New CO2 “scrubber” from ingredient in hair conditioners

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=CNBP_024359&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=3940b179-c62a-4615-b769-a3834bf2cda5

March 24, 2010

New CO2 “scrubber” from ingredient in hair conditioners

SAN FRANCISCO, March 24, 2010 — Relatives of ingredients in hair-conditioning shampoos and fabric softeners show promise as a long-sought material to fight global warming by “scrubbing” carbon dioxide (CO2 ) out of the flue gases from coal-burning electric power generating stations, scientists reported today at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS).

Their report, the first on use of these so-called aminosilicones in carbon dioxide capture, concluded that the material has the potential to remove 90 percent of CO2 from simulated flue gas. The new “scrubber” material may be less expensive and more efficient than current technologies for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, the main“greenhouse” gas linked to global warming, the scientists say.

Robert Perry, Ph.D., and colleagues pointed out that coal-burning electric power plants are a major source of the carbon dioxide that has been building up in Earth’s atmosphere. An estimated 2.8 billion tons of the gas enters the atmosphere each year from the 8,000 coal-fired power plants in the United States alone. Those are among 50,000 coal-fired generating stations worldwide. Perry cited a critical need for practical technology to remove carbon dioxide from flue gases before it enters the atmosphere. The new scrubber material would meet the goal of the U.S. Department of Energy, which funded the research, of developing carbon capture technologies with at least a 90 percent CO2 capture efficiency.

“We’re very excited about this technology that may pave the way for a new process for carbon dioxide capture,” Perry said. He is with GE Global Research in Niskayuna, N.Y. “The development of a low-cost solution for CO2 capture would go a long way in helping to address our clean energy goals. In the future, the gases that come out of power-plant smokestacks will be virtually free of carbon dioxide emissions.”

Perry and colleagues hope to overcome the high costs and inefficiency of current CO2 capture methods with a new type of aminosilicone, a group of materials widely used in fabric softeners, hair conditioners, and flexible high-temperature plastics. In laboratory-scale tests using a device to simulate flue gas conditions of continuously streaming gas and relevant temperatures, the new material captured more than 90 percent of the CO2 added to the system.

If future tests at the pilot-scale in a power plant prove successful, the material would be used as part of a larger, active absorber system. In this scenario, the liquid aminosilicone solvent will absorb CO2 and be transferred to a desorption unit where CO2 would be removed from the aminosilicone and sequestered. The aminosilicone solvent would be recycled to react with more CO2-rich flue gas.

###...

[texastoast]

1. "carbon dioxide capture"

So when something is captured, it is caged. What happens if the cage breaks open?

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Well, this much we can say...

It doesn't breed in captivity.

[NobleCynic]

3. So... what do they plan to do with the ~3 kg of CO2 per 1 kg of coal

Sequestration is cute and all, but the sheer scale of the CO2 produced by a coal plant is staggering. Where do you put that much CO2?

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. You're right. I guess they should just pump it into the air. (Right?)

Seriously, it would be great if we could move the world away from coal tomorrow, but it isn't going to happen.

So, what to do with the CO₂?
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/sequestration/

[NobleCynic]

5. Hmm, I'll be thumbing through this for a while

Thanks for the link.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. You're welcome!

There are other things to read when you're done with that.

[ashling]

7. I just started to post that thought

I find that wheneverI inquire about something like this CO2 scrubber ther is always somebody to say it won't work so what's the point in researching that. Seems to me that I recall that having been said about wind energy, solar energy, etc., etc.

[Statistical]

8. The point is some things will never work.

The magnitude of amount of carbon to be stored makes any large scale meaningful reduction impossible. Which means "clean coal" will be used as a greenwash while 99% of CO2 is still emitted.

The world burns ONE CUBIC MILE of coal every 2 years. That is projected to be rise to over one cubic mile by 2030.
There simply isn't enough storage space on the planet to store that much CO2.

