Environment

World's fastest carbon capture system claims 99% efficiency in ambient air

World's fastest carbon capture system claims 99% efficiency in ambient air
Researchers have developed a new carbon capture system that they claim is the world's fastest, and has an efficiency of 99 percent
Researchers have developed a new carbon capture system that they claim is the world's fastest, and has an efficiency of 99 percent
View 2 Images
Researchers have developed a new carbon capture system that they claim is the world's fastest, and has an efficiency of 99 percent
1/2
Researchers have developed a new carbon capture system that they claim is the world's fastest, and has an efficiency of 99 percent
A diagram illustrating how the new
2/2
A diagram illustrating how the new direct air capture technology could eventually be put to work

As carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, it won’t be enough to simply curb our emissions – we’ll need to actively remove some of what we’ve already released. In a new advance, researchers from Tokyo Metropolitan University have developed a new compound that can reportedly remove carbon dioxide from ambient air with 99 percent efficiency and at least twice as fast as existing systems.

Direct air capture (DAC) technologies usually remove carbon dioxide by piping air or exhaust through some kind of filter or catalyst, including magnetic sponges, zeolite foam or materials made of clay or coffee grounds. Others bubble the air through a liquid, which can either absorb the CO2 or cause it to separate out into solid crystals or flakes.

The new compound falls into that last category, which are known as liquid-solid phase separation systems. While studying a series of liquid amine compounds, the Tokyo Metro team discovered one, called isophorone diamine (IPDA), was particularly effective at capturing carbon dioxide.

In tests, the team found that IPDA was able to remove more than 99 percent of CO2 from air with a concentration of 400 parts per million (ppm) – about the level currently in the atmosphere. This process also happened much faster than other carbon capture techniques, removing 201 millimoles of CO2 per hour, per mole of the compound. That’s at least twice as fast as other DAC lab systems, and far faster than the leading artificial leaf device.

The pollutant separated out into flakes of a solid carbamic acid material, which could be removed from the liquid relatively easily. If need be, it can be converted back into gaseous CO2 by heating it to 60 °C (140 °F), which also releases the original liquid IPDA ready for reuse. Whether the carbon is kept as a solid or a gas, it can then be stored or reused in industrial or chemical processes.

A diagram illustrating how the new
A diagram illustrating how the new direct air capture technology could eventually be put to work

The new system shows promise but, of course, there’s always the question of scale. Humanity belches about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, and the world’s largest direct air capture plant currently removes about 4,000 tons a year. It feels a little like bailing water out of a sinking ship with a shot glass.

But still, every glass helps, and the more technologies we have at our disposal for this huge job, the better. And there’s reason for optimism too, as the US Department of Energy has recently announced US$3.5 billion in funding for DAC hubs. Hopefully this kind of attention will encourage some of the more out-there experiments, like using high-altitude balloons or big ponds of algae.

The researchers on the new study are now working on improving the system and investigating how the captured carbon could best be used.

The research was published in the journal ACS Environmental Au.

Source: Tokyo Metropolitan University via Eurekalert

20 comments
20 comments
Brian Beban
Alas, every glass does not help when it costs more to capture it than what the producer of the CO2 earns from Gross production. That's why capture still does not stack up and is uneconomic.
WONKY KLERKY
And just how much CO2 is given off in the planning + building the plant + providing electricity for and general running of it including, say for an eg, staff car emissions -
etc etc etc???
Better to reduce emissions and plant a tree/several as well.
+
I hear they do say 'there is this stuff called H2'.
harry van trotsenburg
" when it costs more to capture it" ; and moreover how much energy does the process require? How much CO2 DOES IT PRODUCE?
martinwinlow
@Brian Beban… True and just one reason we should stop wasting time, effort and resources trying to come up with a way for Big Oil, Coal and Gas to continue to destroy our environment whilst cosmically cynically making a fortune.

What we should be concentrating on is renewables and the storage systems to make it work. If we have excess generation from that then, fine; use it to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Otherwise we are just continuing our downward spiral to potential extinction.
Brian M
@WONKY KLERKY

Planting trees is not always the answer, as its not the best carbon capture method, and can actually do harm to the environment - Of course that's not the same as stopping the removal of established forests.

These are still early days for CO2 capture and this might only be a shot glass, but its a step in the right direction, although my money is on bio-technology, algae or similar as a possible solution that can easily scale itself.

FB36
I am pretty sure that if all the forests destroyed since the beginning of industrialization were still in place then we would never even have Global Warming problem!
Why not focus on really practical and risk-free solutions like, restoring forests of Earth, reducing fossil fuel usage, increasing solar/wind/hydro-power (& keep researching better nuclear fission & fusion tech)?
(Which all would have countless side-benefits, besides of saving climate!)
Catweazle
According to Henry's law, every molecule of CO2 extracted will be replaced very rapidly by another one from theocean.
TechGazer
Isn't this just a money-shuffle: allowing the fossil fuel industry to keep making profits while dumping the cost of carbon capture on someone else? If you lower the cost of CC, people will burn more fossil fuel. If you need renewable energy to capture the carbon, are you getting a net energy gain overall, or should you just use the renewable energy directly, without all the extra money-shuffling?
MidwestB
So, 0.201mmol of CO2 per 1mol of isophorone diamine is about 8.85g of CO2 per 170.3g of isophorone diamine per hour. If you could get 500 tons of isophorone diamine, that would be about 25 tons of CO2 scrubbed per hour. If it could be set up with constant refreshing somehow, 24/7/365, it could scrub over 200,000 tons of CO2 per year. Still only a tiny fraction of the 30 billion tons released, but still better than the 4,000 tons scrubbed by the largest plant in the world currently.

Of course, 1,000 tons of the isophorone would double that to over 400,000 tons of CO2 per year, and then we would be at about 0.001% of annual releases. Get to work Tokyo Metropolitan University! We have to start somewhere
Nelson Hyde Chick
FB36, and if our population was less than a billion like it was at the start of the industrial revolution there would be no troubles.
Load More