Branson offering $25M for CO2 removal

[asheets]

Richard Branson is offering $25M for a plan that will extract from the air 1 gigaton of CO2 per year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17063453/?GT1=9033

Seems to me that $24 million will buy a lot of trees, algae, and quicklime.  I'll take a mere $1million as a "finder's fee".  Where can I pick up my check, Mr. Branson?

[electrondady1]

thanks for this post asheets.

now, how many trees in a giga ton?

remember the 24 mill is just the prize money.

i am prepared to split it with you.

for my share i will send photos of trees to the judges.

as well as a diagram showing how the co2 is used by the tree.

we should use my photocopyer, it's color?

lol

[bob golding]

if everyone on this board held there breath for  1 minute  say twice an hour for as long as it takes we could do it then split the prize money and all build a turbine with it. ;-)

[craig110]

Ok, but can I condition it on me not having to be photographed with Gore?  Branson is cool and photos of him handing me the check would be nice.  Gore?  Nah, they can mail the check to me.

[asheets]

When did Gore get so old and fat?

[craig110]

Right after his botched election.  IIRC, he went into seclusion for quite a while and came out, well, somewhat enriched in the gravitational attraction area.

[asheets]

We might not even have to spring for actual trees, mind you.  A seed will turn into a 5-10lb sappeling in 1 years time.  So, figure 1 trillion seeds, assuming a 20% germination rate.

Now, taking a look on Froogle, I see an average tree seed price of 5 per $3.  That's a cool $600 billion dollars -- that's a no-go for us.  So we switch to a cheaper seed -- like, say, corn.  You can get a 200 of those seeds for $1, so that's only $5 billion.

It may be time for a few of us to break out our chemistry sets and try to bio-engineer something that uses up a lot of CO2.  I'm personally thinking of something like an airborne algae (I admit, I got the idea from 2010: Odessey Two and from a Star Trek book, both of which describe proliferate airborne algae).  Of course, my father would say that he's got a gigaton of algae in his swimming pool every spring.

[richhagen]

I have been thinking along the same lines for a while:  we will need to find an industrial process to mine carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and with an input of energy and probably water, produce hydrocarbons.  It can be done now, but it is many, many times too costly to be used to produce an industrial scale volume of hydrocarbons.  

First you have to concentrate the carbon dioxide

Next you have to break it down into either carbon monoxide, or carbon

One can concentrate the carbon dioxide by absorbtion with lime, or a semi-permeable membrane.  For lime, one then would also need to heat it to break down the calcium carbonate and liberate the carbon dioxide.   One could then heat the carbon dioxide under ideal conditions to produce an equilibrium of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and oxygen.  The carbon monoxide would then have to be separated and could be used as a feed stock in a fischer-trophe type of process which is a known and working process with a long history of uses for producing longer chain hydrocarbons such as diesel fuel.  

The costs to process a gigaton of carbon dioxide would be immense.  The energy required would be immense, and to have any impact the energy would have to come from solar and or wind, or I presume nuclear power as these do not put carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.  

The atmosphere is roughly .05% by mass carbon dioxide.  This means that in order obtain a gigaton of carbon dioxide, you have to process 2 trillion tons of air.  With a density of 1.25 Kg/cubic meter at sea level, that is 1.45 times 10 to the 15th cubic meters.  The energy required to move that much air alone through processing equipment over the course of a year would be astounding.  

That being said, if money was no object, it could probably be done with a concerted effort of the industries of the world.  Nothing new would have to be invented, just increasing efficiency, and oh yeah, that power consumption probably near all of the energy generated by using fossil fuels annually now.  At only a megawatt per square kilometer of solar panels, we are talking about a whole lot of desert land.  I think we will see smaller scale subsidized versions at some point, but even that is a little while off.  

Plants engineered to convert more carbon dioxide start to look a bit more attractive at this point.  I think Mr. Branson is aware that his prize will probably not be collected in the near future.    

[electrondady1]

 up here in Canada forestry companies are required to replant an area after harvesting. a few years ago a guy found a new way to speed up the process of reforestation.

he got the seedlings to grow in very pointed conical containers.

he then froze the seedlings and there icicle shaped root systems .

then he dropped the seedlings from a plane ,

it worked !

the frozen trees buried themselves in the ground on impact.

 now, i propose we lease some B52's and carpet bomb the middle east with white pine.

