Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

'Scrubber' may clean air of CO2 emissions



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 June 2008
FOR those fearing the destruction of the earth through climate change, there is for once some good news: scientists claim to have made a major breakthrough towards developing a machine that can 'suck' carbon dioxide from the air.
If successful, the device will alleviate the environmental damage caused by billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases produced each year.

Led by Klaus Lackner, a physicist at Colombia University in New York, the US scientists plan to construct and t
est a prototype of the machine within two years.

Dubbed the 'scrubber' and small enough to fit in a cargo container, it will hopefully provide a cost-effective means of removing up to a tonne of CO2 each day from the air – roughly the equivalent amount produced by a transatlantic flight.

According to reports Lackner estimates each device will cost around £100,000, with all carbon emissions produced in its manufacture being easily offset by the amount each can capture.

However, while the scientists claim the 'scrubber' is a major innovation in the battle against climate change, they have stressed their invention does not provide a magic solution to the problem of CO2 emissions.

Millions of the devices would need to be produced to capture all global emissions, and the problem of disposing of the CO2 once it has been trapped still remains.

But with global consumption of fossil fuels continuing to rise despite international efforts, the team believes that the technology it is pioneering will be the most effective means of coping with global warming.

Speaking to a newspaper Lackner said: "I wouldn't write it across the front page that the problem had been solved, but this will help.

"We are in a hurry to deal with climate change and will be very hard-pressed to stop the train before we get to 450ppm (CO2 in the atmosphere]. This can help stop the train."

Scientists have previously been sceptical about the feasibility of air-capture devices, due to the large amounts of energy required to run them.

A 2005 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raised severe doubts over the technology. It concluded: "In the absence of measures to limit CO2 emissions, there are only small niche opportunities for the deployment of CSS (carbon capture and storage] technologies."

However, the US team claims it has discovered a way to significantly reduce the amount of energy required to run the device. Reports indicate the technology is based around absorbent plastic sheets called ion exchange membranes that are routinely used to purify water.

The critical discovery the team is believed to have made is that humid air can cause the membranes to 'exhale' the trapped CO2, meaning they are then ready to be used again.

The quest for a machine that could combat the effects of fossil fuel consumption on the environment has come to be seen as the holy grail of climate science. Last year Richard Branson promised $25m (£13m) to anyone who is successful through his Virgin Earth Challenge scheme.

The American team is reported to be developing a prototype of the device at a laboratory in Tucson, Arizona, run by a company called Global Research Technologies where Lackner is vice-president of research.





The full article contains 541 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 31 May 2008 8:21 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
 
1

tomi,

01/06/2008 02:53:38
Oh!!
The horror of CO2!!
All that horrid clinate change!

What a good idea!! A machine to remove CO2 from the air.

But! Where does the power come from to run these "scrubbers"?

But, nevertheless let's press ahead and make (Oops!! How do we make them without producing more CO2?); anyway. let's make enough of them to remove all that horrid climate changing CO2. Then all will be paradise!

Mmmm! Just one small problem. Eliminate all that horrid CO2, and what happens? All the plants die; No food!! All animals die!! (including humans).

Ah!! That is the solution after all!!!

Remove all Co2.

Kill all the plants, let all the living creatures die also, nothing left breathing!! Nothing left producing CO2!! No more climate change, and the earth is left as a "paradise" with nothing and nobody left to polute it.
And, nobody to enjoy it!
2

,

01/06/2008 03:54:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

,

01/06/2008 03:55:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 01/06/2008 07:48:09
Hmmm. One ton of CO2 removed per day from something the size of a cargo container. At present we are producing about 30 billion tons of CO2 per year. That is c.80 million tons per day. No-one is suggesting that all of that could be removed from the atmosphere by such machines, but if it would take 80 million cargo container sized machines to do so, it gives some indication of the problem. And, as the above report acknowledges, they haven't even begun to work out what to do with the CO2 once it's been removed from the atmosphere.

I'm tempted to say, 'I wouldn't hold your breath' for this technology to work. On the other hand, 'holding your breath' is likely to be just as effective!

It seems to me ludicrous to tackle the problem from this, the most difficult, end. It's a bit like super-insulating the floor of your house to keep warm, when there are holes in the roof and all the windows are broken. Instead you should do the easy, most effective things first. In the case of CO2, that is to reduce the amount we a chucking into the atmosphere first. That is a doddle compared to the difficulty of taking it out once you've put it into the atmosphere.

This technology, I strongly suspect, is a worthless ruse to give the impression that we can continue to emit huge quantities of CO2 in the false belief that it can be removed again. In which case, it is merely the latest twist in the denialist campaign that seeks falsely to claim that we can continue with 'business as usual'. We can't.
5

Unimpressed one,

01/06/2008 09:50:52
£100,000 per machine and millions of them will be needed. Welcome to the backward world of 'Alice in Wonderland' green economics. You can just hear it now if this had been a Scottish project - all the dumb politicians screaming that we were poised to lead the world with this new technology. Fast forward to 2018, the shipyards are busy churning out scrubbers and windmills, the countryside is covered with the same, all arable land covered in biofuel crops and by this time, no one dare see that the emperor has no clothes on. Oh what a tangled web we weave....
6

Unimpressed one,

01/06/2008 09:54:40
"In which case, it is merely the latest twist in the denialist campaign that seeks falsely to claim that we can continue with 'business as usual'. We can't."

