Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#21

Post by ajb »

It's worth noting that this lab has a lot of patents: 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

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.

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#22

Post by danbruc »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #11
chiffre01 wrote: post #4

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.

The papers lead author stated that 200g of the material can absorb as much CO2 in a year as a tree.

Optimistically [1] 200 g can capture 250 kg carbon dioxide per year, at the expense of heating the material almost 28,000 times from ambient to 60°C. And that still leaves you with 139 m³ of carbon dioxide gas, what do you do with that?

[1] 2.05 mmol/g at half capacity equals 45 mg/g per cycle, and ignoring heating and cooling times one can fit 27,976.6 cycles into a year. Overall that is 1.262 kg/g/y.

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#23

Post by mapt »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #11
chiffre01 wrote: post #4

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.

The papers lead author stated that 200g of the material can absorb as much CO2 in a year as a tree.

What is that supposed to mean?

According to their calculations, they're getting 1-2mmol/g adsorption. That means 44-88g of CO2 captured per kilogram of adsorbent.

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#24

Post by danans »

mapt wrote: post #23
Workaccount2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The papers lead author stated that 200g of the material can absorb as much CO2 in a year as a tree.

What is that supposed to mean? According to their calculations, they're getting 1-2mmol/g adsorption. That means 44-88g of CO2 captured per kilogram of adsorbent.

My guess is that it means that the material can be reused by capturing/releasing/sequestering multiple times, and that number reflects how much C02 it can capture given how many cycles can be completed in one year.

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#25

Post by danbruc »

mapt wrote: post #19
OutOfHere wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 ch…

There is not nearly enough available space on the surface of Earth to make any dent into the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over any relevant time frame. We burnt through millions of years of sequestrated carbon in a century and some, but we do not have millions of years to do the sequestration again.

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#26

Post by [deleted] »

mapt wrote: post #23
Workaccount2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The papers lead author stated that 200g of the material can absorb as much CO2 in a year as a tree.

What is that supposed to mean? According to their calculations, they're getting 1-2mmol/g adsorption. That means 44-88g of CO2 captured per kilogram of adsorbent.

[deleted]

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#27

Post by lm28469 »

chiffre01 wrote: post #4

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.

> We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change.

lol, all available options as long as we don't actually look at the root cause and just throw more money and tech at it in the hope it automagically stops

hint: infinite growth in a finite system doesn't work

PS: and if you care about results, we've been exploring every solution for quite some time now, you know after all our leaders get together in Paris or other fancy place and talk about clean solutions. Well we've been release more CO2 every year. The only time it dipped was during covid when ... you guessed it ... we had negative growth, aka degrowth. We never had so much sustainable energy production but we also never produced so much co2 and pollution

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#28

Post by lm28469 »

pfdietz wrote: post #12
lez wrote: post #2

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.

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.

> 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.

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#29

Post by pfdietz »

lm28469 wrote: post #28
pfdietz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.

Re: Carbon dioxide capture from open air using covalent organic frameworks

#30

Post by weego »

lm28469 wrote: post #27
chiffre01 wrote: post #4

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.

> We need to pursue all available options simultaneously to effectively combat climate change. lol, all available options as long as we don't actually look at the root cause and just throw more money and tech at it in the hope it automagically stops hint: infinite growth in a finite system doesn't work PS: and if you care about results, we've been exploring every solution for quite some time now, you know after all o…

We can throw about causation arguments till the rivers dry up. Will it get us anywhere? Doing something will always win against doing nothing because we're fighting over who has the most virtuous opinion.
Post reply on HN