New carbon sorbent is 99% efficient, lightning fast, and easily recyclable
TOKYO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
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.
The devastating effects of climate change are being felt around the world, with an urgent need for new policies, lifestyles and technologies that will lead to reduced carbon emissions (sic). However, many scientists are looking further ahead than a net-zero emission goal, to a future “beyond zero” where we can actively reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The field of carbon capture, the removal and subsequent storage or conversion of carbon dioxide, is developing rapidly, but hurdles remain before it can be deployed at scale.
The biggest challenges come from efficiency, particularly in processing atmospheric air directly in so-called direct air capture (DAC) systems. The concentrations of carbon dioxide are such that chemical reactions with sorbents are very slow. There is also the difficulty of getting the carbon dioxide out again in more sustainable capture-and-desorption cycles, which can be very energy intensive in itself. Even leading efforts to build DAC plants, such as those using potassium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide, suffer serious efficiency issues and recovery costs, making the hunt for new processes notably urgent.
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.
This work was supported by Project Number P14004 of the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).
JOURNAL
ACS Environmental Au
DOI
ARTICLE TITLE
Direct Air Capture of CO2 Using a Liquid Amine–Solid Carbamic Acid Phase-Separation System Using Diamines Bearing an Aminocyclohexyl Group
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
10-May-2022
Let’s remove all the carbon dioxide, then we won’t have to deal with bothersome organisms such as plants!
Plants have been forever sticking us with thorns, saponins and toxins. It’s time to fight back.
Lectins are the real concern
Remember Victor Borge’s uncle who “invented the cure for which there was no disease”
Nasty plants stealing all the CO2 researchers need to justify their next grant
Once we rid the world of carbon dioxide we can start on eliminating dihydrogen monoxide; equally as injurious to human life!
Doing something useless more efficiently?
We have a phrase for such inventions:
“A bad idea whose time has come.”
And if course they do not discuss the energy required for the process, making it worse than useless.
I think all these carbon capture articles should be baslined against palnting a tree. Be nice to have some perspective of the cost of building and deploying all this new technology vrs how many trees do the same job
An interesting aspect is “how much energy?”. That is actually a very interesting question.
We note for the record that trees and all plants are self powered.
Any chemical process of adsorbing, then desorbing CO2 will have a thermodynamic cost. Even at 100% *theoretical* efficiency, you still have to pay to overcome entropy, scavenging from the atmosphere and concentrating in the sorbent.
Here they heat to 60 degrees to complete the process, that takes some doing.
Actually, heating to 60 degrees does NOT complete the process. They say “… 60 degrees Celsius to completely release the captured carbon dioxide”. so they have only completed the ‘CC’ part of ‘CCS’. They still have the ‘S’ (storage) to go. They have nowhere that they can put it! Until they do, it’s just an exercise in futility.
Be nice to have some perspective of the cost of building and deploying all this new technology vrs how many trees do the same job
_______________________________________________
Please stop kissing up to the Green Mafia by telling them that such and so and so will do what they want better or more efficiently. If you don’t understand that, perhaps Sir Winston Churchill can help you out:
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
— Sir Winston Churchill 1954
What?
Implicit in your statement that trees can do the same job, is that the “Job” of sequestering CO2 is a worthy goal. Sequestering CO2 is entirely with out merit. Building a machine to actively reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be a giant useless boondoggle.
As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is a necessary component of growth, the more the better. Here are two links from NOAA and NASA that illustrate the point:
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
NOAA Satellite Data Used in Study Finding Significant Greening in Earth’s Vegetative Areas
Although those to links are to the Internet Archives Wayback Machine, they are STILL available at NOAA and NASA, but they are exactly the sort of web pages that fall under the increasingly heavy hand of government censorship.
OK, I see you’re point and it is a massive overreaction, possibly verging on paranoid.
The point I was making is that a carbon capture machine costs x $billion to build then millions to run to pull out a tiny faction of c02 what is that equal to inplannting X number of trees…that would possibly demonstrate the absurdity of such technology.
Not only that but the oceans have dissolved around 70 times as much CO2 as is in the air. They are in balance so if some is removed from the air it will just be replaced by the CO2 in the oceans until that 70 times is used up.
I see my post is in moderation because of the LINKS. While the moderators are at it, they can correct my “to” should be “two” error.
That’s not appeasement in any way, shape or form!! It’s proposing a counter argument, possibly a fatal one! And yes, I can see your point too: that CO2 is good and that we don’t or won’t have too much of it, even if the trend continues upwards . . . You don’t know that. None of us do. The future might just enlighten us, though probably not, as a result of there being too many linked variables, known and unknown, at work in the whole shebang. The CAGW movement may be right. They may be wrong. But believing they’re wrong, no matter how sincere your belief, or soundly you think your belief is founded, doesn’t make them wrong. And in the meantime it makes sense to consider simple precautions. Growing more trees isn’t going to cause us a great deal of pain, and may, or may not, beneficially affect the climate/world.
The CAGW movement may be right. They may be wrong. But believing they’re wrong, no matter how sincere your belief, or soundly you think your belief is founded, doesn’t make them wrong.
__________________________________________________
The CAGW movement engages in a lot of unethical practices. What they claim is obvious propaganda. Outright censorship, cherry picking, alteration of historical data and other forms of misinformation doesn’t paint a picture of “They might be right.”
Exactly. All you’re really doing is taking food away from the plants.
True but ultimately CO2 levels will continue to rise to whatever equilibrium it’s naturally headed to.
So if the green idiots can be given a cheaper, less invasive procedure to save us from the evil CO2, so much the better.
For instance, it just hit me that it would be more efficient energy, co2 cycle and money wise that the infamous UK Drax power plant goes back to efficiently burning the coal that’s right under itself, and those wasteful and dangerous ship loads of pellets stop – instead of all that wasteful expenditure of energy and the shameful chopping down of wildlife habitat, they instead just load up shiploads of grass clippings and brush cuttings and dump them in the sea, a few nautical miles out, where it’s really deep, instead of wasting fuel to cross the whole ocean.
That will result in a cheaper, cleaner (burning wood is worse than coal in the real world), and for those that seem to care, it actually would produce less CO2, probably even less than zero if there’s any dirt along with the clippings that can help with ocean fertilization.
When the Earth’s orbit becomes more elliptical and the Earth starts receiving less sunlight every year instead of the more sunlight it currently receives every year as the Earth’s orbit is getting more circular, the oceans will start absorbing massive quantities of CO2 instead of releasing it as it did when it warmed up and the end of the last glacial period 11,700 years ago.
Each October I rake two 55 gallon barrels of acorns (oak nuts) which are hauled to the landfill. Ditto all my neighbors down the street. Imagine all those seeds dumped from a cargo plane over a treeless uninhabited expanse. In 100 years you’d have countless oak trees which have captured many tons of carbon. I’d love to see an analysis of how much CO2 capture is lost due to deforestation for harvesting trees for lumber, toilet paper, junk mail, etc
I just saw an article that an easy way of recycling plastic has been invented.
https://www.ladbible.com/news/latest-scientists-have-found-a-way-to-break-down-plastic-in-days-20220504
A point to the grave diggers.
Why not just grow more trees?
This comes from a country specialising in miniature trees. If they specialised in giants trees then they would need to burn more fossil fuels to feed them.
Grow more seaweed too.
Why not just kill termites? You don’t have to kill them all, just 10% of them, as termites are responsible for 10 times the amount of human emitted CO2 according to the 1982 observational study of global CO2 termite emissions. Science 05 Nov 1982: Vol. 218, Issue 4572, pp. 563-565 DOI: 10.1126/science.218.4572.563
I wonder how much plant food they want to suck out of the air and how low CO2 will have to go before they admit it’s not the planet killer they make it out to be? I also wonder how many will die because of asinine climates policies in the meantime.
They have never been interested in such technicalities as proper scientific research or truth.
Never pose such awkward questions as to how all those vast stratae of limestone were created worldwide with vast fossil deposits from a past warm mega fertile world and a sea level 10m+ higher than today..
Part of the globalists’ aim is just that, reducing global population to below one billion. Bill Gates said it.
The population is supposed to start dropping in about 50 years anyway as people are realizing their children will probably survive and are having fewer of them. Birth control is also available in more and more places.
Author: Charles Rotter – Check.
YouReekAlert: – Check.
SKIP IT. Nothing but alarmist propaganda: – Check.
Personally, had enough of alarmist propaganda recycled from YouReekAlerts and Guardian Newspaper. If I wanted to read those trash publications, I would. I don’t so I won’t.
I see no reason to surf over here only to get bombed with anti-scientific crap.
Done, Done, and Done.
It helps to know what your enemy is up to. Additionally, how does one counter non-science without understanding its basics and limitations?
There’s a few of these readers. Some of them email me. They don’t seem to like me. Can’t please everybody.
Charles, I’m always happy when I learn that know-nothings and cranks dislike me. I’ve learned that when one is proactive and accomplishes positive things the cockroaches craw out of their cracks and crannies. The only times problems occur is when the ignorant or gullible listen to them.
It’s not you Charles, I am just sick of YouReekAlerts. It is just the same garbage over and over. Nothing new for years.
True, but you’re going to have elevated blood pressure and a headache after reading their insane climate doomsday crap – the website should come with a warning!
My usual response is laughing fits. More nails in their ultimate coffins.
There should be a warning in all ‘climate change’ articles telling the reader that the Earth is in a 2.588 million year ice age called the Quaternary Glaciation in a warm spell that occurs about every 100,000 years due to the influence of Jupiter and other planets and usually lasts about 10,000 years. It has been 11,700 years since the last glacial period.
Not anymore, if you do not know what YouReekAlerts is pushing by now, it is just too late for you.
Maybe I can put one of these gizmos in-line with my home’s ERV (energy recovery ventilator) unit. Must do my part to save the world!
(/sarc)
To save the world .. from Greta?
“Unprecedented” used 3 times
“Urgent” once
Conclusion: need more funds.
Neither word used in the ACS publication
This will be ignored by the greenies because it challenges their “no fossil fuel” mantra and also by the no CO2 purists because it challenges their “no fossil fuel” mantra.
I have a couple questions.
They state, ” …carbon dioxide could be removed was at least twice as fast as that of the leading DAC..”
How fast is that?
Is that fast enough to make it economically viable?
Won’t know for any of them until (if) they are scaled-up for industrial application and operated for feasibility studies. Long way off.
It’ll never be economically viable, because DAC will never produce an economic good. It will always run at a loss.
CO2 is not a problem, sequestering CO2 is totally without merit.
Entropy! Entropy!—Finally a commercial size application of Maxwell’s demon. Climate change and its science with its peer reviewers is on another universe where the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not hold true.
Greens are the human version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics losses- iow, we suffer losses
twice. The only thing Greens can always be relied on to do is the maximize damage possible.
They’re stopping us from emitting more CO2 that helps green the planet & now they’re wasting a lot
of our time, money & energy to undo the good we’ve already done! Even worse yet is they’re like
zombies that never stop attacking their victims! You’d almost prefer having double the number
of flies & mosquitoes than having any Greens at all!
Idiots! The sky is NOT falling!
How is it possible in this enlightened modern age that so much “science” seems closer to superstition and fear rather than logical rational thought?
Carbon capture was solved some 27 years ago by oceanographer John Martin through seeding the ocean with iron oxide. Great swathes of the southern ocean were low on plankton and “seeding” increased the plankton some 30 fold. He famously said “give me a tanker full of iron oxide and I will give you the next ice age” ( only if you believe CO2 to be the culprit).Both Australia and South Africa were ideal for the ocean seeding as they both have large iron ore deposits and were geographically close to the areas of the southern oceans that would benefit from the process. If you haven’t read it yet I would suggest that you read “the iron hypothesis” But of course it faded into obscurity because the IPCC could not have a simple solution to their power/money grab.
Also tried a few years ago by a First Nation in B.C. – record salmon catch 2 years in a row before feds shut it down for ‘dumping’.
We are still in the same ice age that started 2.588 million years ago and is called the Quaternary Glaciation(fifth Ice Age). The Earth’s orbit alternates between a warmer near circle like the present and a colder elliptical orbit that receives less sunlight. When it warms up the oceans release CO2 and when the cool down they absorb CO2. There is about 70 times as much CO2 in the oceans as in the air.https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-sustainability-a-comprehensive-foundation/chapter/milankovitch-cycles-and-the-climate-of-the-quaternary/
Why would you want to take plant food out of the air. We need it to grow crops.
Many processes will absorb CO2 out of the air. CaOH and NaOh solutions, various amines, and on the list goes. These guys have discovered nothing very exciting….The problem is what to do with the CO2 after you’ve caught it. All the normally used chemicals need regeneration else the cost of the one-use chemical is too high. Regeneration usually requires heat and lots of it. Then, having liberated the CO2 at low pressure, you have to do something with it, like pump it into depleted natural gas reservoirs. This takes a lot of compression horsepower….This is all not easy or cheap….take my word, my first published paper on selective amine absorption of CO2/H2S was in 1987, and I was very, very far from the first…30 years later on, the problems have NOT yet been solved. In fact these processes go back on an industrial scale to the Ruhr Valley in 1920’s Germany.
While not technically correct in terms of thermodynamics I approximate the problem this way.
It will likely require at least the same amount of energy to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, as was liberated when it was put there.
Along similar lines to the main post; this one caught my attention the other day:
https://www.mining.com/how-sugar-can-help-reduce-co2-emissions-from-coal-fired-power-plants/
When will I experience the devastating effects of climate change? Can someone tell me?
Haven’t you heard, Bob? CliSciFi informs us that we are already experiencing the devastating effects of climate change. Our various governments tell us it is so. Send money, don’t drive, eat less and vote Leftist.
You are experiencing the devasting effects of climate change propaganda, now.
If you’ve bought gasoline lately, you’ve experienced those devastating effects.
COVID-19?
We are in the same climate, there is no change. The climate the Earth has been in for 2.588 million years is an ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation(fifth ice age). We are in a warm period that happens as the Earth’s orbit get more circular and lasts about 10,000 years. The warm period alternate with a cold period that is more elliptical and receives less sunlight and lasts about 90,000 years because of the influence of Jupiter and other planets on the orbit of the Earth.
Same as all carbon capture technologies that have been touted but never saw the light of day, this one will go the way of the Dodo even before it is tried.
Who needs to capture CO2 at one place just to release somewhere else at an undeclared cost?
Commercially viable, or even mildly subsidised Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage certainly removes any valid complaints about burning carbon-based fuels to produce energy, so both this and the “mechanical trees” a little while back seem to be a useful line of enquiry.
Both would appear to have advantages over trees in that they can be scaled up and down far more quickly.
Iron oxide seeding of plankton appears to be far less controllable but there may be other biological approaches.
The devil is, as always, in the detail.
The basic assumption is that the atmosphere is a closed system. Removing something, it will stay removed.
They just forgot one thing: it is an open system and the interdependence between the air and the sea when it comes to gas pressure finds its balance at every temperature. The sea contains multiple more CO2 than the atmosphere! After some time CO2 in the air will be restored to its previous state.
Just to translate this:
A great breakthrough = a few academics got a grant and got another small “demo” project to work
But hurdles remain = it is practically useless and will remain so.
unprecedented == kiss my butt
CO2 is the gas of life. Remove it, and watch the planet die
Strange when some apparently smart scientists devise a system to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, when I – just a simple engineer – know that we need a huge INCREASE in the proportion of CO2 in the air! Young schoolgirls I can forgive for not knowing that (except Greta), but “trained scientists” never!
Isophorone diamine
Seems nice enough stuff. Not
How did all that Ammonia get into it – the Ammonia Faerie just happened to come by while we were sleeping did she?
Likewise Carbamic Acid
Quote:Abstract. Carbamate compounds are esters of carbamic acid that are commonly used as insecticides. These compounds are referred to as N-methylcarbamates. Derivatives of carbamic acid, thiocarbamic acid, and dithiocarbamic acid are used as herbicides.
Look at its chemistry/structure, what simple heating process will turn that toxic shyte back into Iosphone alone rone diane ameene amine aneen no wot I meen a menn
(There’s not gonna be many bugs in this world for us all to eat if that stuff ever escapes and lets face, could it do anything else)
Researchers with environmentalist rolling dollar signs in their heads desperately claiming they have a solution to a nonexistent problem.
Ignore them.
Thomas Sowell once opined, “There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs.” These self-appointed geniuses singlemindedly and falsely pursuing CO2 as a pollutant, and ignoring its vital role as plant food are dangerous.
“..The devastating effects of climate change are being felt around the world..”
Amazing what you can justify if you start with a false premise.
If they only put in as much effort investigating that assumption as they did in inventing a solution to a non-problem they could have saved a lot of time and money.
How much CO2 will these machines generate as they capture atmospheric CO2? How much power will they use? I’m betting that the CO2 generate/capture ratio is >100%.
This is another solution that ignores the laws of thermodynamics. That ol’ entropy requirement will get you everytime.
A quick look up tells me
isophorone diamine is made using isophorone
isophorone is made using acetone
acetone is made using propene
propene is made using propane
propane is derived from natural gas
Frack on, dudes.
“The devastating effects of climate change are being felt around the world,” Oh really? Where exactly? The 200% increase in crop yields since 1900? The reduction in tornados, hurricanes, cyclones?
The reduction of average surface wind speed since 1960, how is that devastating?
