MAY 31

We know the hunt for better methods of removing CO2 from the atmosphere has been on for some time now. But a group from Columbia University in the U.S. believes that they have a novel device, which can grab a tonne of carbon dioxide from the air every day in a device that will fit inside a trans-modal shipping container. The technology doesn't come at a knock down price - they estimate a unit will cost £100,000 - but we're sure by the time the Far East has a chance to "rob-n-duplicate" it and engineer out the cost, they could become a useful tool in the fight against climate change.

The group responsible is quick to highlght that there is no such thing as a "magic bullet," but with reports from Mauna Loa that the CO2 concentration in our air has crossed 387ppm (40% higher than before the great industrial revolution, where profligate use of coal turned the wheels of industry), the need for solutions is highlighted.

The team feels they can build a protoype within two years that would successfully capture a ton of CO2 from the air per day - the equivallent of a passenger flying form New York to London. But if a Boeing 747-400 accommodating 524 passengers in a typical two class layout, is flying from New York to London with each passenger responsible for releasing a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere, it would take a whole lot of "magic machines" to off-set the flight. And let's not forget how much CO2 is generated while waiting on the runway.

Moral: Don't stop getting them energy saving lightbulbs...

While it's an exciting development, we at EcoGeek won't be giving up the day-job - climate change is far from solved; however, if this technology can be scaled up, made cheap and stamped out cookie cutter style all over the world, it could be another tool in our armory in the 'War on Climate Change'.... did I sound like G.W.B for a minute there?

...and you can click here for the worldwide patent for the device.

Via The Guardian

Comments (8)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Good step 1
written by Dan Symes, May 31, 2008

Although the idea sounds good, they suggest pumping the CO2 rich air that the device "exhales" into a greenhouse to grow plants. This obviously only sequesters the carbon until the plants are used or decay. This idea will be much better once it can be tied with a real sequestration method.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Arh a common sense derivative price for
written by Mark Bartosik, May 31, 2008

If the machine runs for 10 years, extracts 1 ton per day, thats 3650 tons per 10 years. If the machine costs 100K GBP, or $200K that's $55 per ton. Plus safe storage costs (like converting into polymer), add $10 for the storage - a guess. Plus operating costs, plus cost of investment (interest payments). Say 10% for lifetime servicing cost, about another $60K for interest payments over the 10 years which amounts to about $16 per ton, and we have....
$55 $10 $5.50 $16 == $86.50 per ton.
I would round up to $100 per ton, simply because it is better not to emit in the first place, and there are management risk and profit costs.

current price in Europe is about 38E or $60.

Now working on $100 per ton CO2, my solar inverters claim 1.7LB CO2 saved per KWh, that would amount to a cost of $0.077 per KWh. Which would roughly double the average cost of electricity in USA from coal.

A 8 cent tax per KWh on coal generated power would make many more renewables cost competitive.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by jake3988, June 01, 2008

Why are people convinced that plants don't extract CO2 from the air? Do people not understand basic biology anymore? Regrow all our forests and the problem is solved.

P.S. what does this machine spit out? It doesn't say. It's absolutely impossible for a machine to simply suck in the co2 and then not do anything with it...

• 
• +2
• 
• 

response to jake3988
written by Al Dente, June 01, 2008

No one is saying that plants don't take CO2 from air. But replanting the world's forests, although hugely beneficial, would not solve the global warming problem. That's because the increase is caused by deforestation and more so by burning fossil fuels - i.e. unlocking carbon which has been stored away from ecosystems for millions of years. Regrowing lost forests won't store this unlocked carbon back underground.

As the first commenter notes, the key point is finding a suitable sequestration method.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by EV, June 01, 2008

Mark Bartosik, Why is it that instead of making clean tech cheaper, you want to make everything else more expensive? If you want to get people to switch, make them do so by making the new tech cheaper, not by taxing them to death.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Great New Tech
written by Greg, June 02, 2008

This is great! The folks over at Sapphire Energy should partner with these guys and use the CO2 for their algae.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Hmmm
written by Chris, June 02, 2008

First of all, lets power these puppies with power from non-C02 emitting sources and truly sequester the CO2

Second of all, forest re-growth will eventually lead to dead trees which, while decomposing, emit methane and carbon dioxide - adding to the atmospheric green house gas.

we need to sequester the carbon in a stable form and bury it! send it to the sun!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

algae?
written by frisbee, June 03, 2008

Algae consume CO2 and can be burried somewhere deep afterwords: = CO2 sequestration. I wonder if they wouldn't do the same job ten times as efficient as these new machines.
But ofcourse we should first of all once and for all stop burning those terrible fossil fuels and stop destroying 'our' tropical forests! (starting with investing in trew renewables: wind, solar, geothermal)

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment