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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.