And your evidence for such a claim? Wishful thinking in a loony green world. Perhaps you might care to realise that along with the housing bubble, the green bubble is going to burst very soon. The world's public are fed up being spoon fed this tripe by afluent politicians out to get noticed and the environmental bams doing the same. Make hay will the climate changes.
7

ddmc,

01/06/2008 11:37:19
didnt they invent CO2 scrubbers years ago as a result of the space race ?
8

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 01/06/2008 13:39:34
#7 ddmc

These would have been small scale chemical CO2 absorbers to absorb the CO2 breathed by the spacecraft's inhabitants. I would guess they would have used lithium hydroxide as that absorbs more CO2, weight for weight, than any other substance, and weight is important on a spacecraft. But such chemical absorbers aren't any good for large scale absorption of CO2 on Earth (on the ground one would use sodium or potassium hydroxide) since it takes too much energy to get the CO2 back again to enable it to be sequestrated. The problem is the HUGE quantity that would need to be sequestrated - billions of tons per year.

I don't believe this technology will ever be got to work, though I may be wrong. Wally Broecker is backing it and he's a respected scientist and he's certainly no denier, so maybe there is something in it. However, I fear it is just a diversion and will distract from the need to reduce the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere in the first place.
9

Neil,

Glasgow 01/06/2008 14:10:17
If we removed all the CO2 used in producing our electricity it would come to 160 million tons a year. How fortunate it is that, while burying a few cubic metres of radioactive waste, which becomes non-redioactive in a couple of centuries, is an unconscionable risk 160 million tons of CO2 held at high pressure underground & which will NEVER cease to exist, is perfectly safe.

One might almost think the Luddites were making it up about the nuclear waste being a problem.
10

ddmc,

01/06/2008 15:53:08
#8 thanks for the explanation

#9 the half life of uranium 235 is 24 centuries
11

Saoghal Beag,

01/06/2008 17:37:22
Neil, interesting points. But perhaps you could tell me

How many cubic meters of nuclear waste are currenlty under storage inn the UK.
Which hole in hte gournd is htat waste going to be transferred to or will you create a new one?
If you create a new repositry how much material will be excavated?
How much enrgy will be used for that excavation.
How much energy will be used to transport the excavated materials to theri disposal/end use site?
How much energy will be used to vitrify the nuclear waste?
How much energy will be used to transport that waste to the repositry?
What are the ongoing running costs of such a repositry and how much will they cost, how do they compare to the escalating decommisioning costs and new build costs?

Oh and perhaps you could fill us in on how well the progress of the new French reactor currently under construction?

Look forward to your answers.
12

Saoghal Beag,

01/06/2008 17:42:02
Slioch, it does sound like someone has asked an engineer to come up with a solution to a specific question and they ahve done so, missing out the most obvious solution that through efficiency we generate less waste per product unit, just common sense, but somehting the deniers would rather ignore so that they can matryr themsleves on their own altars.
13

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 01/06/2008 18:35:37
You know, I have the feeling that the combined efforts of all these do-good, eco-idiots are actually going to cause more problems than they solve.
14

Karen 931-455-9434,

Tennessee 01/06/2008 18:49:54
We have a machine that "sucks" WATER out of the air and creates the best drinking, ph balanced water I have ever tasted!

Ck it out http://www.H2OfromAir.com

We have a solution to the water crisis and you can be a part of it!

15

Saoghal Beag,

01/06/2008 19:41:18
Karen, i've got one of those things too, it's my dog, just back from a walk and four towels later she is still wet. you can tell it's summer in scotland the rain is warmer!
16

Brad Arnold,

St Louis Park 02/06/2008 07:30:29
Mechanically removing the excess CO2 from the air is way too expensive, and nearly impossible to do on the scale necessary (especially fast enough to avoid ecosystem collapse). Instead, it is necessary to remove the excess CO2 from the air biologically. For instance, geneticist Craig Venter says he is constructing a GMO that turns CO2 into fuel, and it will be ready in less than two years (see my blog at www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod for the link to a Dr Venter interview that is simply amazing). The mechanical revolution is the past-the genomic revolution is the future.
17

Brad Arnold,

St Louis Park 02/06/2008 07:34:37
"Still as ambitious as ever, (Craig Venter) just announced at the TED conference: "We have modest goals of replacing the whole petrochemical industry and becoming a major source of energy, we think we will have fourth-generation fuels in about 18 months, with CO2 as the fuel stock." What’s this fourth-generation fuel he’s talking about? Biofuel alternatives to oil are third-generation.

The next step is life forms that feed on CO2 and give off fuel such as methane gas as waste, according to Venter."

– "Geneticist Craig Venter Wants to Create Fuel from CO2," TreeHugger.com
18

Findlay Thompson,

02/06/2008 14:40:40
Tomi,

Unload the scrubbers at nightime in the South American rainforests. Even Prince Charles will verify the trees will think it's Christmas every day!
19

Findlay Thompson,

02/06/2008 14:49:04
17

Brad

When mankind finalises the construction and deployment of "dilithium crystals" energy production, will advance at least 500 years. At which point we will all say in chorus "what were we worried about"!
20

Allan(handofgod137),

02/06/2008 14:50:04
We already have them, they're called trees!
21

Incandescent with Rage!!!,

02/06/2008 16:54:06
#10

DDMC

Uranium U235 i1/2 life 7.038×10 to the power of 8 years. Approx 704 million years.

Don't argue...I'm a practical physicist
22

truthsleuth,

03/06/2008 20:07:05
#21 Incandescent with Rage!!!,

And I thought Physicists were experts in the relief of constipation.
23

Incandescent with Rage!!!,

04/06/2008 15:49:02
#22

truthsleuth

Which branch?
24

truthsleuth,

08/06/2008 00:59:59
#23 Incandescent with Rage!!!,Which branch would you like it to be.
They all claim massive funding to research with results of doubtful value other than to their egos.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.