefore be required to achieve significant behavior modification.”
To the ‘sponge’ researchers, I think the best technology for any given application will be economically determined by the private marketplace in the long run in the USA. If your ‘sponge’ research turns out to be the best for any application, then I congratulate you.
All ideas and technological research are welcome in the free marketplace for ideas. Most do not make the cut for viable private industrialization processes. That is the norm.
I am always cautious when the government is centralizing the control of virtually all the research like in the case of climate science and the resulting perceptions of the need for climate mitigation applications. The government funding process will default toward a tendency to be biased toward a politically approved view of science. That is a structural problem.
I support a significant change in USA’s public and private science funding structure and change in the locus of responsibility in funding decisions.
John
Found this an interesting presentation on CO2 and climate change over long periods. 99% science, no politics, only a little harping about a nasty letter at the beginning, but it was the set up for the talk. Alley is a pretty straight shooter I’ve found, ultimately his concern is that a huge increase in CO2 ppm (like 1000+) could make a impact over centuries or millenia. He is not a social justice or Malthusian advocate. Anyway, I found it interesting.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
This fortunately has zero chance of being used, and as such has been a total waste of money in applied, as opposed to pure, research terms.
Aromatic compounds tend to be carcinogens and azides are often explosive. Imagine the outcry about the production and widespread distribution of explosive carcinogens, particularly for use in high temperature places.
The dismissive attitude of some comments here reflect the non inquiring minds of the writers. I acceprt that this research is misguided however alot of clever research is done that doesnt show any immediate commercial application. Its likely the extremly absorbent qualities of the sponge material MOF has got a practical commercial use somewhere. Fertile minds somewhere will find a useful link between this sponge and a commercial application.
So they can now accomplish nothing even more efficiently than before?
Jim
Bloke down the pub says: February 21, 2013 at 9:37 am “Could find a use on submarines.”
No. Submarine CO2 removal technology is 100 years mature, as is the entire atmosphere control suite.
CO2 is removed by passing breathing air through a large surface area of 2-aminoethanol, a.k.a. monoethanolamine on rasching rings and then driving the CO2 off with heat and pumping the gas indirectly overboard. Hydrogen (from electrolysis of water and lead acid battery gassing) and CO are burned on a high temperature catalyst. Oxygen is electrolyzed from water. Banks of many cubic feet of activated charcoal absorb volatile organics and organics as from venting sanitary tanks discharge overpressure inboard. Electrostatic precipitators remove particles.
Fresh air smells like freshly cut copper after getting used to breathing air full of huge fuzzy molecules of ‘stuff’.
Could be useful in confined workspaces maybe? Especially if the technology can be adapted to absorb stuff coming off uPVC solvents, flooring adhesives etc. Be interesting to know the scale, eg dimensions of “sponge” to amount absorbed.
“CSIRO scientists have created a ‘solar sponge’ which captures and then releases carbon dioxide using the power of natural sunlight […] made from a new smart material called a MOF – metal organic framework”.</i.
Great Ghu, they've invented inorganic trees.
Not sure how this is an advantage over existing scrubbers which can also be reused by heating the saturated scrubber base.
When I read the description of the function of MOF above, I was immediately reminded of Zeolite technology that is integral to water purification on, again, submarines. The light-water cooled and moderated PWR uses an HOH Zeolite column to maintain water purity.
When I left cities for my remote rural Island (not like Willis’ remote), I was pleased to find a very generic water conditioning system with a 0.75 cubic foot zeolite resin column, a simple and exposed automated valve manifold and a volume meter to time the regeneration cycles.
For now, I use NaCl to regenerate my Zeolite, but as soon as KCl becomes economical, then I’ll shift. NaCl is becoming more expensive more rapidly than bulk (40 lbm bags) KCl.
@M. Clark, why not use the aforementioned activated charcoal?
It is a mature and robust technology. A. C. is regenerated with a hot 250°F stream of Nitrogen, ideally, but air will work for most purposes.
About scale, I started to comment earlier on one liter absorbed gas per gram, for an STP mole volume of gas being about 22 liters. I wasn’t able to find a convenient measure of the capability of A. C. The active surface area of a gram of A. C. is easily 500 m^2 and effectively 1500 m^2 (http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in/site/Portals/0/Publications/Presentations/Bio-Energy/Value%20Added%20Products%20From%20Gasification%20%20-%20Activated%20Carbon.pdf)
Don’t you ALL just love the inventive human spirit. hmm
The promise of capturing C02 from the air is the promise of carbon neutral fuel. How cheap remains to be seen.
But lets be negative and poop all over anything that mentions global warming. go team!
that’s the real skeptical spirit. throw that baby out with the bath water!
here’s another approach. In the end the cost of the device was too high. new materials in the pipeline may solve that. na, lets poop on that too. he said global warming. boo him. we are open minded!
Just like “Tang” . . . must find something to do with the inventions. Must find someway to profit from the patents . . . You’ve heard of “Publish or Perish” well that’s all wrong . . . It’s “Profit or Perish”.
And how much energy does it take to create these “MOF”Os?
Joe Ryan says: February 21, 2013 at 12:28 pm “And how much energy does it take to create these “MOF”Os?” I think that’s the correct question to ask. What is the pollution committed by the new technology integrated across all industry?
I remember when the CSIRO actually did real science, now It’s just another branch of the globalist elite’s propaganda machine.
The joy’s of being an Australian tax payer, they’re testing all this crap on us in the same way Macca’s tests their fast food menu.
Capture and release…..sounds like fishing.
I still think this would be a good way to transport the CO2 directly to the plants to boost food production. Take from power plant and place in a corn field. CO2 is a limiting factor in corn production, as during the middle of the day CO2 levels at plant height approaches zero. Supplement the CO2 with a bunch of these things and boost production. It makes the greens think they are saving the planet, gives the rest of us the abundant power we need to run the economy (since we can convince the greens that burning fuel actually helps the world), and boosts food production all in one go.
Now the questions about whether these things can be made without polluting the environment with manufacturing chemical waste is a good question. I am not too concerned with how much energy they take to make as I would envision the things getting reused over and over and over. The idea that you would sequester CO2 in these things is pure hokem – what are they going to do? take them to a salt tunnel and bury them in encased glass to keep the UV off of them!?
My main worry with these CO2 capture devices is that we start to lower the atmospheric concentration to dangerously low levels..
I know, a LONG time in the future.. so I’m sure that even the most rabidly anti-CO2 fool will by then realise that……………..
CO2 IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT !!!
beyond 700ppm 🙂 onward and upward.
“How much energy does it take to create the “MOF”? Probably as much or more than that needed to build solar panels or windmills. And don’t forget the pollution involved.
And since nobody says we should totally disregard the research, unless a practical application can be found, this should be put on the shelf till a need arises. IMHO.
@Steve mosher, feb 21 12:04pm.: Thanks for your always learned and insightful comment.
This is only partially OT but: Has anyone actually done a study on “optimal'” levels of CO2 on human or mammalian life? I read somewhere that the Russians have higher levels of CO2 on their spacecraft than was tolerated by the US and that it was based on some sort of scientific study but have never been able to track anything down.
Now only if we can produce a dry flue gas under 100F that were 100% pure CO2 and provide enough residence time to permit +13 hrs adsorbent exposure per the experiment we’d approach 64% efficiency. Nice effort but for all practical purposes — back to the drawing board.