So a few plants will use this and they will store a tiny fraction of your output and then public will go "see coal is clean" and meanwhile gigatons of CO2 are being added to atmosphere.

Still for the sake of argument say someday you could economically capture 100% of all CO2 from all the coal plants. Even then coal is pure death.

Fly ash also contains environmental toxins in significant amounts, including arsenic (43.4 ppm); barium (806 ppm); beryllium (5 ppm); boron (311 ppm); cadmium (3.4 ppm); chromium (136 ppm); chromium VI (90 ppm); cobalt (35.9 ppm); copper (112 ppm); fluorine (29 ppm); lead (56 ppm); manganese (250 ppm); nickel (77.6 ppm); selenium (7.7 ppm); strontium (775 ppm); thallium (9 ppm); vanadium (252 ppm); and zinc (178 ppm).

Fly ash represents about 15% of coal weight by volume (rest is turned into CO2 and H20 in combustion). It is like nuclear waste problem but a million times larger.

A 1 GW reactor will produce about 10 tons of spent fuel per year.
A 1 GW coal plant will burn about 3.5 million tons of coal producing 8 million tons of CO2 and about half a million tons of toxic waste.

People freak out about 10 tons of spent nuclear fuel per year per reactor but somehow think we can turn coal which has millions of tons of waste for the same amount of power green?

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. "There simply isn't enough storage space on the planet to store that much CO2."

This seems hyperbolic.

One scheme that has been suggested is to pump CO₂ deep into the ocean, where it would remain as a liquid. How much room is there on the ocean floor?

Another scheme that has been suggested is to pump CO₂ into saline aquifers:

http://fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2010/10009-Illinois_CO2_Project_Moves_Forward.html

Illinois CO2 Injection Project Moves Another Step Forward

Baseline Data Important for CCS Project's Planned 2011 Startup

Washington, D.C. — The recent completion of a three-dimensional (3-D) seismic survey at a large Illinois carbon dioxide (CO2) injection test site is an important step forward for the carbon capture and storage (CCS) project’s planned early 2011 startup.

The survey – essential to determine the geometry and internal structures of the deep underground saline reservoir where CO2 will be injected – was completed by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC), one of seven regional partnerships created by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to advance CCS technologies nationwide. CCS is seen by many experts as a key technology for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping to mitigate potential climate change.

The project, located in Decatur, Ill., will capture CO2 from the Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) Ethanol Production Facility and inject it into a deep saline reservoir, more than a mile underground. Starting in early 2011, up to 1 million metric tons of CO2 from the ADM facility will be compressed to a dense, liquid-like state and injected over a 3-year period. The rock formation targeted for the injection is the Mt. Simon Sandstone, at a depth between 6,400 and 7,000 feet. The Mt. Simon Sandstone is the thickest and most widespread saline reservoir in the Illinois Basin, with an estimated CO2 storage capacity of approximately 30–110 billion metric tons.

...

(And before you start, according to the DoE similar reservoirs exist near most point sources of CO2.)


But, hey, pursuing CCS is stupid right? I mean, no one in their right minds would suggest otherwise.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/coal-power-warming-world-0151.html

October 15, 2008

So-Called “Clean Coal” Technology Offers Promise Along with Considerable Risks, New Report Finds

Government Should Back Demonstration Projects; Nix New Coal-Fired Power Plants that Don't Capture and Store Carbon Emissions

WASHINGTON (October 15, 2008) – With domestic policy the focus of tonight's third presidential debate, the discussion likely will touch on energy and the future of coal, which currently generates about 50 percent of U.S. electricity. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have frequently mentioned their support for "clean coal" on the campaign trail, but neither one of them has fully explained what that means. Today, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) issued a report that examines the pros and cons of a proposed technology that would capture coal plant carbon dioxide emissions and store them underground.

"We're on a collision course with a much hotter planet unless we drastically cut coal power plant emissions," said Barbara Freese, co-author of the report and author of the book "Coal: A Human History." "Carbon capture and storage holds promise, but we can't assume it will play a big role in cutting global warming pollution until we know whether it works at a commercial scale and what it will cost. In the meantime, we need to ramp up our reliance on energy efficiency and wind, solar and other renewable energy sources."