The possible slight increase in rain fall, dangerous is it?
Of the vast greening of the planet, how is that NOT good?
OK, here we go again with another “peer-reviewed” publication that is just so not-ready-for-prime-time.
At least the author(s) summarizing the research from Tokyo Metropolitan University waited until the second paragraph before trotting out this almost-inevitable meme to elicit additional funding:
“The devastating effects of climate change are being felt around the world, with an urgent need for new policies, lifestyles and technologies that will lead to reduced carbon emissions (sic).”
First off, nature has already provided the largest-scale, most-efficient, least-cost method of direct-from-atmosphere CO2 capture and storage, if only humans would back off their hubris for a moment to appreciate it.
I am, of course, referring to the natural absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the world’s oceans and its subsequent sequestration as deposits of limestone (the lithification of loose calcium carbonate sediments) on ocean floors via a somewhat-complex path of seawater chemical reactions.
“This can take place through both biological and nonbiological processes, though biological processes, such as the accumulation of corals and shells in the sea, have likely been more important for the last 540 million years.” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone
Moving on, there is this basic non-sequitur reasoning in the above article:
On one hand they imply “capture” in the sense of long-term sequestration of CO2, but then turn right around state that “capture” is only short-term sequestration because they then have to heat the CO2-enriched solution, thus releasing the “captured” CO2 gas, in order to recycle the aqueous solution of IDPA:
“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.”
So, clearly glossed over in the article’s self-aggrandizing is (1) the “efficiency”-accounting for the energy to heat the IPDA to recover it for reuse, and (2) where and how the released CO2 from this momentary “capture” process is ultimately going to be sequestered in the long-term . . . for hundreds to thousands of years at least.
As for Item (2), the above article does, in its second-to-last paragraph, state:
“. . . their vision of a “beyond zero” world now turns to how the captured carbon may be effectively used, in industrial applications and household products.”
Aye, that’s the rub, isn’t it? . . . as I said, glossed over, and without mention of sequestration.
Good grief!
I wonder what the alarmist catchphrase is going to be when CO2 levels have been reduced, but temperatures continue to rise??
Very likely something along the lines of what the TV character Roseanne Rosanadana (played by the late Gilda Radner) would say: “Never mind.”
I am far more afraid that we cannot sustain adequate emissions than I am of climate change. Sinks are increasing faster than emissions. Previous interglacials were warmer, CO2 & CH4 did not increase despite much more thawing of permafrost & warmer oceans.
https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1126891482105954304
It will be fun doing some math and seeing just how plausible this is. At 400 ppm concentration for CO2, there is about 1 ton of CO2 in 5.8 million cubic meters of air… that is about 3 football stadiums worth of air to get just one ton of CO2. It would take a ridiculously enormous bubbler (and quite expensive) to process 5.8 million cubic meters of air per day just to remove 1 ton of CO2. This system would also have to process (cycle) about 5 tons of IPDA per day to capture just 1 ton of CO2 per day. Just consider, one 18 wheeler semi-truck produces about 1 lb of CO2 per mile traveled. Thus, it would take an enormous air and IPDA processing system just to keep up with the CO2 output of just 3 diesel trucks on the road.
Now for more fun… assuming no more CO2 was released into the atmosphere… how big of an IPDA system would be required just to remove 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere over 10 years… ie drop it from 404ppm to 400ppm? Well, it would take 5.6million of these IPDA facilities running 24hrs per day processing 5 tons of IPDA and 5.8 million cubic meters of air per day each. Producing 30 million tons of IPDA will not be cheap nor is it environmentally safe. IPDA currently costs about $80k/ton, lets assume they can cut the cost by a factor of 10x, that is still $8k/ton. Also, look at the SDS for IPDA…
Hazard statement(s) H302 + H312
Harmful if swallowed or in contact with skin.
H314 Causes severe skin burns and eye damage.
H317 May cause an allergic skin reaction.
H412 Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects. Precautionary statement(s)
P261 Avoid breathing dust/ fume/ gas/ mist/ vapors/ spray.
P264 Wash skin thoroughly after handling.
P270 Do not eat, drink or smoke when using this product.
P272 Contaminated work clothing must not be allowed out of the workplace.
P273 Avoid release to the environment.
If you could fully operate each IPDA system for a mere $1million per year total operating cost, you would still be looking a spending $5.6Trillion per year (not including initial construction cost). A very, very POOR investment indeed.
Thanks for the morning chuckle.