A Cheap New Way To Clean The Air

George Olah. Photo: Bitman (CC)

George Olah. Photo: Bitman (CC)

Via ScienceDaily:

Scientists are reporting discovery of an improved way to remove carbon dioxide — the major greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming — from smokestacks and other sources, including the atmosphere. Their report on the process, which achieves some of the highest carbon dioxide removal capacity ever reported for real-world conditions where the air contains moisture, appears in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Alain Goeppert, G. K. Surya Prakash, chemistry Nobel Laureate George A. Olah and colleagues explain that controlling emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the biggest challenges facing humanity in the 21st century. They point out that existing methods for removing carbon dioxide from smokestacks and other sources, including the atmosphere, are energy intensive, don’t work well and have other drawbacks.

In an effort to overcome such obstacles, the group turned to solid materials based on polyethylenimine, a readily available and inexpensive polymeric material.

Their tests showed that these inexpensive materials achieved some of the highest carbon dioxide removal rates ever reported for humid air, under conditions that stymie other related materials…

[continues at ScienceDaily]

40 Comments on "A Cheap New Way To Clean The Air"

  1. Xenobia_mia | Jan 8, 2012 at 4:52 pm |

    Just plant more trees?? No?? The easiest, cheapest and most nature friendly

  2. Xenobia_mia | Jan 8, 2012 at 12:52 pm |

    Just plant more trees?? No?? The easiest, cheapest and most nature friendly

    • Anti_Secret_Squirrel | Jan 8, 2012 at 1:03 pm |

      Yep sure is and makes everything more beautiful!

    • trees are to slow… they may make a very good use of the co2 in our air but the abundance of it isnt being depleted fast enough……what we need is a way to prevent it from getting into our atmosphere from man made methods so that things dont get worse and then the trees will be able to slowly reverse the effect (mind you there are many other plants that would work just as well as trees)

      • DeepCough | Jan 9, 2012 at 12:09 am |

        “GROW. MORE. POT.” ~Jello Biafra

        Seriously, these kinds of “trees” will do the job.

  3. Anti_Secret_Squirrel | Jan 8, 2012 at 5:03 pm |

    Yep sure is and makes everything more beautiful!

  4. truth hurts | Jan 8, 2012 at 5:46 pm |

    carbon dioxide DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING because global warming is a fraud… understand that Darwin convinced you you’re an animal, and now modern “science” has convinced you you’re pollution… cause you’re made of carbon. oh well… let the deceived be deceived, and let the dead bury their dead…

  5. truth hurts | Jan 8, 2012 at 1:46 pm |

    carbon dioxide DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING because global warming is a fraud… understand that Darwin convinced you you’re an animal, and now modern “science” has convinced you you’re pollution… cause you’re made of carbon. oh well… let the deceived be deceived, and let the dead bury their dead…

    • Nice converse error.

    • Calypso_1 | Jan 8, 2012 at 3:44 pm |

      Actually, ayahuasca convinced me that I was an animal when I transformed from a drum beat into a dancing puma, into a pod of dolphins into a peal of laughter into my own decaying pile of bones into the vibrating earth into the drum beat then back into my own bloody hands reaching into an eternal cycle of wombs crowning heads of ever-evolving entities speaking in tongues of orgasmic flames. 

    • How exactly is global warming a fraud? Do you actually believe that the amount of shit we pump into the air, land and sea doesn’t have a negative effect on the planet?

    • Coming from a guy who mostly believes that a magical sky-daddy (by the name of Yahweh  created us; an if you pray really hard, you can telepathically communicate with this “Creator” of the WHOLE VAST Universe.
      Please give it up, child… Evolution is a fact. It’s not even talked about in the scientific community anymore. 99.85 % of ALL Scientist believe in biological evolution, why do you think there is some kind of conspiracy? Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one’s eyes shut and wailing “Does not!” 

    • Evolution is Furr REEEEEL boi | Jan 9, 2012 at 2:13 am |

       Strangely enough if you’ve read “On the Origin of Species” you will not find any reference that states that man descended from monkeys.It seems that the “theory” of evolution has “evolved” into something different from the original concept as advanced by Darwin.

  6. Nice converse error.

  7. Anonymous | Jan 8, 2012 at 7:44 pm |

    Actually, ayahuasca convinced me that I was an animal when I transformed from a drum beat into a dancing puma, into a pod of dolphins into a peal of laughter into my own decaying pile of bones into the vibrating earth into the drum beat then back into my own bloody hands reaching into an eternal cycle of wombs crowning heads of ever-evolving entities speaking in tongues of orgasmic flames. 

