7 ms·

Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

lez 2y ago
I think such an appliance had already been invented. They are called "trees". All they need to do their work is corporations leaving them alone.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Old trees don’t capture much CO2. It’s only young, growing trees that have a meaningful impact. Need a lot more than fewer corps
  - acc_297 2y ago
    And any operation of planting and cutting to drawdown CO2 must bury or properly process the biomass to actually put co2 somewhere Else it is an open cycle where co2 in == co2 out
    - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
      Great thing about wood is you can build almost-permanent structures with it? And the remaining biomass (leaves, bark, etc.) is fine to compost and re-enter the carbon cycle. Also it's clearly not an open cycle, not in temperate climates. The accumulation of carbon in top soils etc. is one of the things that kept CO2 in balance for millions of years prior to us pulling it out of the ground. Peat bogs being another key one. Yes, it can't keep up with us. But it's not an open cycle. (It is in the tropics, though)
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        You can build permanent structures from wood, but consider the sheer volume of wood that would be needed to counter current CO2 increase.
      - jncfhnb 2y ago
        Best thing we can do is stop pulling it out of the ground. Best way we can do that is to build out renewables. Best way to do that is to create a profit incentive for an oversupply of power that sucks up carbon.
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    It's crazy how fast poplars grow in temperate climates. And absorb excess nutrients and contaminants. Would love to see huge fields of them grown, then harvested, and the product turned to lumber and other longer-term carbon storage. Even composted or biocharred and the carbon amended into top soils (yes it won't stay there forever, but...) Assuming the process can be done without emitting more CO2 than is captured.
  - edhelas 2y ago
    2/3 of the CO2 is stored in the soil, cutting "old trees" is the best way to release all that CO2.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are. It's the same reason biofuels cannot be a general replacement for fossil fuels. Growing trees is nice for other reasons, of course, and some limited CO2 capture would come along for the ride. This would not eliminate the desirability of other kinds of CO2 capture.
  - lm28469 2y ago
    > Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are. If you do the math the only sensible solution is hardcore degrowth starting yesterday.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      I disagree completely, although degrowth may end up happening eventually due to low birth rates. If rapid degrowth could be enforced, so could switching to sustainable technologies, which do exist and could be employed. The level of degrowth needed to avoid warming from fossil fuel use would be extreme, if it's the only knob turned. Even a 90% reduction in the rate of fossil fuel extraction and use would not avoid eventual massive global warming. Degrowth would simply delay that outcome.
      - lm28469 2y ago
        > Degrowth would simply delay that outcome. And growth accelerates it... Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner. > would not avoid eventual massive global warming Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways Meanwhile 70% of the wildlife disappeared since 1970, 50% of insects, and we're debating about some shitty tech that would sequester 0.1% of the co2 we emit each day. CO2 isn't even our biggest problem, rain water isn't even safe to drink anywhere on the planet anymore, PFAS, microplastics, chemicals in rivers/lake/aquifers People who think co2 capture and that replacing 1.4b of ICE by 1.4B of 3000kg EVs are the future are delusional or straight up cognitively impaired
- travisporter 2y ago
  Albedo & moisture
chiffre01 2y ago
Before anyone points out that trees already handle this, let me clarify: We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change. This includes: Reducing reliance on carbon-based energy to lower emissions. Implementing carbon capture and long-term storage solutions to remove excess CO₂ from the atmosphere.
- acc_297 2y ago
  + it can be worked out based on photosynthesis efficiency and available surface area that we would need ~4 earths of trees to handle current human CO2 production rate Planting trees is nice and should be done but isn’t a solution for drawdown
- the-chitmonger 2y ago
  Fully agree. In my college ecology course, my professor stressed that sequestration/capture, while not ideal, will likely be crucial as our production of greenhouse gases outpaces the rate of absorption by plant biomass and ocean algae.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    Sequestration underground doesn't really work. It is based on lies. It will just bubble back up when the Earth's plates move. For capture to work, it has to be reacted with a stable absorber, so it cannot bubble back up into the atmosphere.
    - mapt 2y ago
      This. We have a worked example for geologically stable carbon sequestration without any novel chemical bonding, and that's storing carbon in compounds that are mostly unhydrogenated carbon by mass, deep underground: Charcoal. If you aim to sequester carbon without some kind of reactant (and most reactants are incredibly energy intensive to make & stage, burning more CO2 than captured), you have to effectively make charcoal. Growing a forest, pyrolyzing it, and burying the charcoal, is the inverse process of coal mining, and is the default comparator on cost, effort, and materials for any sort of carbon sequestration scheme.
Workaccount2 2y ago
News article from Berkley, where it was developed. https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/10/23/capturing-carbon-from-the-air-just-got-easier/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/10/23/capturing-carbon-from-t...
danbruc 2y ago
To counteract the current carbon dioxide emissions, we only have to heat up 30 million metric tons of that stuff from ambient to 60°C every 18.8 minutes. And then figure out what to do with the 1.35 million metric tons carbon dioxide gas cloud we produce every 18.8 minutes.
vonnik 2y ago
See also: metal organic frameworks. Cheaper to produce and faster at adsorbing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal%E2%80%93organic_framework https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal%E2%80%93organic_framew...
ajb 2y ago
It's worth noting that this lab has a lot of patents: https://yaghi.berkeley.edu/publications.html#patent https://yaghi.berkeley.edu/publications.html#patent It's not clear that this particular chemical is subject to a patent application, but they have applied for a patent on the entire class of chemicals: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220370981A1 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220370981A1 I'm conflicted about this. while I'm skeptical about most patents this is exactly the kind of invention that patents are supposed to incentivise, and this guy obviously deserves a reward if his invention, like, literally saves the world. But - reading between the lines, while it's effective, it sounds like it's not yet cost effective. And making something cost effective is exactly the kind of thing that patents that restrict development to a single lab (which is what a class patent will do) will cause problems with. Probably the best answer would be for someone rich to buy him out and licence it for free.
gnabgib 2y ago
Related: Half a pound of this powder can remove as much CO2 from the air as a tree (21 points, 40 days ago, 45 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41927684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41927684

lez 2y ago

I think such an appliance had already been invented. They are called "trees". All they need to do their work is corporations leaving them alone.

jncfhnb 2y ago
Old trees don’t capture much CO2. It’s only young, growing trees that have a meaningful impact. Need a lot more than fewer corps
- acc_297 2y ago
  And any operation of planting and cutting to drawdown CO2 must bury or properly process the biomass to actually put co2 somewhere Else it is an open cycle where co2 in == co2 out
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    Great thing about wood is you can build almost-permanent structures with it? And the remaining biomass (leaves, bark, etc.) is fine to compost and re-enter the carbon cycle. Also it's clearly not an open cycle, not in temperate climates. The accumulation of carbon in top soils etc. is one of the things that kept CO2 in balance for millions of years prior to us pulling it out of the ground. Peat bogs being another key one. Yes, it can't keep up with us. But it's not an open cycle. (It is in the tropics, though)
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      You can build permanent structures from wood, but consider the sheer volume of wood that would be needed to counter current CO2 increase.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      Best thing we can do is stop pulling it out of the ground. Best way we can do that is to build out renewables. Best way to do that is to create a profit incentive for an oversupply of power that sucks up carbon.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  It's crazy how fast poplars grow in temperate climates. And absorb excess nutrients and contaminants. Would love to see huge fields of them grown, then harvested, and the product turned to lumber and other longer-term carbon storage. Even composted or biocharred and the carbon amended into top soils (yes it won't stay there forever, but...) Assuming the process can be done without emitting more CO2 than is captured.
- edhelas 2y ago
  2/3 of the CO2 is stored in the soil, cutting "old trees" is the best way to release all that CO2.
pfdietz 2y ago
Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are. It's the same reason biofuels cannot be a general replacement for fossil fuels. Growing trees is nice for other reasons, of course, and some limited CO2 capture would come along for the ride. This would not eliminate the desirability of other kinds of CO2 capture.
- lm28469 2y ago
  > Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are. If you do the math the only sensible solution is hardcore degrowth starting yesterday.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    I disagree completely, although degrowth may end up happening eventually due to low birth rates. If rapid degrowth could be enforced, so could switching to sustainable technologies, which do exist and could be employed. The level of degrowth needed to avoid warming from fossil fuel use would be extreme, if it's the only knob turned. Even a 90% reduction in the rate of fossil fuel extraction and use would not avoid eventual massive global warming. Degrowth would simply delay that outcome.
    - lm28469 2y ago
      > Degrowth would simply delay that outcome. And growth accelerates it... Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner. > would not avoid eventual massive global warming Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways Meanwhile 70% of the wildlife disappeared since 1970, 50% of insects, and we're debating about some shitty tech that would sequester 0.1% of the co2 we emit each day. CO2 isn't even our biggest problem, rain water isn't even safe to drink anywhere on the planet anymore, PFAS, microplastics, chemicals in rivers/lake/aquifers People who think co2 capture and that replacing 1.4b of ICE by 1.4B of 3000kg EVs are the future are delusional or straight up cognitively impaired
travisporter 2y ago
Albedo & moisture

