Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Friday, February 15, 2008

A Better Way to Capture Carbon

New materials provide a potentially cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

By Kevin Bullis
smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Carbon-capturing crystals: This is an optical micrograph of a new material that can pull carbon dioxide from a stream of gases, making it possible to sequester the greenhouse gas.
Credit: Omar Yaghi

Researchers have developed porous materials that can soak up 80 times their volume of carbon dioxide, offering the tantalizing possibility that the greenhouse gas could be cheaply scrubbed from power-plant smokestacks. After the carbon dioxide has been absorbed by the new materials, it could be released through pressure changes, compressed, and, finally, pumped underground for long-term storage.

Such carbon dioxide capture and sequestration could be essential to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, especially in countries such as the United States that depend heavily on coal for electricity. The first stage, capturing the carbon, is particularly important, since it can account for 75 percent of the total costs, according to the Department of Energy.

The new materials, described this week in Science, were created by researchers at UCLA led by Omar Yaghi, a chemist known for producing materials with intricate microscopic structures. They absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide but do not absorb other gases.

Techniques already exist for capturing carbon dioxide from smokestacks, but they use large amounts of energy--15 to 20 percent of the total electricity output of a power plant, according to one estimate, Yaghi says. That is because existing materials, known as amines, need to be heated to release the carbon dioxide they've absorbed. Indeed, capturing and compressing carbon dioxide through these existing methods can add 80 to 90 percent to the cost of producing electricity from coal, says Thomas Feeley, a project manager at the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Feeley says that Yaghi's materials "compare favorably" with other experimental materials that absorb carbon dioxide that are being developed to help bring down these costs. Yaghi says that his materials could lower costs considerably since they use less energy, although exactly how much will require testing the materials at power plants.

Beyond being potentially useful in smokestacks, the materials could be employed in coal gasification plants. In these plants, coal is first processed to produce a mixture of carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas. The hydrogen is then used to generate electricity. The carbon dioxide could be captured using a solvent that increases energy consumption. But as in the smokestack-based process, the new UCLA materials could require less energy.
[1] 2 Next »

Tags

emissions materials

Comments

  • why would we waste it
    zig158 on 02/15/2008 at 4:32 AM
    Posts:
    64
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    The applications for this go far beyond what is mentioned in the article. Depending on the Adsorption and de-sorption pressures, it could be used for waste heat cooling.

    People who plan to pump CO2 underground are out of touch with reality. Why waste all the energy, you need to use even more fossil fuels just to pump it underground.

    CO2 is also becoming increasingly more imported for industrial uses. You can check Wikipedia for this.

    It could also eventually be used as a feedstock for pure carbon. In the not so distant future carbon will replace steel as a building material. It is much stronger, lighter, and just plain better than current metals. Think of a car made out of a diamond like carbon material. It would never rust, never chip and never dent. If you did get into a major accident it would shatter burning off a significant amount of energy, in the same way ceramic body armor does today.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: why would we waste it
      DJTal on 02/15/2008 at 5:18 AM
      Posts:
      116
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      I agree . Charcoal , which is a product of gasifying organic matter , has a massive surface area for absorbing CO2 . When CO2 is mixed with hydrated ammonia it produces ammonium bicarbonate which deposits on the charcoal . This can then be used as a soil improver and fertiliser , which lleads to a long term build up of soil carbon and an increase in the growth of vegetation . see www.eprida.com and info. about Biochar .
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: why would we waste it
        VCRAGAIN on 02/15/2008 at 7:31 AM
        Posts:
        35
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        it seems to me as an avid reader of all things alternative energy that we are desperately in need of a clearing house of ideas and new methodologies as a way of making sure every new research project is made aware of what everyone else has achieved and what is going on.
        The amount of effort going on is remarkable and wonderful - I am in awe - but it does seem to me that duplicate channels are popping up everywhere - just a thought.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: why would we waste it
          SuperJesus on 02/15/2008 at 9:57 AM
          Posts:
          2
          We can be sure that the current administration won't take a leadership role there.  This nightmare of a president will be out in a year and maybe then we can get back on track to coordinating and funding the scientific research necessary to address many of the problems we're going to have to deal with.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: why would we waste it
            RD on 02/15/2008 at 11:51 AM
            Posts:
            58
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
            This nightmare of a Democratic controlled Congress is what passed an idiotic energy bill that subsidizes many $$$ billions of food into ethanol, while spiraling food prices become a regressive tax. 
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: why would we waste it
              franquellim on 02/15/2008 at 12:52 PM
              Posts:
              11
              Avg Rating:
              4/5
              http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22314332/

              "...The U.S. currently produces nearly 7 billion gallons of ethanol, all of it made from corn, thanks in large part to government mandates and subsidies included in the 2005 energy bill. The 2007 bill, which passed the House Tuesday and the Senate last week, mandates 36 billion gallons by 2022, with 21 billion gallons coming from so-called cellulosic ethanol."

              Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. While ethanol is not a long term answer, as a taxpayer, I support subsidies that investigate the technology, paticulary ethanol from cellulosic sources. The fact that it helps offset hidden costs (subsidies, tax breaks, military spending) for continued use of petroleum is important also.

              This bill is a continuation of the 2005 bill. Are you as angry at the Republicans, or just interested in slamming the political party you disagree with?
              Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: why would we waste it
                MakeSense on 02/15/2008 at 4:48 PM
                Posts:
                79
                Avg Rating:
                3/5
                Both political parties support ethanol in the farm belt. Ethanol is a boondoggle without blaming it on any one party. Bush is all for it, so it's not just Dems.

                36 billion gallons of ethanol with 65% of the energy of gasoline would account for about 10% of the vehicular fuel within that timeframe. Then you can start deducting the fuel used at all stages of producing corn/biomass and ethanol. Then you can deduct other forms of energy used. I hardly think it's worth the effort.
                Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: why would we waste it
        MakeSense on 02/15/2008 at 4:42 PM
        Posts:
        79
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        I wonder how much eneryg it takes to make hydrated ammonia. Probably a bunch. Sigh.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: why would we waste it
      RD on 02/15/2008 at 11:52 AM
      Posts:
      58
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      In the Netherlands they pump some of the CO2 directly into greenhouses to increase food production.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: why would we waste it
        mbmurphy777 on 02/15/2008 at 3:20 PM
        Posts:
        14
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
        Guys... c'mon.


        CO2 is not carbon.  It is carbon dioxide.  It takes a tremendous amount of energy to transform CO2 into carbon.  In the same way, rust is not the same thing as iron.  There are much cheaper and less energy intensive sources of carbon. 
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: why would we waste it
      kene2008 on 02/19/2008 at 1:10 AM
      Posts:
      2
      Everyone seems to be forgetting the key principle that controls technological inventions and innovations:COST!! If a process is not commercially viable and economically justifiable,it has no hope of application in real life. CCS is currently the only commercially viable option to control GHG presently. It will act as a transient industry to mitigate against GHG emmision as long as fossil fuel is the cheapest source of energy for economic growth. Till a cheaper, more commercially viable source of energy exists, there is no other alternative to reduce GHG than CCS.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • 2,000 sq. M. / gram
    nekote on 02/16/2008 at 8:52 AM
    Posts:
    122
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    Is 2,000 square Meters per gram *REALLY* big?

    2,000,000 sq. M / KG .

    Seems big, but is it?

    Big enough to absorb / adsorb CO2 directly from the .03 or .04 % in the ambient air?  (Of course, soaking up hot CO2 from a 15+ % smoke stack is going to be *500* times more cost effective?)


    How about soaking up methane from the ambient atmosphere, since it is 23 times more potent a GHG?  And, just maybe, it could be burned, resulting in 1/23 the GHG it was (CO2), as methane?
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Use for bateries?
    rjchint on 02/16/2008 at 6:06 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Could this tech be be modified a little to be used in a battery b/c of its very high surface area?
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • This could be a disaster
    stoddad on 02/17/2008 at 2:58 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Will the ability to scrub CO2 cheaply from coal burning lead to more coal being burned? What will scrub all of the extra mercury that is coming our way? I guess we better mutate quickly.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: This could be a disaster
      bkshilo on 02/18/2008 at 2:37 PM
      Posts:
      17
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      Well then, a mercury scrubber will have to be the next challenge these smart people turn their energies to.

      There is no way I am going to oppose clean coal technology.  I'm pro-nuclear, but it does have that pesky radioactive waste issue.  If smart scientists and engineers can figure out how to produce "clean" electricity from coal, I'm all for it.

      Combining this progress with the advances in solar power, wind power, nuclear power and battery storage technology means the dream of our nation being energy self-sufficent moves closer to reality. 

      Of course there is political pandering on energy policy.  There is pandering, by both parties, on every issue. 

      As a matter of national security, it is in America's interest to develop domestic energy supplies.  Unfortunately, it is currently in our best interests to protect foreign energy supplies because we are economically dependent upon those supplies.  Let's face the facts - for now, we have to protect that "cheap" energy because our economy will crash without it. 

      We have a lot of coal.  Let's support initiatives AND legislation that promotes the exploitation of this domestic resource in an environmentally sound fashion. 
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: This could be a disaster
        davidegrider on 02/21/2008 at 5:14 PM
        Posts:
        2
        If we continue "business as usual", we are headed for a disaster.  It is not clear that our economy will "crash" without cheap energy (or it may crash anyway).  If the energy gets more expensive, gradually, we will adjust (and use more renewable energy, instead). 

        As you say about nuclear, there is that pesky pollution problem.  It is also slow to build and very risky (translate "expensive" unless the government pays for the insurance).  Wind and solar are much  better long term ways to go (I like a 93 million mile safety zone).
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Carbon Sequesterization is dumb
    lowilliams on 02/18/2008 at 4:29 PM
    Posts:
    17
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    Many pundits show complete ignorance of the technological potential for countering global warming.  They speak of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050.  This is a disastrous approach.  Reduction by 80% will only push the time of melting of all the ice out a short time.  To save the earth from our excess we must completely stop emitting carbon dioxide.  The path to total elimination of carbon dioxide is straight forward: encourage conservation, harvest all renewable energy possible, using the Apollo program as a model, develop nuclear fusion in a timely manner, and finally develop a hydrogen based energy distribution system.  The barriers to this approach are the reluctance of all to sacrifice, resistance from current energy suppliers, and puny leadership from politicians.

    There is a clear example of the proper method of curing this type of challenge.  An instructive example is found in the logistics of supplying goods in New York City.  In 1900 large cities depended on horses for transport of both people and goods.  The horses, of course, created massive amounts of waste (a proxy for carbon dioxide). By 1900, New York had 1,250 tons of horse manure and 60,000 gallons of urine dumped on its streets every day.  Each year 15,000 horses were killed in accidents and were removed.  This situation was limiting the continued grow of large cities.  Control was not achieved by passing laws concerning the use and/or behavior of horses (a proxy for addicting how many miles per gallon new car fleets must get), Control was achieved by replacing that horse based transportation with a new technology that was better than the old.  The new transportation technology was the fossil fuel powered vehicle.  Cars and trucks were built.  Governments at all levels subsidized building of roads for the vehicles.  Within about 10 years, the problem of horse waste was dwindling and in 30 years it was eliminated.

    Large cities had to eliminate horse waste and the planet earth must eliminate the waste from the combustion of fossil fuels.  Renewable energy sources are useful and should be harvested, but are unlikely to provide the quantity of energy needed.  Sir David King, the chief science advisor for the United Kingdom, recommends that fusion (not uranium fission) is the answer to future energy needs (King, David, ‘Fast Forward to Fusion’ New Scientist, Issue 2442, 10 April 2004).  Fusion reactors use hydrogen isotopes and/or boron as fuels and cannot be used to make bombs.  A fusion reactor produced positive energy in 1992 prompting an international program titled the “International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor” (ITER) program (http://www.iter.org or, http://www.efda.org)

    The deniers will proclaim that we have been examining fusion for 50 years and still do not have a reactor. This is true, but fake, there has never been an Apollo type push for success; the past projects have been treated as class rooms for training future physics PhDs and not, as Sir David King suggests, humanity’s hope for abundant clean energy.

    In support of success within a decade, see the 1976 report, FUSION POWER BY MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT, ERDA-76/110/1, UC-20, Page 8.  (ERDA is the United States Energy Research and Development Administration, a precursor to the current DOE).  This 1976 ERDA report states that building a pilot fusion reactor would take 10 to 13 years with a Maximum Effective Effort (using 1976 computers and technology).  Using what we have learned in the last 31 years combined with the improvements in computer aided design hardware and software we should be able to start the production of utility fusion reactors within a decade.  Renewable energy sources and fusion energy sources can produce energy.  The energy will be used to produce hydrogen.  The hydrogen will be distributed to all customers by buried pipe lines.  This will yield the Renewable, Fusion, Hydrogen (RFH) energy system. 
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Carbon Sequesterization is dumb
      davidegrider on 02/21/2008 at 5:53 PM
      Posts:
      2
      It is a huge problem to transition away from fossil fuels.  Many of the energy "experts" think we are going to need all the possible alternative sources of energy to manage the transition from oil as production peaks.  In "Winning the Oil Endgame", Amory Lovins suggests that the problem gets much more manageable if we first use the oil, gas and coal more efficiently.  Government could have a big role in creating incentives to move our society in this direction.  Government will also have to eliminate the subsidies which encourage waste and make fossil fuels artificially cheap. 

