Green chimney could save the planet

[jpak]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2006/11/01/8391416/

Fremont, Ohio (FSB Magazine) -- "This is my sandbox, where I play," says Tom Kiser, pulling his big Chrysler sedan into the parking lot of Professional Supply Inc. We're in Fremont, Ohio, population 17,000. There's a sauerkraut factory across the street, a fitting neighbor to Kiser's dreary, plywood-paneled headquarters.
Selling green beer to Mormons

Kiser was born and raised in Fremont. He founded PSI here in 1979 with an $80,000 SBA loan backed in part by his wife's wedding ring, and he's done well enough that he now owns a seven-passenger company jet. But that's not the story. The story is how a small-town heating and ventilation engineer with no illusions about his customers' true priorities ("What makes me go is, Can I make you money? If I can't, don't hire me") suddenly finds himself on the front lines of the fight to halt global warming.

His weapon? A new experimental technology he calls a liquid chimney that captures the greenhouse gas escaping from coal and natural-gas furnaces and turns it into a harmless material that could be used in construction or even dropped into the ocean to rebuild coral reefs. The impact could be huge, considering that half the greenhouse gas that America generates comes from burning coal and natural gas.

<snip>

HOW IT WORKS

A. A natural-gas boiler sends its exhaust, laden with the greenhouse gas CO2, through a pipe to Kiser's liquid chimney.
B. As the exhaust rises through a layer of plastic or stainless-steel rings, it is mixed with treated water (the ingredients are secret) in a process that captures most of the CO2.
C. The result: hot water (which is recycled to save energy) and calcium carbonate, which can be fashioned into building blocks, deposited in the ocean to replenish coral reefs, or returned to the earth.

<more>

[MADem]

1. NEAT-O!!!!!! K and R! nt

[eleny]

2. Now that's what Americans should be doing - not making wars!

K&R

[GCP]

3. I've always thought there should be some method of capturing CO2

Before it's released into the atmosphere. Something stuck on car tail pipes which would remove it and turn it into chalk for instance. I even had the idea of solar-powered little pumps which could just "inhale" air and bubble it through a solution of sodium hydroxide and form CaCO3 and water.
Would it work? Maybe I should patent it!

[eppur_se_muova]

13. See post 12.

And how do you propose to make CALCIUM carbonate from SODIUM hydroxide?

[GCP]

19. Doh - meant calcium hydroxide

It's too many years since I did chemistry!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msongs]

5. it's not an either/or world. all help is appreciated in this matter

denigrating us and calling us stupid is not gonna get you anywhere around here.

there are many solutions and contributions to any given problem. the process described here is just one of many.

are you paid by the algae biofuels industry btw?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[NickB79]

7. There would definitely be large amounts of fossil fuels used

Producing whatever chemicals are required to react with the CO2 within the chimney would require large amounts of energy, most likely derived from the burning of coal and natural gas (though nuclear reactors could possibly be used as well). If the chimney is producing calcium carbonate, you would need to constantly add more calcium and whatever reagents are required for the chemical reactions to occur. I wonder what the overall energy investment in this would be, ie are you burning 1 ton of coal (and releasing the subsequent CO2) to produce chemical reagents that capture the CO2 equivalent of only 1/2 ton of coal?

On edit, if there are industrial plants out there that produce the required reagents as byproducts, that would significantly improve the appeal of this green chimney.

[Quantess]

8. The general expectation at DU

is that, if you have a rebuttal that is completely different than that of the OP (original poster), you will back up your argument with a link of some sort.

A huge population at DU is very interested in anything environmental-friendly. I am interested in hearing your point of view, and I'm sure others are, as well.

[kestrel91316]

9. Welcome to DU, dear child. Now go take your nap.

[whistle]

6. That is great, what are the secret ingredients mixed in the liquid?

...clue: sauerkraut factory, any chemists out there who can suggest how the location of the two factories might compliment each other?

[kestrel91316]

10. Well, some folks get real bad "natural gas" from eating kraut.

Maybe there is a way to collect it and burn it to power both plants? :evilgrin:

[Quantess]

11. Never give up on those pipe dreams...

I have heard a rumor that the cattle of the world collectively produce so much flatulence in a day, that you could fly an airplane from Chicago to London on the fumes alone.

Edit to add::rofl:

[eppur_se_muova]

12. This has to be calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2, can't be anything else.

More commonly known as limewater. Ca(OH)2 is made by reaction of CaO (quicklime) with water. CaO is made from ...

wait for it ...

calcium carbonate, CaCO3, aka chalk or limestone, by heating in a furnace until it GIVES OFF CO2:

CaCO3 --> CaO + CO2

In other words, you have to generate CO2 to make this "magic liquid", then it recaptures no more CO2 than it gave off originally, and you have burned a lot of fuel -- thus making more CO2 -- without accomplishing anything but making CaCO3 starting from CaCO3. This announcement needs a 'contrarecommendation'.