chiffre01 2y ago

Before anyone points out that trees already handle this, let me clarify: We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change. This includes: Reducing reliance on carbon-based energy to lower emissions. Implementing carbon capture and long-term storage solutions to remove excess CO₂ from the atmosphere.

acc_297 2y ago
+ it can be worked out based on photosynthesis efficiency and available surface area that we would need ~4 earths of trees to handle current human CO2 production rate Planting trees is nice and should be done but isn’t a solution for drawdown
the-chitmonger 2y ago
Fully agree. In my college ecology course, my professor stressed that sequestration/capture, while not ideal, will likely be crucial as our production of greenhouse gases outpaces the rate of absorption by plant biomass and ocean algae.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  Sequestration underground doesn't really work. It is based on lies. It will just bubble back up when the Earth's plates move. For capture to work, it has to be reacted with a stable absorber, so it cannot bubble back up into the atmosphere.
  - mapt 2y ago
    This. We have a worked example for geologically stable carbon sequestration without any novel chemical bonding, and that's storing carbon in compounds that are mostly unhydrogenated carbon by mass, deep underground: Charcoal. If you aim to sequester carbon without some kind of reactant (and most reactants are incredibly energy intensive to make & stage, burning more CO2 than captured), you have to effectively make charcoal. Growing a forest, pyrolyzing it, and burying the charcoal, is the inverse process of coal mining, and is the default comparator on cost, effort, and materials for any sort of carbon sequestration scheme.

Workaccount2 2y ago

News article from Berkley, where it was developed. https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/10/23/capturing-carbon-from-the-air-just-got-easier/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/10/23/capturing-carbon-from-t...

danbruc 2y ago

To counteract the current carbon dioxide emissions, we only have to heat up 30 million metric tons of that stuff from ambient to 60°C every 18.8 minutes. And then figure out what to do with the 1.35 million metric tons carbon dioxide gas cloud we produce every 18.8 minutes.

vonnik 2y ago

See also: metal organic frameworks. Cheaper to produce and faster at adsorbing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal%E2%80%93organic_framework https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal%E2%80%93organic_framew...

ajb 2y ago

It's worth noting that this lab has a lot of patents: https://yaghi.berkeley.edu/publications.html#patent https://yaghi.berkeley.edu/publications.html#patent It's not clear that this particular chemical is subject to a patent application, but they have applied for a patent on the entire class of chemicals: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220370981A1 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220370981A1 I'm conflicted about this. while I'm skeptical about most patents this is exactly the kind of invention that patents are supposed to incentivise, and this guy obviously deserves a reward if his invention, like, literally saves the world. But - reading between the lines, while it's effective, it sounds like it's not yet cost effective. And making something cost effective is exactly the kind of thing that patents that restrict development to a single lab (which is what a class patent will do) will cause problems with. Probably the best answer would be for someone rich to buy him out and licence it for free.

gnabgib 2y ago

Related: Half a pound of this powder can remove as much CO2 from the air as a tree (21 points, 40 days ago, 45 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41927684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41927684