      In the short time frame, paying more for clean coal and CCS has the potential to eliminate pollution and encourage the transition to renewable energy.

      If we choose to go that way, government is going to have to pay for the research in fusion energy production.  Eventually, fusion may become an acceptably inexpensive source of energy.  It is not presently an off the shelf technology, and we con not know when it may become one.  The effort to develop fusion has been going on for years, without the desired results. At this point, it seems reasonable to invest in existing technologies that show promise for accomplishing this huge transition.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Government
    zig158 on 02/19/2008 at 3:43 AM
    Posts:
    64
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    The fact that CO2 is not carbon was part of my point. CO2 it self is important and is used as is for many things. I suspect the amount used in industrial processes is going to greatly increase.

    For all of those who want the government involved, ARE YOU CRAZY. The government takes perfectly good ideas, and makes them cost 10 times what they should and are still impractical. Think space shuttle! Our energy problems will be solved by a few guys in a garage that come up with an idea. Then a few guys in a lab will improve that idea. The guys in a lab will get some investors, who see potential of that new idea. With that funding they will change the world.
    Every one now knows that ethanol is a bad idea, if it was not for the government; people would ditch ethanol and come up with something better.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Government
      GaryB on 02/19/2008 at 2:53 PM
      Posts:
      42
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      The idea that government can't do anything is a nice Libertarian fiction that doesn't stand up to the facts.

      We're communicating pretty well on the this ARPA oops Internet right now. We're computing on our government sponsored chips pretty well (Gov. guaranteed a market for chips which launched the industry). Our highway system works pretty well. Long term research makes NO economic sense for a self interested private entity, almost all of it happens by government.

      DARPA supported the foundational technologies for autonomous robotics and when it was time, DARPA sponsored the 3 Grand challenged that spurred robotic car technologies.  A market in that might now start (heavily military at first) and I guess it will be seen as another miracle of the "free market" when a google sized robotic car entity finally emerges from it.

      The right wing is generally OK with all this industrial policy if it happens under the cloak of  military spending.  It's a really bassackward way of doing policy, but even then it's pretty effective.

      Going to a solar economy is quite doable now if the government willed, see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

      Government is GREAT at establishing markets and the best way seems to be via market guarantees to get it started to the point that markets can take over. 

      That said, I suspect by about 2050, one of the problems facing humanity will be extracting too much carbon for building materials. 
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Government
        osawaf on 02/25/2008 at 8:24 PM
        Posts:
        2
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
        Government is made of people.  So let's not generalize and hope that someone in our government can help the private sector address these issues.  Let's take note of what the Danish government did to Wind power.  Years ago, they told every Danish citizen that if they bought a wind turbine (of course a Danish 'Vestas' wind turbine), the government would buy the electricity generated from the turbine at a price per KWh enough to generate a 15% return on investmnet.  Lured by a risk free high return, the Danish rushed to buy and install turbines and this allowed Vestas to become the world leader in making wind turbines.  With a learning curve, economies of scale and profits in their coffers Vestas reinvested the windfalls in R&D to make the turbines larger and more efficient.  By the time the Danish government pulled the incentives, wind power technology became competitive with fossil fuels and Danemark had built a global champion and many jobs. 

        Other European governments are currently doing the same with Solar energy with feed in tarriffs which is allowing German and Spanish companies build large entreprises and investing to improve the technology and bring down the cost of solar, eventually to grid (i.e. fossil fuel) parity.

        So the right government policy can work in partnership with the private sectors to jumpstart new forms of energy industries.
        Rate this comment: 12345
Add New Thread

Related Articles
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review January/February 2009
Lifeline for Renewable Power
Without a radically expanded and smarter electrical grid, wind and solar will remain niche power sources.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

•  Gift Subscription
•  Digital Subscription
•  Reprints, Back Issues, Customer Service

Career Resources

Visit the Job Board and Resource Center to move your career to the next level.

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!
Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Wire Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement