UCLA's ZIF Carbon Capture Crystals - A Smoke Stack's Best Friend

[Nathanael]

New research from UCLA has produced a relatively safe and very efficient method capture carbon:



Chemists at UCLA have developed a synthetic gene that captures carbon emissions up to 400% more effectively.

The discovery could lead to cleaner energy, including technology that factories and cars can use to capture carbon dioxide before it reaches the atmosphere.

How it Works:

"We created three-dimensional, synthetic DNA-like crystals," says UCLA chemistry and biochemistry professor Omar M. Yaghi, who is a member of the California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) at UCLA and the UCLA–Department of Energy Institute of Genomics and Proteomics.


Link: http://www.energyboom.com/emerging/uclas-zif-carbon-capture-crystals-smoke-stacks-best-friend

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. See also

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=231576&mesg_id=231576

(Note that this subject, i.e. anything to do with "Carbon Capture," is one of the ones which receives knee-jerk unrec's.)

[Nihil]

2. Explanation

> Note that this subject, i.e. anything to do with "Carbon Capture,"
> is one of the ones which receives knee-jerk unrec's.

As opposed to any pro-nuclear post you mean? :rofl:

I unrec'd this because - as usual for this sort of thing - it is all
"WizzBang New Way To Maintain Business As Usual" with absolutely SFA
about either reducing the CO2 generation or what they will do with
the "captured" CO2 (i.e., other than turn it loose again).

If you believe that vacuous & misleading press releases don't deserve
unrecs, don't click on that link. I do so I will.

:shrug:

[Nathanael]

3. Fair Enough

I understand your point.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. I believe I already pointed out that "pro-nuclear" posts get "knee-jerk" unrecs

I rarely unrec a post, whether I agree with it or not.

The exception is when someone completely misrepresents its contents. (i.e. "There's been no increase in atmospheric CO2" as a subject line for a study that says the complete opposite.)

In this case, I predicted an unrec (as I have on other threads) simply because we apparently have quite active "thought police" on this board.


I don't find this article to be particularly vacuous or misleading. The headline may be, but I'm used to that. It's one of the things that happens in "the echo chamber."

As for the topic of "carbon capture," the IPCC, the EPA, the DoE and several environmental organizations have identified "carbon capture" as a key mitigation technology.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms4.html

No single technology can provide all of the mitigation potential in any sector. The economic mitigation potential, which is generally greater than the market mitigation potential, can only be achieved when adequate policies are in place and barriers removed (Table SPM.5). {4.3}

Table SPM.5 Selected examples of key sectoral mitigation technologies, policies and measures, constraints and opportunities. {Table 4.2}

Key mitigation technologies and practices currently commercially available. Key mitigation technologies and practices projected to be commercialised before 2030 shown in italics.

Improved supply and distribution efficiency; fuel switching from coal to gas; nuclear power; renewable heat and power (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy); combined heat and power; early applications of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) (e.g. storage of removed CO2 from natural gas); CCS for gas, biomass and coal-fired electricity generating facilities; advanced nuclear power; advanced renewable energy, including tidal and wave energy, concentrating solar, and solar photovoltaics...

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/coal-power-in-a-warming-world.html

...

With these standards in mind, the United States should:

• Increase research and development (R&D) for CCS to evaluate the technology’s potential in the fastest way possible. The United States should fund 5 to 10 full-scale, integrated CCS demonstration projects at coal-fired power plants, using different types of generation and capture technologies and different types of sequestration sites. Investing in demonstration projects is warranted given the promise this technology holds and is needed to determine whether wider deployment is appropriate, but it is premature to provide incentives for widespread deployment.
  
  These demonstration projects (and a detailed survey of possible sequestration sites) should be funded initially by a modest fee paid by operators of existing coal plants and later by a small portion of the revenue generated by auctions of pollution allowances under a cap-and-trade program. Support should be focused on CCS demonstration projects that actually reduce emissions from existing coal plants. In addition, the demonstration program should include the development of regulatory protocols for selecting and monitoring sequestration sites. As the technology becomes proven at commercial scale, it should be eligible to compete against other carbon-reducing technologies for funds intended to accelerate deployment.

...

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_sequestration.html

Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

Geologic sequestration (GS) is the process of injecting carbon dioxide (CO2) from a source, such as a coal-fired electric generating power plant, through a well into the deep subsurface. With proper site selection and management, geologic sequestration could play a major role in reducing emissions of CO2.

This page provides information on the EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water’s work to ensure the protection of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).

...

So, whether you're a fan of CCS or not, following developments are a good thing to my way of thinking.

[Nihil]

5. Fair enough ...

... I will probably just dispute the point on future posts rather than
actually unrecommending the posts as I don't want it to become too much
of a habit!
:hi: