In the May 7 issue of C&E News, Mitch Jacoby reports on a new polymer to capture CO2. CO2 has various uses, among which are carbonation of soft drinks, fracturing to increase oil production, and a raw material in chemical manufacturer.
The basis of the article relates to reducing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which has been said to negatively affect climate change. The article does not say that laboratory studies have shown carbon dioxide is only slightly more efficient than nitrogen and oxygen as a greenhouse gas, but because of its low concentration in the atmosphere, it has basically no additional greenhouse effect.
The composition of the polymer is insignificant. It will have the usual medium cost per pound of chemical. Stability of the polymer for continued reuse has not been determined.
It is said that the polymer selectively removes carbon dioxide and nitrogen from a mixed gas, with about 30 times more selectivity for carbon dioxide than for nitrogen. The component concentrations of the mixed gas were not mentioned. Since the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is only about 200 ppm, will the selectivity still be 30 to 1?
There is some discussion on using the polymer in membrane form, but a membrane application is only of value if there is restricted pass-through of one gas versus another, with the secondary factor that there is actually no gas absorption by the membrane. This is not the case with the new polymer. In fact, it is stated that the high temperature necessary to de-adsorb CO2 from the polymer reduces the effectiveness of the coal-fired operating plant by about 30%.
The present technology of CO2 capture from a mixed gas, such as electricity power plant emission, is use of an aqueous amine solution, with heating to release the adsorbed CO2. Use of the new polymer will only be practical, if the combination of polymer and hardware costs, with recycle ability and release mechanisms giving a total cost per pound of CO2 less than presently available in the standard amine process.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Futile Capture of CO2 Persists
The May 2 issue of C&E News has an article on CO2 capture.
The article says that carbon dioxide is related to climate change and that the rising level of atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as one of the most pressing environmental concerns of our age. This is obviously an opinion based upon no facts that I have ever seen, and very different from what I personally believe.
Stuart Haseltine, a geoscientist at the University of Edinburgh, says that capturing and storing CO2 emitted by power plants has the potential to decrease global emissions of CO2 by some 20%. So what? Why do I want to decrease global emissions of CO2 by 20%? It doesn't do any harm. No one has ever proven scientifically that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have any significance to climate change. This is merely a game to justify grant money for additional research. It is also intended to justify additional revenue to the federal income by taxing CO2 emissions. Justin Song, a specialist in catalyst and energy related materials at Penn State, says that coal-fired power plants emit 1500 megatons of CO2 per year. Is that supposed to impress me? How much CO2 is emitted by all human beings and animals in a year? How many molecules of water in all the oceans?
CO2 is not a poison. In high concentrations, it can deprive a person of obtaining enough oxygen through breathing. This is also true of nitrogen and argon, which are present in the atmosphere. However, we are not talking about that kind of maximum concentration. We are talking about parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Eliminating that side issue, the drum beaters are really concentrating on the theory that minor concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere affect climate. It is likely true, because the CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is nitrogen and oxygen, and argon, and water vapor. In fact, we need all of these greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to normalize Earth temperatures. Without the ability of these gases to insulate against loss of heat, nighttime temperatures on Earth could fall to almost absolute zero in the neighborhood of -200°C.
The high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere protect us from those radical temperature changes. The very small concentration of CO2 has a minimal effect on the whole.
I'm not opposed to capture of carbon dioxide, if it is worth capturing. Oil and gas drillers are said to be using a new technique of increasing production of oil and gas by a fracturing process, which uses carbon dioxide. The cheaper the CO2 source, the better. In all likelihood, capture would be from a high concentration source or some mixture that needs purification. Natural gas normally contains some carbon dioxide, which should be removed in order to make the remaining methane and ethane more effective as fuel sources. If we can take that carbon dioxide out of the natural gas and use it in fracturing to produce more natural gas, so much the better. However, the key point is not to confuse ourselves into thinking that the major consideration is to remove carbon dioxide from the environment. It is not necessary to do that. Various living plants have been naturally engineered to do that job. In the process, those plants also produce oxygen, which we need as humans for our own metabolism.
Let's get off the kick that carbon dioxide is detrimental to climate change or anything else of practical significance. Nature has already handled that matter. If we want to do something practical, let's get on with building flood control devices. There will be a constant amount of rain falling on the Earth each year. Unfortunately, it is not evenly distributed, nor is the distribution always the same.. We need to protect ourselves against the detriment of floods. We cannot control the amount of rain or its distribution. We can build flood control devices.
