Removing CO2 from the Air? (aside from Calcium Hydroxide)

Crystal sponges to absorb CO2

metal-organic frameworks (MOF) used to absorb CO2

quoting the researcher:

""if you have a tank filled with MOFs, you can store in that tank as much carbon dioxide as would be stored in nine tanks that do not contain MOFs,"

MOF-177.gif


MOF-177
mof-177.jpg


Reserach cite: http://www.chemlin.de/news/dez05/removing-carbon-dioxide.htm
 
The CO2 cannot seep out of them again? and if not, can it be diffused back out? If that does work, and it looks like it would, that would be wonderful.

I think the use of by-products and also the use of new things with useful by-products, like algae is something I am surprised no one in power has thought of yet. It confounds me, it does.:shrug:
 
The CO2 cannot seep out of them again? and if not, can it be diffused back out? If that does work, and it looks like it would, that would be wonderful.

I think the use of by-products and also the use of new things with useful by-products, like algae is something I am surprised no one in power has thought of yet. It confounds me, it does.:shrug:

Hello, Positron,

I think I can answer that. Even though algae would work fine, it's too simple and low-tech to get people's attention. They are looking for things like solar mirrors in the desert, huge reflectors hung in space to reflect the sun's heat away from the Earth. Things that are high-tech and have a whiz-bang appeal.

Trees are acceptable to the masses because they have visual appeal and most people (me included) like them - and it sounds good. But in the long run, they just can't do a big enough job.

Politicians are the ones who drive these processes and they want some gadget that the general population will buy into, not necessarily something that really works.
 
So the reason why I was interested in Water hycainths in the first place was because we have some at school, in the greenhouse. I went in after being gone for about 4 days and noticed that the entire surface was covered with small lilly like plants, the hyacinths were still okay but I was worried so I skimmed most of them off. The next day there were more again. I think they reproduce by cloning at a very rapid rate until they cover the surface of wherever they are. They are basically tiny leaves with rough egdes and about the surface area of five pinheads. The root structure is only about 4 or five hair size roots connected directly to the leaf structure. I still don't know quite how they work, so i'm going to take a few observations and run some tests. I wonder though, how much CO2 they absorb, and how fast.

Possible applications of this plant could be giant areas that are sectioned off for them to fill up. The negative side of course is that they make a very thick carpet and would prevent sunlight from reaching the bottom.

Any ideas on what this plant even is?
 
So the reason why I was interested in Water hycainths in the first place was because we have some at school, in the greenhouse. I went in after being gone for about 4 days and noticed that the entire surface was covered with small lilly like plants, the hyacinths were still okay but I was worried so I skimmed most of them off. The next day there were more again. I think they reproduce by cloning at a very rapid rate until they cover the surface of wherever they are. They are basically tiny leaves with rough egdes and about the surface area of five pinheads. The root structure is only about 4 or five hair size roots connected directly to the leaf structure. I still don't know quite how they work, so i'm going to take a few observations and run some tests. I wonder though, how much CO2 they absorb, and how fast.

Possible applications of this plant could be giant areas that are sectioned off for them to fill up. The negative side of course is that they make a very thick carpet and would prevent sunlight from reaching the bottom.

Any ideas on what this plant even is?

Yep, I know exactly what they are - Lemnacea. :) Commonly called duckweed. And the interesting thing is that they are also a prime candidate for producing animal food. They, too, have a nearly phenomenal growth rate and an exceptionally high protein content. They are also the world's smallest flowering plant. Check this out: http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/duckweed/duckweed.htm
 
Interesting stuff indeed. yet again the smallest and must unnoticed plants can prove to be the most useful.
 
Interesting stuff indeed. yet again the smallest and must unnoticed plants can prove to be the most useful.

Yes, indeed. :) And that's where the real hope lies for the future - low-tech and easily managable. And not with super-duper whiz-bang gadgets that are also super expensive to build and maintain.
 
Well, that would be nice! There is a volcano called mount erebus that erupts pure gold dust along with the rocks and such. If gold dust would repair it that volcano would certainly help.

I don't know of any chemistry involved with the ozone and gold. I suppose the gold might oxidize but other than that, I can't think of anything.
 
Cleaning CO2 after the fact is inefficient. Where possible we need to use geothermal, solar electric and solar furnaces and wind for domestic and transport use and leave oil for making plastics and air travel.
A solar furnace or geothermal pipe for heat and pump steam and C02 to make methanol for fuel so its storable.
The expectations of sequestering large amounts of carbon in trees sounds good but CO2 isnt the limiting factor you also need nitrates and water for increased growth levels. So its going to be rate limited.
Theres an existing idea to promote algal blooms in the oceans , algal growth is limited by iron availability so the idea is seed the ocean with iron carbonyl and you get algal blooms, as well as plankton which grow lime skeletons. These die taking the carbon to the ocean floor where its locked in. Again I think this will be rate limited by lack of other nutrients these life forms need. As well we are going to severely upset natural balances trying these experiments. There have been some great new breakthroughs recently in solar cells reducing the costs to a quarter in claims ive read. If we facilitated this industry somehow, gave tax breaks, free land, low interest loans, (redistribute other subsidies like farm, ethanol) and used automation, even chinese factories we could reduce the price of solar dramatically. Reduce it enough so you have 20 KWtts on your roof and use solar cars for everyday transport as well as storing power using hydrogen each house could be self sufficient and self producing.
And think of the benefits clean air and water, new jobs and industry producing the new technology, we can reduce trade defecits by not buying oil, save foreign reserves and reduce the need for oil security. No need to send your sons to die in foreign wars to protect our access to oil. Oil would be conserved for plastics manufacture and air travel where its difficult to replace. Seems to me that we cant afford to go with solar, wind and geothermal power. The only thing holding me back is distrust of govt that they will make us pay useless taxes or institute useless schemes like carbon credits instead of doing the real necessary hard steps
 
Artifical Trees

Maybe I missed it in the thread, but there is a scientist (Professor Klaus Lackner) who developed a method of removing carbon from the air. I first saw it in a documentary from England (Five ways to save the world). It apparently was inspired by a high school project his daughter did. Anyway, the info is on the BBC news site (news.bbc.co.uk) and was posted on 022007. The estimate is that each 'tree' would remove 90000 tonnes of CO2 per year.
 
Sorry, wasn't positive I could post the link. Here it is:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6374967.stm
 
trees will not get funding they need, the world will fund only projects that illuminate with their technological national pride.
 
I would agree. It needs to be envied. The "tree's" are artificial. I can't wax poetic about it, but check out the article.
 
Sorry, wasn't positive I could post the link. Here it is:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6374967.stm

Please pardon me for being so blunt, but this is one of the WORST ideas proposed - absolutely absurd!

Sodium hydroxide, like calcium hydroxide, does not appear naturally in nature - it has to be made - and at a GREAT expense of energy. The most practical method (and therefore the most common one) of doing so is to pass an electrical current through an aqueous solution of sodium chloride. This produces sodium chloride and chlorine gas.

But the problem is that the electricity has to be produced somehow. And currently it's produced by burning fossil fuels, primarily coal, natural gas and oil - each of which dumps even more CO2 into the atmosphere. And the net effect of all that is negative. In other words, you would be releasing more CO2 than you would be putting away.
 
250000 artificial trees at CNN to remove CO2

Hey, wait a moment. It´s maybe not completely stupid.
Of course You´re right, it needs energy.

CNN stated, one week ago, that a quarter million "newly invented artifical trees" can remove all problematic CO2 from atmosphere. I haven´t checked it yet, but I maybe see a chance.
I study "total system analysis" (facts, people, options), so I have to check all possibilities.
I wondered how artificial trees can be so effective, and now found this discussion, so I realized energy is the first point.
If You can catalyse CO2 to C and O2 with little energy, that would be a miracle, like the "water car".
So one has to consider the energy.
So the first idea is: Every "tree" has lots of solar cells around it!
Then there can be an effective chemical process.
But: The energy needed is as much as the total C burnt in 100 years (or at least 2% of that energy per year), a big area with cells. Did someone check the report? Maybe I will later if I find time.

The other spontaneous idea is that the CO2 is connected to other molecules (with little amount of energy), such that it becomes solid, but I don´t know enough chemistry.

(Maybe the CNN report is just the same BBC-story from February. He wants to sink CO2 in holes, but then why does he need hydroxide?)

Read You later
Thomas Gossmann, Germany, volkscomputer.biz
 
Sorry

Sorry, I hadn´t seen this discussion has 5 pages, I thought it had ended in April. I read the other 4 pages tomorrow.
Thomas
 
If human activities put 24 billion tons (2.18 * 10^16 grams) of CO2 into the air, and the total supply of CO2 is 3 times 10^18 grams, then we are talking about less than one percent of the total supply that is being added and that can be subtracted. I am sure that the plant cover simply eats the stuff. One percent more leaves on the ground in the fall, one percent more mass to the oak tree that sheds the leaves, and we are taking carbon out of circulation when we build houses.
 
"Global warming" is a cabal conspiracy to depopulate the world. See how quickly those green nazi communists move to suggesting putting a "carbon tax" on babies, because babies grow up and want to drive cars.

CO2 emissions relate to humans building much needed wealth by powering up machines to help us with otherwise grievious work. CO2 is released to liberate the necessary energy. To undo that, would consume all the energy liberated, so it's counterproductive.

In the future, there might be machines to "recycle" air and such, powered by nuclear power or something. But they are not needed now, because global CO2 levels are near normal, and nature just does not need our "help" in many such areas.

I suggest to put aside this luddite sort of thinking, to try to solve non-existant problems, and find a better focus. Like it makes more sense to expend energy to remove CO2, in a spaceship! But not tampering with nature where we don't even know what we are doing. Burning fuel makes perfect sense, because the benefit is so clear. But tampering with nature for uncertain and doubtful benefits, that's plain irresponsible! It must always be for human benefit, otherwise, humans will suffer at the hands of stupid and destructive policies.
 
Back
Top