[finnsawyer]

One could use centrifuges to increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air to say 10%.  This should work since the CO2 molecule is heavier than either O2 or N2.  Then add water vapor to change the CO2 to an acid.  Finally let the acid rich air react with some form of calcium to form calcium carbonate, which has shown itself to be stable for geological times.  Or one could just stop producing so much CO2 by using nuclear, wind, tidal, solar, and space based energy generation.  Maybe the $25 million should be used to research that instead.  Of course, it would just be a drop in the bucket.

As a little aside here, I reported on the development of a simple pressure regeneration pump (a pressure feedback loop) for desalination plants.  This has the promise of greatly reducing the cost of desalinating salt water.  There would be nothing to stop oil money rich countries from using the process to provide irrigation water for trees such as olive or date palms.  The trees in turn will create their own water feedback by the water they release into the atmosphere.  Carried out on a large enough scale it could have interesting consequences.  

[jimjjnn]

Public service Co of Arizona has a pilot plant that takes all the CO2 from their smoke stacks and runs it through clear tubes of water that has algae growing in them. The tubes are exposed to sunlight and the algae grows faster as more CO2 is added. When the tubes are full the algae is pumped  out to a pond to finish growing, it dies and then the algae is processed into more fuel for the power plant. Their plans are to expand and make the operation automated.

[finnsawyer]

I had heard about that process.  I don't see how that would solve the problem or meet the goal of removing 1 billion tons of CO2 per year, as coal powered electricity generation is only one source.  How do you get rid of all the CO2 generated by point sources such as cars, trucks, and factories?  Branson wants something that will remove the CO2 already in the air.  The process I outlined from the output of the centrifuges onward is one that supposedly has occurred naturally at least once.

The process that you outline would be useful in making coal fired power plants non CO2 producing in those climes where it would be economical.  By increasing the amount of this type of power they could then take other steps such as electrifying the railroads and using electricity for heating homes.  Maybe a good thing for the long term.  Branson wants a short term solution.

Here's another thing.  How does the process square with the removal of sulfur dioxide?  That creates acid rain, which when it falls will react with limestone to produce carbon dioxide.

[jimjjnn]

The Arizona power plant is a natural gas generator. I just noticed. I think it is just an experiment at this time.

I don't know if it could be adapted to coalburning plants as there are a lot of different kinds of emissions.

[Gordy]

Jim,

Did you happen to see how much CO2 they think they can remove from the stack? If they could get to say 98 - 100% then it should be pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere, when you figure in combustion air intake.

Gordy

[jimjjnn]

I wish I knew where the article was on the net as I can't remember all the details. I believe that the recovery rate on CO2 was in the 90+ % range, just don't recall how much.

[craig110]

IIRC, CO2 comprises .033% of the atmosphere, so that company would have to be eliminating virtually all of the CO2 in their stack to be pulling anything out of the atmosphere.  For example, if their untreated stack output was 10% CO2 (just picking a random number, since I don't know the right amount), the output CO2 would be 300 times more concentrated that the atmosphere at large.  They'd have to remove 299 out of every 300 CO2 molecules to just get back to the atmosphere's concentration.  If their stack's untreated output is higher than 10% CO2, the numbers are even worse.

That is actually the biggest problem in trying to remove CO2 from the atmosphere -- there is so incredibly little of it on a percentage basis.  1/30th of 1% is the equivalent of comparing a 1 mile drive with a 3000 mile trek across the US.

[jimjjnn]

 Pub Serv of Arizona also has pilot programs for Hydrogen refueling stations in Phoenix , AZ.

The Redhawk plant is where the CO2 reclamation pilot program is.

The products from the plant are Ethanol, Biodiesel, and leftovers used for livestock feed.

[electrondady1]

branson's offer of 25 million was mentioned this morning on the c.b.c radio

it was during an interview with Dr. David Suzuki an environmentalist, famous here in Canada.

his opinion was that it was a pointless, feel good p.r. move on the part of the billionaire and that the money would never be collected as there is no technology capable of doing the job.

he suggested a massive world wide restoration of nature as the only way out for us.

i think he's right.

