May be too late to correct it and not that it matters anyway, but I
noticed a typo in that paper: on page 2,"weather the reaction is
performed below or above melting point" should be "whether".

Anyone know how much energy is released by changing a ton of CO2 from
pure to diluted in air at ~400 ppm?  That is, how much energy would it
take to separate CO2 from air if it could be done reversibly?

On Apr 19, 6:53 am, "David Keith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Just to put a few of these last comments and perspective.
>
> There are a handful of groups putting significant effort into air
> capture including efforts led by Klaus Lackner (Columbia, GRT), Peter
> Eisenberger (Columbia, Georgia Tech, Global Thermostat), Roger Aines
> (LLNL) and myself (U-Calgary, Carbon Engineering).
>
> The groups are at different stages with respect to commercialization and
> publication of results.
>
> All these groups are quite small. Klaus, Roger and I were at a meeting
> on the topic in DC on Friday where we estimated that the number of FTEs
> now working on air capture is of order 20. These are very small efforts
> compared to what would be needed to do detailed engineering and
> large-scale testing.
>
> Speaking for our group, I can say that we are publishing (see enclosed
> the latest) and releasing some information (see the website below) but
> that as the work becomes more commercial we are slower to release
> information because of IP protection. Currently we have subcontracts out
> to engineering firms to do design and costing on various subsystems and
> we expect to present results for me some of that before the end of this
> year.
>
> The term "artificial trees" is used by Klaus, but not by the other
> groups who typically talk about "air capture". Personally, I think
> "artificial trees" eye-catching, but a bit misleading since trees do
> photosynthesis and make reduced carbon (an advantage) but on the other
> hand something that limits the amount of CO2 that can be captured per
> unit area (a disadvantage). Industrial air capture, on the other hand,
> uses energy to capture CO2 rather producing reduced carbon compounds
> directly. More generally, direct air capture competes with biomass with
> capture and other methods for producing negative emissions.
>
> http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/AirCapture.html
>
> Yours,
>
> David
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Rau
> Sent: April 17, 2009 9:06 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [geo] When real trees won't do
>
> Fake 'trees' designed to trap CO2
> One tower uses resin to trap carbon dioxide; energy industry seen as
> buyer
> By Eric Bland
> Discovery Channel
> updated 1:37 p.m. PT, Thurs., April 16, 2009
> A new kind of tree could cool the planet by removing a major greenhouse
> gas from the planet's atmosphere.
> What researchers are calling artificial trees, actually towers filled
> with various materials that adsorb carbon dioxide from the air, could
> play a major role in reducing climate change -- if they prove
> profitable.
> "This is an industry still in its infancy," said Billy Gridley of Global
> Research Technologies, LLC, the company creating the C02-scrubbing
> towers. "This will eventually rival the size of today's energy markets."
> GRT's artificial tree is based on an environmentally friendly resin,
> originally developed by Klaus Lackner, a professor at Columbia
> University in New York. The alkaline resin reacts with acidic carbon
> dioxide, holding it in place. After one hour exposed to the air, the
> resin is completely saturated with CO2.
> Dry resin soaks up the CO2. Adding water releases the CO2, which is then
> captured and stored. Drying the resin again restores its abilities, a
> cycle that can be repeated indefinitely.
> Over 24 hours Gridley estimates an artificial tree, containing about
> 32,800 feet of resin, will harvest about one ton of CO2 each day.
> When the first artificial tree is ready, two to three years from now, it
> will cost about $150 for each ton, Gridley estimates. When the
> technology is fully mature, the price will be as low as $20.
> GRT plans to sell the purified CO2 to a range of buyers. Oil and natural
> gas companies are probably the biggest customers for the artificial
> trees. Petroleum companies pump CO2 underground to raise the pressure
> and force oil to the surface. Greenhouses could pump in extra C02 to
> help plants grow. Fizzy soda drinks and sanding auto parts also require
> concentrated CO2.
> All of these customers currently get CO2 by truck or by pipeline, most
> of which originates in Texas. The advantage of the artificial trees is
> that they can be placed next to whatever factory needs CO2 without
> having to ship it in.
> Another use for the artificial trees would be in the cap-and-trade
> carbon credit system. The idea is that companies that produce CO2 would
> pay another company, like GRT, to get rid of it. The most likely place
> to put the C02 is in the salt-lined caverns that once held oil, a
> process known as carbon sequestration.
> Wherever the CO2 is placed, at least it is out of the atmosphere, said
> David Keith, a professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, who
> developed his own artificial, C02-catching towers years ago and is
> working to refine his models. Keith, GRT, and other organizations aren't
> trying to profit from climate change; they are looking to prevent or at
> least slow it.
> "Nobody doubts that this is doable," said Keith. "It's a matter of doing
> it at cost, and right now it's still unclear how that can be done."
> (c) 2009 Discovery Channel
>
>  101.Mahamoudkhani.Low-energySodiumHydRec.e.pdf
> 752KViewDownload
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to