This is the same logic that goes into those "magic fuel made from water!" announcements that crop up over and over again, as if no one knew that you could make H2 from water and a whole lot of energy (whose cost is omitted from the announcement).

The heat-recapturing approach is standard practice in most chemical plants; maybe he has made some improvements there, but thats OMAOE.

edit for dilatory purposes :)

[HamdenRice]

21. Don't confuse the "magic H2 fuel from water" with this kind of idea

The hydrogen based energy system proposals are about energy transport, not about the generation of energy. In other words, an H2 based economy allows many different kinds of energy production, including hydrothermal, wind and solar, and other green forms of generation, to be stored as H2. H2 can then be burned by the consumer with no pollution.

Even coal burning power plants could create H2 and the economies of scale presumably would create less pollution than millions of individual cars and furnaces. Also, dirty energy generation of H2 limits the source point to one place where pollution can be more easily controlled or captured.

The H2 idea is not about magic energy from water. It's about clean and efficient storage, transportation and use of energy.

[eppur_se_muova]

22. I'm well aware of that. But I keep seeing this "magic fuel" idea crop up

over and over again, without any thought for where the energy comes from. I've posted comments almost identical to yours regarding energy storage vs generation, and glad that someone sees the difference. Every few months, though, I'll see another post about yet another rediscovery of the magic fuel -- sometimes, it's obviously a scam, other times there seems to be genuine ignorance at work, as if the people involved have NO IDEA that hydrogen has been known for a couple of centuries, or that H2 can be made from H2O.

But the chemistry he's talking about in the original post WON'T WORK in any way that matters -- all it will do is absorb CO2 from smokestacks at the expense of dumping CO2 into the air from lime kilns -- at the expense of a lot of energy consumed, almost certainly accompanied by ADDITIONAL CO2. If there were some real need to remove CO2 at the site of generation and move it elsewhere, this might be a perfectly good way to do it. But for purposes of *global* GHG abatement, it accomplishes nothing, even causes more GHG production. Bear in mind, it does what he claims -- it absorbs CO2, and forms CaCO3. It just doesn't make any difference in the global CO2 balance, because in effect it's just moving CO2 emissions from one spot (smokestack) to another (lime kiln). Once again there's confusion between generation vs transport (by proxy, in this case), hence my choice of analogy.

The idea of removing CO2 -- a source of weakly acidic rain -- from emissions by a base scrub is the first, absolutely MOST OBVIOUS thing that anyone with an elementary knowledge of chemistry would think of, and of course a lot of people have thought of it. The problem is, there's no way to make a good strong base whose manufacture doesn't produce more CO2 than it absorbs. Ask anyone with a broad knowledge of general chemistry to name a strong base that's very cheaply available, and they'll come up with a very short list -- lime (CaO), which is no good for the reasons I spelled out above; and NaOH or KOH, which are produced by electrolysis, hence much more expensive (and net CO2 producers if the electricity comes from burning coal, oil, or gas). Finally, there's Na2CO3 (natron or washing soda), which could absorb CO2 to give NaHCO3 (baking soda) -- I don't know if that's economically viable, but it's probably the only possibility that might be. Na2CO3 is harvested from alkaline lakes, salt lakes, and brine wells. I doubt if there's anywhere near enough material available to make a real dent in the CO2 balance, though. And if that NaHCO3 comes into contact with acid, it releases the CO2 again, so you'd have to be careful where you chose to stash it.

The only really viable way of 'sequestering' CO2 beyond what the ocean and crust will absorb is the way Nature does it -- by photosynthesis of biomass from CO2 and H2O. There's no substitute, which makes the depletion of natural forests, prairies, etc. all the more disastrous.

[eppur_se_muova]

24. Oops -- omitted an important point ...

"The only really viable way of 'sequestering' CO2 beyond what the ocean and crust will absorb is the way Nature does it -- by photosynthesis of biomass from CO2 and H2O. There's no substitute, which makes the depletion of natural forests, prairies, etc. all the more disastrous."

Actually, I meant to include that converting CO2 to fuel by NON-photosynthetic processes -- by reaction with H2 or by electrolysis (see NNadir's posts on Olah's method) would also provide a carbon-neutral energy economy, PROVIDED the energy for production of H2 or electricity was generated from NON-fossil fuel sources, such as hydro, nuclear, or solar. It wouldn't decrease the amount of CO2 in the air substantially, but it would stop it from increasing, and Nature could then redress the balance by growing more plant biomass.

[skids]

14. Calcium Carbonate: CaC03 -- one more oxygen per carbon...

Than CO2... I've been wondering for a while -- with both this and underground sequestration, how does the oxygen bugdet balance? I mean, we do only have so much in the air, and natural sources of unbound oxygen are basically:

1) ocean flora -- via CO2
2) land flora -- via CO2

...both of which are experiencing hard times already and it's only going to get worse. Though I suppose a small amount is liberated by other natural processes.

The air is 20% O2 versus less than 1% CO2, sure, but in order to breath the "partial pressure" of O2 must stay fairly high -- where's the line at which depletion of O2 in the air starts to effect us air burners? I suppose a better way to phrase that is how many tonnes of O2 sequestered along with carbon would lower the height at which we can breath without an oxygen mask by one foot? Are there other ecological systems that are even more sensitive to the O2 levels than us?

What will the consequences of pumping it underground be? Like the mud-cano in Java?

Not saying sequestration cannot work, just that there are a lot of questions about it I don't see asked/answered.

[eppur_se_muova]

15. Well, the conc'n of CO2 is going UP, so that's not a problem.

The amount of O2 in the air is determined by balance of plants (O2 producers) to animals/fires (O2 consumers), but we know from measurement that CO2 production is beating out CO2 consumption. The TOTAL amount of mass sequesterd is truly miniscule compared to the amount in the atmosphere, so it's not going to affect the amount of O2. Remember that O2 conc'n is about 20%, or 200,000 ppm, while CO2 is about 400 ppm, or 500 times less.

edited to address the question a little better

[skids]

16. minus sequestration...

That's what I'm saying. Airborne CO2 is oxygen still available to the plant/animal cycle. Shove it underground or bond it to calcium, and it is no longer part of that system.

No question we have too much CO2 in the atmosphere, but basically sequestration is throwing out wanted oxygen along with the unwanted carbon.

(And BTW, if the extra O atom comes from water, where's the hydrogen go? Is this scrubber system endothermic or exothermic, not counting the production of source ingredients?)

[eppur_se_muova]

17. Sorry, I was editing my original response about the same time you posted.

Basically, there is about 500 times more O2 than CO2, so even cutting CO2 conc'n in half would have negligble effect on O2 conc'n. That's reallly the important point, which I didn't adress before.

As for ingredients and production, see post 12.

on edit: I'm glad people are thinking about stuff like this, but hate to see time/energy/money/resources wasted following obvious false trails. The INOBVIOUS false trails use up enough.

[skids]

18. An analogy...

The amount of CO2 that actually causes harmful warming is extremely small compared to the total amount in the atmosphere -- we need most of it to stay out of an ice age -- it's only that little extra bit that has started to cause undesireable climate change. (Mostly because there are about 300 times more degrees of temperature between a catastrophic 1C global increase and absolute zero :-) ) By the same token the total amount of free O2 in the atmosphere is not something that can be cited as a reason not to worry about it. We can only live within a very thin membrane in the parameter space.

As it currently stands there are actually landmasses high enough that the amount of O2 in the air does not meet the partial pressure requirements for humans to breath -- you need an oxygen mask on some of the highest peaks if you want to engage in a respectable amount of physical activity. Even a small decrease in total oxygen would raise the minimum pressure level -- meaning you'd need an oxygen mask at lower and lower altitudes. At sea level where we consider breathing normal, the partial pressure of oxygen is only twice that up on Everest, which is pretty much our survival limit -- ergo we need at least half the O2 in the atmosphere just to maintain that baseline.

...which probably isn't going to be too much of a concern in that there isn't all that much desireable landmass at extremely high altitudes that would be rendered uninhabitable. However, my final point is that we mammalian oxygen breathers may not be the most sensitive system to changes in global O2 -- other biosphere systems or even some ongoing geological reactions might be altered by it. Moreover, there are other ways that oxygen leaves the system being it is rather reactive: rock rust, natural calcification, etc. While biology seems to have no problem extracting carbon from the bedrock, O2 is another matter, and with a diminished capacity to turn CO2 into O2 due to desertification and poisoning of the oceans, well, I'm just not so sure blowing the matter off casually is appropriate.

It's probably not a big deal, but I haven't seen any professionals do the math.

[eppur_se_muova]

23. Thought experiment -- convert ALL atmospheric CO2 to O2

That would give you an increase of <400 ppm, from ~20,000 to ~20,400 ppm, or a <2% increase. That's less than the difference between outdoors and a crowded room.

I think you can put your mind at ease about that.

Now, let's worry about the CO2 -- it's a huge problem.

[n2doc]

20. The oxygen comes from water, not O2

The reaction is :
CO2 + H2O goes to H2CO3 (Carbonic acid)

H2CO3 + Ca(OH)2 goes to CaCO3 (Calcium carbonate) + 2 H2O

So anyway you look at it the oxygen doesn't come from O2. The bigger question is, how much energy is expended to make and transport the Calcium hydroxide?

[yop]

25. "mineral carbon sequestration"

Google it. This is an active area of research. The thermodynamics are everything you could ask for, and raw materials are available naturally. The problem is the kinetics.

[eppur_se_muova]

26. Thanks for that post. Second hit was in a PEER-REVIEWED ACS Publ'n.

Nice to see that real chemists/mineralogists are working on this. They'd laugh at the "solution" in the OP.

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2006/40/i15/abs/es0523340.html

edit to add link