The United States has significant coal reserves and likely will continue to generate power from it for many years to come. Climate projections, however, indicate that the United States must swiftly cut carbon dioxide emissions and ultimately reduce them by at least 80 percent of 2000 levels by mid-century to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Coal is the nation's largest source of global warming pollution, representing approximately a third of U.S. emissions, equal to the combined output of all U.S. cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats.

The UCS report, "Coal Power in a Warming World," proposes that the federal government fund five to 10 full-scale demonstration projects to test carbon-capture-and-storage technology's ability to cut coal power plant emissions. The report also calls for a halt in construction of new coal plants that do not capture and store carbon emissions, even though U.S. utilities are currently planning to build more than 100 plants without the technology. The country can meet its near-term energy needs and curb emissions, the report contends, using readily available renewable-energy and energy-efficiency technologies.

...

http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=8054

Press Release

Statement from Environmental Defense Fund on House Carbon Capture Legislation

Posted: 10-Jul-2008

Contact:
Tony Kreindler, EDF, 202-572-3378 or 202-210-5791 (cell)

(Washington, DC - July 10, 2008) The House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality today held a hearing on H.R. 6258, a bill intended to spur the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies to reduce global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.

EDF recognizes that coal will continue to be an important part of the U.S. energy supply for the foreseeable future, and that CCS technologies are needed to help electric utilities meet energy demands while protecting the climate. EDF believes the most effective way for Congress to promote the rapid commercialization and deployment of CCS technology is to create a market for it by enacting a national cap and trade program.

...

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3-ens3-4-2.html

...

Figure 3.36: The value of improved technology.

Note: Modelling studies enable experts to calculate the economic value of technology improvements that increase particularly drastically with increasing stringency of stabilization targets (750, 650, 500, and 450 ppmv, respectively) imposed on a reference scenario (modelling after the IS92a scenario in this particular modelling study). Detailed model representation of technological interdependencies and competition and substitution is needed for a comprehensive assessment of the economic value of technology improvements. Left panel: cost savings (billions of 1996 US$) compared to the reference scenario when lowering the costs of solar photovoltaics (PV) from a reference value of 9 US cents per kWh (top) by 1, 3, 4, and 6 cents/kWh, respectively. For instance, the value of reducing PV costs from 9 to 3 cents per kWh could amount to up to 1.5 trillion US$ in an illustrative 550 ppmv stabilization scenario compared to the reference scenario in which costs remain at 9 cents/kWh). Right panel: cost savings resulting from availability of an ever larger and diversified portfolio of carbon capture and sequestration technologies. For instance, adding soil carbon sequestration to the portfolio of carbon capture and sequestration technology options (forest-sector measures were not included in the study) reduces costs by 1.1 trillion US$ in an illustrative 450 ppmv stabilization scenario. Removing all carbon capture sequestration technologies would triple the costs of stabilization for all concentration levels analyzed.

Source: GTSP, 2001.

[Nihil]

12. Good move.

> One scheme that has been suggested is to pump CO2 deep into the ocean,
> where it would remain as a liquid. How much room is there on the ocean floor?

Let's start f*cking up one of the few ecosystems that has so far escaped ...

That's a plan that appeals straight to the people who think that "deserts"
don't contain any lifeforms that have evolved for that specific environment.

:thumbsdown:

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. "One scheme that has been suggested..."

From this, you might conclude that there are other schemes.

Indeed, just beneath that, I listed another (saline aquifers.)

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/geologic/

...

Saline Formations. Sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations does not produce value-added by-products, but it has other advantages. First, the estimated carbon storage capacity of saline formations in the United States is large, making them a viable long-term solution. It has been estimated that deep saline formations in the United States could potentially store up to 500 billion tonnes of CO2.

Second, most existing large CO2 point sources are within easy access to a saline formation injection point, and therefore sequestration in saline formations is compatible with a strategy of transforming large portions of the existing U.S. energy and industrial assets to near-zero carbon emissions via low-cost carbon sequestration retrofits.

Assuring the environmental acceptability and safety of CO2 storage in saline formations is a key component of this program element. Determining that CO2 will not escape from formations and either migrate up to the earth?s surface or contaminate drinking water supplies is a key aspect of sequestration research. Although much work is needed to better understand and characterize sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations, a significant baseline of information and experience exists. For example, as part of enhanced oil recovery operations, the oil industry routinely injects brines from the recovered oil into saline reservoirs, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has permitted some hazardous waste disposal sites that inject liquid wastes into deep saline formations.

In addition, the Norwegian oil company, Statoil, is injecting approximately one million tonnes per year of recovered CO2 into the Utsira Sand, a saline formation under the sea associated with the Sleipner West Heimdel gas reservoir. The amount being sequestered is equivalent to the output of a 150-megawatt coal-fired power plant.

http://www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm

Carbon Sequestration

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/">Carbon sequestration is one of the most promising ways for reducing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In fact, even under the most optimistic scenarios for energy efficiency gains and the greater use of low- or no-carbon fuels, sequestration will likely be essential if the world is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at acceptable levels.

The http://www.fossil.energy.gov/">Office of Fossil Energy (FE), through research conducted at the http://www.netl.doe.gov/">National Energy Technology Laboratory is transforming the http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/index.html">fundamental science of carbon sequestration into a portfolio of practical, affordable and safe technologies and mitigation strategies that the energy industry can use to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Microbes and plants play substantial roles in the global cycling of carbon through the environment. The Office of Science’s Biological and Environmental Research program continues to leverage new genomic DNA sequence information on microbes important to the global carbon cycle by characterizing key biochemical pathways or genetic regulatory networks in these microbes. Research in http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/">genomics and biological and environmental research are conducted at the universities and national laboratories supported by the Office of Science.

RELATED DOE OFFICES
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/">Office of Fossil Energy
http://www.science.doe.gov/">Office of Science

RELATED DOE LABS
http://www.netl.doe.gov/">National Energy Technology Laboratory

...

[Nihil]

18. Correct ...

> "One scheme that has been suggested..."
> From this, you might conclude that there are other schemes.

... and the criticism that I levelled at the one I selected from
the top of your list is in no way invalidated by the existence of
other suggested dumping places.

:shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Fair enough

I took your criticism to be dismissive of the entire range of sequestration proposals.

FWIW: As far as I can tell, the deep ocean storage proposals don't seem to exist anywhere on the DoE sites at this point, which, as far as I'm concerned, is a good thing.

I too am made uncomfortable by the idea of having loose liquid CO₂ on the ocean floor. I'm also made uncomfortable by proposals that amount to underground cavities being used as pressure chambers.

My intent was to establish that the claim that, "There simply isn't enough storage space on the planet to store that much CO2," is hyperbolic.

[Statistical]

13. As I said "Still for the sake of argument say someday you could economically capture 100% of all CO2

Still for the sake of argument say someday you could economically capture 100% of all CO2 from all the coal plants. Even then coal is pure death.

Fly ash also contains environmental toxins in significant amounts, including arsenic (43.4 ppm); barium (806 ppm); beryllium (5 ppm); boron (311 ppm); cadmium (3.4 ppm); chromium (136 ppm); chromium VI (90 ppm); cobalt (35.9 ppm); copper (112 ppm); fluorine (29 ppm); lead (56 ppm); manganese (250 ppm); nickel (77.6 ppm); selenium (7.7 ppm); strontium (775 ppm); thallium (9 ppm); vanadium (252 ppm); and zinc (178 ppm).

Fly ash represents about 15% of coal weight by volume (rest is turned into CO2 and H20 in combustion). It is like nuclear waste problem but a million times larger.