  8. Seeker25801 | Jan 8, 2012 at 10:09 pm |

    Sorry. Carbon dioxide is not a major green house gas. That’s a lie.

  9. Seeker25801 | Jan 8, 2012 at 6:09 pm |

    Sorry. Carbon dioxide is not a major green house gas. That’s a lie.

  10. trees are to slow… they may make a very good use of the co2 in our air but the abundance of it isnt being depleted fast enough……what we need is a way to prevent it from getting into our atmosphere from man made methods so that things dont get worse and then the trees will be able to slowly reverse the effect (mind you there are many other plants that would work just as well as trees)

  11. Anonymous | Jan 8, 2012 at 10:33 pm |

    Wow that must have been some trip!

  12. Anonymous | Jan 8, 2012 at 10:38 pm |

    How exactly is global warming a fraud? Do you actually believe that the amount of shit we pump into the air, land and sea doesn’t have a negative effect on the planet?

  13. Markhov Cheney 223 | Jan 9, 2012 at 12:11 am |

    And…  not one mention of methane, right?  Right.

  14. Markhov Cheney 223 | Jan 8, 2012 at 8:11 pm |

    And…  not one mention of methane, right?  Right.

  15. it seems more likely that
    a worldwide Monopoly Money collapse
    coupled with mass deaths due to weather and asphyxiation
    will be the ultimate solution to global warming
    but hey
    till that day
    we’ve got fast cars, iPhones and WalMart
    so it will be a fun ride to the end

  16. BuzzCoastin | Jan 8, 2012 at 9:39 pm |

    it seems more likely that
    a worldwide Monopoly Money collapse
    coupled with mass deaths due to weather and asphyxiation
    will be the ultimate solution to global warming
    but hey
    till that day
    we’ve got fast cars, iPhones and WalMart
    so it will be a fun ride to the end

  17. A gas, CO2,  which comprises only 0.03% of the atmosphere is hardly a main greenhouse gas much less a driver of global warming. Why don’t they come up with a device that cleans the real pollutants out of the air?

  18. A gas, CO2,  which comprises only 0.03% of the atmosphere is hardly a main greenhouse gas much less a driver of global warming. Why don’t they come up with a device that cleans the real pollutants out of the air?

    • Calypso_1 | Jan 9, 2012 at 2:49 am |

      Why don’t you include some other numbers like thermal emission effects and atmospheric lifetime.  Given your astute analysis of state of the art cold fusion technology I would expect a more thorough perspective.

  19. Coming from a guy who mostly believes that a magical sky-daddy (by the name of Yahweh  created us; an if you pray really hard, you can telepathically communicate with this “Creator” of the WHOLE VAST Universe.
    Please give it up, child… Evolution is a fact. It’s not even talked about in the scientific community anymore. 99.85 % of ALL Scientist believe in biological evolution, why do you think there is some kind of conspiracy? Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one’s eyes shut and wailing “Does not!” 

  20. DeepCough | Jan 9, 2012 at 4:09 am |

    “GROW. MORE. POT.” ~Jello Biafra

    Seriously, these kinds of “trees” will do the job.

  21. Evolution is Furr REEEEEL boi | Jan 9, 2012 at 6:13 am |

     Strangely enough if you’ve read “On the Origin of Species” you will not find any reference that states that man descended from monkeys.It seems that the “theory” of evolution has “evolved” into something different from the original concept as advanced by Darwin.

  22. Anonymous | Jan 9, 2012 at 6:49 am |

    Why don’t you include some other numbers like thermal emission effects and atmospheric lifetime.  Given your astute analysis of state of the art cold fusion technology I would expect a more thorough perspective.

  23. 65% of human body is oxygen (O2), 18% is carbon (C)
    When you breathe out, you release CO2.

    So when you say you support taxing carbon, you are supporting a tax on breathing.
    A child will understand that, but most grownups do not.

    The game is rigged.

  24. 65% of human body is oxygen (O2), 18% is carbon (C)
    When you breathe out, you release CO2.

    So when you say you support taxing carbon, you are supporting a tax on breathing.
    A child will understand that, but most grownups do not.

    The game is rigged.

  25. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ <—-Data on Co2 and it's trending increase year over year. Decide for yourself what it means. CO2 currently makes up less than 1% of our Atmospheric composition.
     A person, if they so desired, could set up an experiment on a small scale, within a closed environment, and see what effect difference in heat retention is, when the value of CO2 is changed within the defined parameters for the experiment, adjusting for scale of course, but it is something that definitely can be tested.

    The second question I have, since i didn't bother to look at the Data that closely is if the overall percentage of CO2 is being increased in the atmospheric composition, which gas(es) are being replaced, or reduced?

  26. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ <—-Data on Co2 and it's trending increase year over year. Decide for yourself what it means. CO2 currently makes up less than 1% of our Atmospheric composition.
     A person, if they so desired, could set up an experiment on a small scale, within a closed environment, and see what effect difference in heat retention is, when the value of CO2 is changed within the defined parameters for the experiment, adjusting for scale of course, but it is something that definitely can be tested.

    The second question I have, since i didn't bother to look at the Data that closely is if the overall percentage of CO2 is being increased in the atmospheric composition, which gas(es) are being replaced, or reduced?

  27. Doesn’t change much…you can make the worlds most amazing doodad and even make it dirt cheap…it could be a dime a unit and incidentally cure cancer as a side effect…but the only way you will ever see any company lose even a nickel off the bottom line…is if you have them in a headlock and their face is perilously close to a buzzsaw. Then…and only then…when the alternative to saying no is so much worse that they dare not choose otherwise…then you will see them make real lasting changes to the way they do business and deal with the environment. Until we have the will to go back to doing what actually worked…what actually made a couple of decades a record setter for damage reversal…which is using extreme penalties, rock hard regulations and constant inspection by outside parties…nothing will ever change..except for the worse.

  28. Doesn’t change much…you can make the worlds most amazing doodad and even make it dirt cheap…it could be a dime a unit and incidentally cure cancer as a side effect…but the only way you will ever see any company lose even a nickel off the bottom line…is if you have them in a headlock and their face is perilously close to a buzzsaw. Then…and only then…when the alternative to saying no is so much worse that they dare not choose otherwise…then you will see them make real lasting changes to the way they do business and deal with the environment. Until we have the will to go back to doing what actually worked…what actually made a couple of decades a record setter for damage reversal…which is using extreme penalties, rock hard regulations and constant inspection by outside parties…nothing will ever change..except for the worse. Who gives a shit about CO2? Our time would be better spent on mercury, lead and other pollutants that thousands of times more serious…and no longer face the scrutiny they once did thanks to the great diversion of ‘global warming’. We could work on all of the problems from a position of strength…if we weren’t handcuffed to the idea that ‘first’ we need to argue about CO2.

  29. Unsurprisingly, a false (or at least misleading) statement made it into the 1st paragraph of this article: “Scientists are reporting discovery of an improved way to remove carbon
    dioxide — the major greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming —
    from smokestacks and other sources, including the atmosphere”.  When they say “the major greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming”, you’d think they mean that CO2 has the biggest effect on earth’s surface temperature of any greenhouse gas, right?  But you’d be wrong, because water vapor is far and away the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect (36 – 72 %), dwarfing the effect of CO2 by comparison (9 – 26 %).  Governments have no interest in controlling H2O vapor output, even though its a bigger problem, because productive economic activities like fueling machinery and owning livestock don’t contribute to H2O vapor output.  Instead, we’re told to focus on CO2, and that if we don’t let governments control its output, the world will end.  Coincidentally, this means they get to decide who breeds, what countries expand, who trades, etc.

  30. warwitheastasia | Jan 12, 2012 at 8:51 am |

    Unsurprisingly, a false (or at least misleading) statement made it into the 1st paragraph of this article: “Scientists are reporting discovery of an improved way to remove carbon
    dioxide — the major greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming —
    from smokestacks and other sources, including the atmosphere”.  When they say “the major greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming”, you’d think they mean that CO2 has the biggest effect on earth’s surface temperature of any greenhouse gas, right?  But you’d be wrong, because water vapor is far and away the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect (36 – 72 %), dwarfing the effect of CO2 by comparison (9 – 26 %).  Governments have no interest in controlling H2O vapor output, even though its a bigger problem, because productive economic activities like fueling machinery and owning livestock don’t contribute to H2O vapor output.  Instead, we’re told to focus on CO2, and that if we don’t let governments control its output, the world will end.  Coincidentally, this means they get to decide who breeds, what countries expand, who trades, etc.

Comments are closed.