[craig110]

What concerns me about the $25M offer, and the whole discussion arena, in fact, is that the science around the heating isn't as solid as the proponents argue.  Rather than go down a single, expensive, path of lowering the CO2, which could be bad if the CO2 isn't a major reason for any warming, I'd rather see a concerted effort to install retroreflective plates on roofs.  Raising the albedo of the planet where the sunshine would otherwise be converted to heat would lower the temperature and is more fine-tunable years from now than hustling to dump extra billions of tons of CO2 back into the atmosphere if the cooling is over-done.

Yes, it would take a lot of retroreflectors, but the technology is here as it just requires stamping thin aluminum sheets.  Nothing big, no costly breakthroughs to try to fund, no politically sexy solutions, but it would work.

[nothing to lose]

How about this,

Cover the deserts with a massive roofing of solar panels. Use the power provided by the pannels to run grow lights as needed for 24 hour growth.

The shade from the panels might block sun to crops under them so grow lights might be needed a bit in the day also.

Plant all of the cooler now shaded desert lands with massive amounts of crops which will consume the most CO2 possible and be sellable, get some money back to help finance all this.

Now being the solar pannels are mounted in open air as a roof only and very high, they should remain fairly well air cooled. Moisture rising from the desert floor would collect on the bottom of the pannels and drip back down. Sort of like those plastic sheet survival water collectors but much larger, so now the deserts might have some rain once things get rolling. Less irigation needed later perhaps.

Probably allot of extra power would be generated, far more than needed to run grow lights. Run giant compressors as power is available to compress the air gasses to liquid. Drain off the liquid C02 into cheap containers that can hold it, release or sell the other liquid compressed gases. Selling the good usable compressed gasses could  help finance the operation, like selling crops grown.

Now, all this compressed CO2 has to go somewhere, but not back into the air though. Shoot it into the Moon! Some simple blaster device to shoot the canistors into space that can break any tendancy to orbit or fall back to earth. Here's where it gets real good of course. All that CO2 we do not want here will eventaully create a C02 atmosphere on the Moon. Now what to do we do? Grow crops!

 Once the Moon has enough CO2 to support trees, soybeans, corn etc... farm the Moon! Mostly crops like trees to eat CO2 that need only planted, not much looking after.

Of course what happens when plants are grown? Oxygen!

 Soon (about a billion years) the Moon will have Oxygen to support human life, cows, chickens, etc...

 Cut the trees we planted there and build houses, farm the lands, raise animals, etc...

And who says they aren't making any new land?

Ok, a total solution and even added benifits plus chance for tremendous profits in future Moon Condo sales.

 Where do I pick up the check?

And I will be happy to be the first person on the Moon to plant the first tree! And of course raise the first wind genny

Ok, I know this idea will be shot down if anyone reads it. Like maybe no wind on the Moon, but there should be when we get a C02/Oxygen atmosphere up there. Maybe unfertile dirt? Hey blast some rotting organic materials up there too, also removes/prevents more CO2 here.

If all the money and resources waisted on wars were put into a plan like this, well... it would be far better than the wars are rather it worked or not!

[fungus]

"If all the money and resources waisted on wars were put into a plan like this, well... it would be far better than the wars are rather it worked or not!"

I actually read somewhere that if all the money spent on the Iraq war(billions of dollars) was spent on solar panels that the US would actually get -more- power out than they'd get from Iraq's oil reserves...

Makes ya think doesnt it

[finnsawyer]

Well, I kind of hinted at creating forests in such places as Saudi Arabia by using desalination.  Supposedly the cost will drop drastically because of the development of a simple pump that uses the output pressure of the waste water to boast the pressure of the incoming water.  The Saudis already use desalination for some agricultural activities.  Well, sea water contains calcium ions.  Maybe these could be captured and combined with CO2 to form lime to be spread on the fields.  Tell Branson that I'm waiting for my share of the $25 mill.  I think I've pointed the way.

[nothing to lose]

I don't know if that would be true or not, maybe, but add Iraq is not the only war either. Conflict, war, whatever and the USA is not the only country wasting the money and resources on such things.

[asheets]

It'd me more cost/energy effective to convert CO2 to a solid at standard pressure instead of a liquid at higher pressure.  Then you could chuck the frozen mass to escape velocity using a mass launcher of some sort (Elbonian Slingshot?)

Or, you could hollow BuckyTube from ground level to 36000km, and sublimate the frozen CO2 into the tube.