A 1 GW reactor will produce about 10 tons of spent fuel per year.
A 1 GW coal plant will burn about 3.5 million tons of coal producing 8 million tons of CO2 and about half a million tons of toxic waste.

People freak out about 10 tons of spent nuclear fuel per year per reactor but somehow think we can turn coal which has millions of tons of waste for the same amount of power green?

Fly ash has no half life. The heavy metals have a biological half life of infinite. Once they get into food chain they will travel upwards until they reach humans and remain in the body nearly infinitely.

Still assuming 100% capture rate isn't realistic. CO2 capture technology is more like 60%-70% effective and that doesn't account for leakage from reserve over time. Coal is death. There is no way to make it less deadly.

Now if someday coal is gone and natural gas makes up small percentage of power supply (for power regulation and load matching) using CCS on that small source of power would make sense. NatGas is a magnitude less toxic than coal. It also has less CO2 emissions per BTU and plants tend to be more efficient.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. You are of course ignoring Calera's technology

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=234686&mesg_id=234686


However, given how ecologically unsound carbon capture and sequestration is, don't you think it odd, that so many many environmental advocates (not to mention the IPCC) advocate pursuing it?

Perhaps you know something they don't. Or, perhaps, just perhaps...

http://www.wwf.org.au/news/wwf-joins-worlds-leading-environment-proponents-in-ccs-call/

WWF joins world's leading environment proponents in CCS call

15 Apr 2008

WWF has joined some of the world's leading environment proponents in calling for the rapid deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration plants.

The conservation organisation says it must be determined as a matter of urgency whether the technology works or not, and whether it will play a role in the world's response to climate change.

"If we reach a three-degree rise in temperature, 35 per cent of species will become extinct. WWF has a responsibility to try to prevent this from happening, which means supporting a range of climate change solutions," said WWF-Australia CEO Greg Bourne.

"Rapid deployment of demonstration plants is necessary to determine whether CCS is practical for broad application, and if it doesn't work we need to know even sooner."

WWF's position is supported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA scientist Dr James Hansen, environment groups such as the Climate Institute and PEW centre, pre-eminent research centres, and the vast majority of Governments.

"There is no single solution to climate change, the world must simultaneously become more energy efficiency, halt and reverse loss of forests, and replace traditional fossil fuels with zero and low emission technologies, including CCS," Mr Bourne said.

WWF's Climate Solutions report finds that if one or two of the zero or low emission technologies fail or are delayed, including CCS, the chance of beating the climate and energy challenge drops dramatically.

"If CCS works it can be applied not just to new and retrofitted coal power generation, but also gas power generation; to other large CO2 sources such as the chemical, steel or cement industries; and to natural gas production.

"The problem for CCS is that at the current rate of technology development it could take 15 to 20 years to contribute to the climate change solution, which would be too late for the planet," said Mr Bourne.

"This is precisely why WWF is calling for a national co-ordinated approach to accelerate CCS technology development, so it contributes to greenhouse gas reduction sooner."

WWF is also calling for a moratorium on new coal-fired power stations without CCS on commission, and for CCS demonstration funding to be levied from the industries known to contribute to greenhouse gas pollution.

"In addition to pursuing acceleration of CCS technology, WWF will continue to push for greater investment and regulation for energy efficiency, renewable energy and adaptation*," concluded Mr Bourne.

*WWF's Federal Budget submission is available upon request.

For more information:

Charlie Stevens, WWF-Australia Press Office, 02 8202 1274

Paul Toni, Program Leader - Development & Sustainability, 0410 086 986

[Statistical]

16. The technology doesn't make waste go away. Carbon free coal is still lethally toxic.

Fly ash is horribly contaminated.
While CCS is better than pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere coal has other non-carbon problems.
If coal was carbon free it would still be lethally toxic.