The article says that carbon dioxide is related to climate change and that the rising level of atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as one of the most pressing environmental concerns of our age. This is obviously an opinion based upon no facts that I have ever seen, and very different from what I personally believe.
Stuart Haseltine, a geoscientist at the University of Edinburgh, says that capturing and storing CO2 emitted by power plants has the potential to decrease global emissions of CO2 by some 20%. So what? Why do I want to decrease global emissions of CO2 by 20%? It doesn't do any harm. No one has ever proven scientifically that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have any significance to climate change. This is merely a game to justify grant money for additional research. It is also intended to justify additional revenue to the federal income by taxing CO2 emissions. Justin Song, a specialist in catalyst and energy related materials at Penn State, says that coal-fired power plants emit 1500 megatons of CO2 per year. Is that supposed to impress me? How much CO2 is emitted by all human beings and animals in a year? How many molecules of water in all the oceans?
CO2 is not a poison. In high concentrations, it can deprive a person of obtaining enough oxygen through breathing. This is also true of nitrogen and argon, which are present in the atmosphere. However, we are not talking about that kind of maximum concentration. We are talking about parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Eliminating that side issue, the drum beaters are really concentrating on the theory that minor concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere affect climate. It is likely true, because the CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is nitrogen and oxygen, and argon, and water vapor. In fact, we need all of these greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to normalize Earth temperatures. Without the ability of these gases to insulate against loss of heat, nighttime temperatures on Earth could fall to almost absolute zero in the neighborhood of -200°C.
The high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere protect us from those radical temperature changes. The very small concentration of CO2 has a minimal effect on the whole.
I'm not opposed to capture of carbon dioxide, if it is worth capturing. Oil and gas drillers are said to be using a new technique of increasing production of oil and gas by a fracturing process, which uses carbon dioxide. The cheaper the CO2 source, the better. In all likelihood, capture would be from a high concentration source or some mixture that needs purification. Natural gas normally contains some carbon dioxide, which should be removed in order to make the remaining methane and ethane more effective as fuel sources. If we can take that carbon dioxide out of the natural gas and use it in fracturing to produce more natural gas, so much the better. However, the key point is not to confuse ourselves into thinking that the major consideration is to remove carbon dioxide from the environment. It is not necessary to do that. Various living plants have been naturally engineered to do that job. In the process, those plants also produce oxygen, which we need as humans for our own metabolism.
Let's get off the kick that carbon dioxide is detrimental to climate change or anything else of practical significance. Nature has already handled that matter. If we want to do something practical, let's get on with building flood control devices. There will be a constant amount of rain falling on the Earth each year. Unfortunately, it is not evenly distributed, nor is the distribution always the same.. We need to protect ourselves against the detriment of floods. We cannot control the amount of rain or its distribution. We can build flood control devices.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Environmental Organization and White House Cooperate to Destroy American Wealth Through CO2 Taxation
In the April 11 issue of C&E News, there's an article entitled "Congress Splits on EPA CO2 bill". In this latest C&E News article, Fred Kraut, President of Environmental Defense Fund characterized the legislative efforts as an unprecedented assault on public health protections under the Clean Air Act.
What he was actually saying is that efforts of Republicans in the House and some in the Senate to limit the power of the EPA with respect to enforcing any regulation that CO2 has a pollutant should be controlled. The subterfuge in this statement is that the environmental group believes coal burning power plants should be shut down to the disadvantage of the general public with respect to availability of power and high prices of the remaining power.
This is consistent with my present understanding that environmental organizations are generally subversive in their efforts to reduce the economic and social power of the United States.
The White House supported the Democrats in the Senate for their position of not passing any regulation to reduce the power of the EPA. This is also consistent with Pres. Obama's policy of redistributing US wealth on a worldwide basis through taxation of CO2 emissions.
What he was actually saying is that efforts of Republicans in the House and some in the Senate to limit the power of the EPA with respect to enforcing any regulation that CO2 has a pollutant should be controlled. The subterfuge in this statement is that the environmental group believes coal burning power plants should be shut down to the disadvantage of the general public with respect to availability of power and high prices of the remaining power.
This is consistent with my present understanding that environmental organizations are generally subversive in their efforts to reduce the economic and social power of the United States.
The White House supported the Democrats in the Senate for their position of not passing any regulation to reduce the power of the EPA. This is also consistent with Pres. Obama's policy of redistributing US wealth on a worldwide basis through taxation of CO2 emissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
