Dear David--I'd be delighted if it would work, but it just sounds to me unlikely it would not work better on a concentrated stream than on diluted in air. And having some system on everyone's home--well, one has to make, distribute, and service the systems--does not sound trivial to me.
And on cost, it seems to me that the system that now has to be beat is the one for ocean uptake shown on the Discovery Channel--deriving its energy from the waves. Harvest the fish and sequester the skeletons, and the ones one does not catch sink to the bottom. Gives food and carbon sequestration (and maybe biofuels too). And it is not dependent on using supposed excesses of nutrients in the oceans--supposed in that they may well get used downstream somewhere else. And no need to go buy and distribute the iron. Just make something that is strong enough for the ocean environment, even if it needs a floatation collar to hold it up. Mike MacCracken On 9/30/08 10:25 AM, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike: > > Not all processes are stochiometrically efficient, but even if such a > method were, it may be more efficient to use the approach in a manner > that scavenges power otherwise not necessarily available to the grid. > I have no idea if this could work, but imagine one square meter per > person of capture surface on top of every house, driven by a wind > generator designed to work only with the capture device. Or imagine > use of it under bridges, capturing the power of wind or water, or in > tidal environments, on ships or even on the roof of cars. > > No one would want to exclude use of such a technique on facilities > where the stream of CO2 is most concentrated, but we should not > disregard the potential of a distributed approach either. > > d. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Mike MacCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> What I would like to know is why aim this approach at scavenging CO2 from >> the open air when there are so many opportunities to do this in concentrated >> streams of power plants. That is where such efforts should be economical >> first. Great to want to do it from the open air, but if carbon capture and >> sequestration is not economically viable in power plants (yet), how can it >> possibly be viable in the open air? >> >> Mike MacCracken >> >> >> On 9/30/08 9:58 AM, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Alvia: >>> >>> Sorry, but I'm a cheer leader on this kind of solution. Prof. Keith >>> has helped open a door that will result in further improvements and a >>> carbon-cost-efficient approach, even if it is only one-fourth as >>> cost-efficient as the report. They have not hit the wall - aren't any >>> where near it yet. So, kudo's to them and hazzah hazzah. Now, we >>> hope they go back to work and make it still better. >>> >>> David. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Alvia Gaskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> I wouldn't be rushing out to buy balloons and confetti just yet (I have a >>>> better use for balloons anyway as you know). As noted on his website >>>> www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/AirCapture.html, the energy costs of solution >>>> regeneration and compression were not included in the $96/ton CO2 estimate >>>> given. This is from the ES&T paper >>>> http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/97.Stolaroff.AirCaptureContactor.e.pdf >>>> so if the other one that requires a pass code says different, I would like >>>> to know. The ES&T paper also says that the regeneration and subsequent >>>> steps would likely also cost at least another $96/ton CO2 and that the >>>> entire system would have to use "carbon-neutral" electricity to operate. >>>> >>>> DOE estimates the cost for an oxy fuel coal combustion CO2 >>>> capture/regeneration system at around $50/ton >>>> http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/PC%20Oxyfuel%20Combustion%20Vo >>>> lu >>>> me%20I%20Final%20Revision%201.pdf. >>>> So the air capture system described is about 4X more expensive than one of >>>> the idealized replacement technologies for current day coal plants. >>>> >>>> Setting aside the lack of carbon-neutral electricity sources for such >>>> systems, that means the total cost is at least $200/ton CO2 or $733/ton C. >>>> If one wanted to remove one billion tons of carbon (I can't tell if it's >>>> tons or tonnes we are talking about here) from the air per year, the cost >>>> would be $733 billion. And as we now know, getting Congress to approve >>>> spending $700 billion isn't as easy as once thought. >>>> >>>> I do appreciate Keith attempting to explain the differences between his >>>> research and the demonstrations conducted for the Discovery Channel, which >>>> ignored sorbent regeneration altogether and thus, left a misleading >>>> impression that this technology was ready for full scale deployment >>>> http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/acnote.html . My review of that program was >>>> going to hit that one pretty hard. >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:55 AM >>>> Subject: [geo] Engineering ambient CO2 Capture >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers to David Keith (again)! >>>> >>>> Public Release: 29-Sep-2008 >>>> Carbon dioxide 'scrubber' captures greenhouse gases >>>> In research conducted at the University of Calgary, energy and >>>> environmental system expert David Keith and a team of researchers >>>> showed it is possible to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) -- the main >>>> greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming -- using a >>>> relatively simple machine that can capture the trace amount of CO2 >>>> present in the air at any place on the planet. >>>> >>>> Contact: Mark Lowey >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> 403-210-8659 >>>> University of Calgary >>>> >>>> >>>> - - - - - -- >>>> >>>> >>>> Public release date: 29-Sep-2008 >>>> >>>> Contact: Mark Lowey >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> 403-210-8659 >>>> University of Calgary >>>> >>>> Carbon dioxide 'scrubber' captures greenhouse gases >>>> >>>> U of C scientist captures global warming gas directly from the air; >>>> technology could reduce emissions from transportation >>>> >>>> University of Calgary climate change scientist David Keith and his >>>> team are working to efficiently capture the greenhouse gas carbon >>>> dioxide directly from the air, using near-commercial technology. >>>> >>>> In research conducted at the U of C, Keith and a team of researchers >>>> showed it is possible to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) the main >>>> greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming using a relatively >>>> simple machine that can capture the trace amount of CO2 present in the >>>> air at any place on the planet. >>>> >>>> "At first thought, capturing CO2 from the air where it's at a >>>> concentration of 0.04 per cent seems absurd, when we are just starting >>>> to do cost-effective capture at power plants where CO2 produced is at >>>> a concentration of more than 10 per cent," says Keith, Canada Research >>>> Chair in Energy and Environment. >>>> >>>> "But the thermodynamics suggests that air capture might only be a bit >>>> harder than capturing CO2 from power plants. We are trying to turn >>>> that theory into engineering reality." >>>> >>>> The research is significant because air capture technology is the only >>>> way to capture CO2 emissions from transportation sources such as >>>> vehicles and airplanes. These so-called diffuse sources represent more >>>> than half of the greenhouse gases emitted on Earth. >>>> >>>> "The climate problem is too big to solve easily with the tools we >>>> have," notes Keith, director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy, >>>> Environment and Economy's (ISEEE) Energy and Environmental Systems >>>> Group and a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering. >>>> >>>> "While it's important to get started doing things we know how to do, >>>> like wind power nuclear power and 'regular' carbon capture and >>>> storage, it's also vital to start thinking about radical new ideas and >>>> approaches to solving this problem." >>>> >>>> Energy-efficient and cost-effective air capture could play a valuable >>>> role in complementing other approaches for reducing emissions from the >>>> transportation sector, such as biofuels or electric vehicles, says >>>> David Layzell, ISEEE's Executive Director. >>>> >>>> "David Keith and his team have developed a number of innovative ways >>>> to achieve the efficient capture of atmospheric carbon. That is a >>>> major step in advancing air capture as a solution to a very pressing >>>> problem," Layzell says. >>>> >>>> "David Keith's vision and originality are key factors in our ranking >>>> this year as the top engineering school in Canada for sustainability >>>> initiatives, both in terms of research and curriculum," says Elizabeth >>>> Cannon, Dean of the Schulich School of Engineering. "Leaders like this >>>> are not commonplace, and we are proud to get behind this kind of >>>> leadership at the Schulich School." >>>> >>>> Air capture is different than the carbon capture and storage (CCS) >>>> technology which is a key part of the Alberta and federal governments' >>>> strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. CCS involves installing >>>> equipment at, for example, a coal-fired power plant to capture carbon >>>> dioxide produced during burning of the coal, and then pipelining this >>>> CO2 for permanent storage underground in a geological reservoir. >>>> >>>> Air capture, on the other hand, uses technology that can capture no >>>> matter where the capture system is located the CO2 that is present >>>> in ambient air everywhere. >>>> >>>> "A company could, in principle, contract with an oilsands plant near >>>> Fort McMurray to remove CO2 from the air and could build its air >>>> capture plant wherever it's cheapest China, for example and the >>>> same amount of CO2 would be removed," Keith says. >>>> >>>> Keith and his team showed they could capture CO2 directly from the air >>>> with less than 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity per tonne of carbon >>>> dioxide. Their custom-built tower was able to capture the equivalent >>>> of about 20 tonnes per year of CO2 on a single square metre of >>>> scrubbing material the average amount of emissions that one person >>>> produces each year in the North American-wide economy. >>>> >>>> "This means that if you used electricity from a coal-fired power >>>> plant, for every unit of electricity you used to operate the capture >>>> machine, you'd be capturing 10 times as much CO2 as the power plant >>>> emitted making that much electricity," Keith says. >>>> >>>> The U of C team has devised a new way to apply a chemical process >>>> derived from the pulp and paper industry cut the energy cost of air >>>> capture in half, and has filed two provisional patents on their end-to- >>>> end air capture system. >>>> >>>> The technology is still in its early stage, Keith stresses. "It now >>>> looks like we could capture CO2 from the air with an energy demand >>>> comparable to that needed for CO2 capture from conventional power >>>> plants, although costs will certainly be higher and there are many >>>> pitfalls along the path to commercialization." >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, the relatively simple, reliable and scalable technology >>>> that Keith and his team developed opens the door to building a >>>> commercial-scale plant. >>>> >>>> Richard Branson, head of Virgin Group, has offered a $25-million prize >>>> for anyone who can devise a system to remove the equivalent of one >>>> billion tonnes of carbon dioxide or more every year from the >>>> atmosphere for at least a decade. >>>> >>>> Keith and his team's research this summer, which included an outdoor >>>> test of their capture tower in McMahon Stadium in Calgary as a >>>> dramatic setting, is featured in an episode of Discovery Channel's new >>>> "Project Earth" series on television. >>>> >>>> The series has the largest budget of any in Discovery Channel's >>>> history, and it may attract a global viewership of more than 100 >>>> million. The episode on Keith's research isn't scheduled to be >>>> broadcast in Canada until the second Friday of January 2009, but it >>>> has already aired in the U.S. and is available on Discovery Channel's >>>> website (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/project- >>>> earth.html ); click on "Episodes." >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> Technical details of the air capture technology are available at: >>>> www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/AirCapture.html >>>> >>>> Keith is available today (Monday, Sept. 29) to respond to media calls. >>>> Please contact either person below to arrange an interview. Photos of >>>> Keith with the carbon capture tower are also available. >>>> >>>> MEDIA CONTACTS: >>>> >>>> Mark Lowey, Communications Director >>>> Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy >>>> Phone: 403-210-8659 >>>> Cell: 403-990-6986 >>>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> Hollie Roberts, Executive Assistant to David Keith >>>> ISEEE Energy and Environmental Systems Group >>>> Phone: 403-210-8857 >>>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