Fly ash also contains environmental toxins in significant amounts, including arsenic (43.4 ppm); barium (806 ppm); beryllium (5 ppm); boron (311 ppm); cadmium (3.4 ppm); chromium (136 ppm); chromium VI (90 ppm); cobalt (35.9 ppm); copper (112 ppm); fluorine (29 ppm); lead (56 ppm); manganese (250 ppm); nickel (77.6 ppm); selenium (7.7 ppm); strontium (775 ppm); thallium (9 ppm); vanadium (252 ppm); and zinc (178 ppm).<5>

Two classes of fly ash are defined by ASTM C618: Class F fly ash and Class C fly ash. The chief difference between these classes is the amount of calcium, silica, alumina, and iron content in the ash. The chemical properties of the fly ash are largely influenced by the chemical content of the coal burned (i.e., anthracite, bituminous, and lignite).<6>

Not all fly ashes meet ASTM C618 requirements, although depending on the application, this may not be necessary. Ash used as a cement replacement must meet strict construction standards, but no standard environmental standards have been established in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

We already discussed Calera technology. It can't make heavy metals disapear. Fly ash is still toxic in any form.

Would you live in a home with foundation built from fly ash produced concrete? It is structurally strong but no need for any pesky environmental regulations. Fly ash is utterly toxic. Sequestering it doesn't eliminate that toxicity. Nuclear power plants produce (combined) about 1000 tons of spent fuel and 5,000 tons of other radioactive waste combined and people freak out about "where are we going to put it". Last year coal plants produced a combined 120 MILLION tons of ultra toxic fly ash.

This year coal plants will produce more toxic waste than nuclear power will over the court of the next millennium.

Where is the huge anxiety about coal ash which lasts for millions of years? Why no plan to build a Yucca Mountain for coal? Why are coal utilities not charged federal tax on power to handle safe disposal? The "spent fuel" used in coal plants is the giant elephant in the room on any CCS discussion.

Carbon is the least of coal's problems.

Also everything I have posted only looks at the "back end waste". You also have the massive ecological rape required to keep coal cheap. Destruction of mountain tops & forests. Choking rivers and lowlands with coal tailings.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. C'mon...

Do you believe you are the only person in the world who realizes there is more to coal emissions than CO₂?

These various environmental organizations (and the IPCC) are saying that CCS research and development are vitally important.

Do you believe they are all ignorant of the facts?


As for Calera, as we discussed, in addition to CO₂ they address http://www.calera.com/index.php/technology/fly_ash_remediation/">fly ash and http://calera.com/index.php/economics/">heavy metals.

[kristopher]

21. Caldiera has shown a serious limitation to this approach. Until that is addressed

your confidence is irrational.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. Calera is just one company

However, which "serious limitation" have they shown?

[NNadir]

10. I hate to say this, but there are many ways in which CO2 could be used as a raw material.

My personal favorite is to hydrogenate it produce the wonderfuel DME.

This would still amount in waste dumping in the atmosphere, because stupid people named K would probably burn it in there trucks and cars or use it to heat homes.

But combustion is gasification and these gases could in theory be used to replace oil.

There is only one realistic way to make hydrogen without using dangerous fossil fuels, by the way, and no, it's not some big dopey idea involving wind farms covering every Walmart parking lot, field and forest on the surface of the planet.

[NNadir]

11. Have a recommend on me.

[Javaman]

20. plastics...

so you create a plastic from a fossil fuel, which, no doubt, give off CO2 in it's creation, so it can be used to capture carbon from coal fired plants.

Am I missing something here?

This is like using the death penalty to kill someone who killed other people to show that killing will get you killed.

[NNadir]

22. Yes, you are missing something here, big time.

An explanation would assume that you know some chemistry and thermodynamics, so I'll skip it.

I will say this: The current industrial practice for removing carbon dioxide from dangerous natural gas streams involves monoethanol amine. It has 2 carbons. The molecule containing these two carbons removes many, many, many, many thousands of molecules of carbon dioxide.

It's called, um, a cycle.

[Javaman]

23. Thanks for the explantion, much better than the article. nt