[CDR] CCS: New self-forming membrane to protect our environment #CDR


Ron Larson
 

List:  cc Renaud

This paper describes a new way to concentrate CO2 that seems possibly appropriate for some who are thinking large-scale production of biochar.

Ron


Begin forwarded message:

From: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [CDR] CCS: New self-forming membrane to protect our environment
Date: May 4, 2020 at 2:22:25 PM MDT
To: Greg Rau <ghrau@...>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval@...>
Cc: Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.derichter@...>

Greg and list,  cc Renaud

I respond to your below question re “CDR apps?” (hopefully in addition to Renaud) as his initial message was to you and he probably felt sufficient in the initial submission.   I have skimmed the “new self-forming membrane” paper (non-fee) and find it possibly (NOT certainly) important to those members of this list with an interest in capturing CO2 AND whose CO2 is available at high temperature.  That is BECCS and biochar,  almost certainly NOT DAC.  So I will be passing this paper’s information on to the charcoal-making community.  

In addition to Renaud’s cite, the main paper (non-fee) is at:

For many groups, the need for temperatures like the 650 oC reported here would be a problem.  The combustion of pyrolysis gases obtained “for free with biochar production” 
provides that easily.  Same for BECCS.

The main reason for biochar interest in this means of capturing CO2 is projected low cost.  This sentence  (emphasis added) is one of the last in their Conclusion:  
"We reported the highest flux of any metal–carbonate, dual-phase membrane to date (1.25 ml min−1 cm−2 at 650 °C), and ultrahigh permeabilities (10−11 mol m−1 s−1 Pa−1), outperforming the permeability requirement for economically-competitive CO2 capture (10−13–10−12 mol m−1 s−1 Pa−1).49,50 
Apparently beating the price by one-to-two orders of magnitude!!
 
Ron

On May 2, 2020, at 10:43 AM, Greg Rau <ghrau@...> wrote:

Via Renaud de Richter:


Importantly, the performance of the membrane was shown through permeation measurements to be at the level required to be competitive with existing carbon capture processes. The permeability of the membrane was one order of magnitude higher than that required, and the flux of CO2 was the highest reported for this class of membrane.

Dr. Mutch added: "These savings are important—the cost of carbon capture is one of the key factors limiting uptake of the technology. There is a common metric for membrane performance—the "upper bound". As our membrane relies on a unique transport mechanism, we avoid the limitations of most membrane materials and go far beyond the upper bound!”

GR - CDR apps?


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscribe@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/7056AB29-3DDD-4700-AEA2-8B2CDE904E0E%40sbcglobal.net.



Kim Chaffee
 

Hi Ron,

Thanks.  This sounds interesting.  I can see how having a cost-effective way to concentrate CO2 could help BECCS, but how would it help biochar?  Are you talking about burying the CO2 in the exhaust generated during pyrolysis deep underground?   Thanks.

Kim



On May 4, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

List:  cc Renaud

This paper describes a new way to concentrate CO2 that seems possibly appropriate for some who are thinking large-scale production of biochar.

Ron


Begin forwarded message:

From: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [CDR] CCS: New self-forming membrane to protect our environment
Date: May 4, 2020 at 2:22:25 PM MDT
To: Greg Rau <ghrau@...>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval@...>
Cc: Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.derichter@...>

Greg and list,  cc Renaud

I respond to your below question re “CDR apps?” (hopefully in addition to Renaud) as his initial message was to you and he probably felt sufficient in the initial submission.   I have skimmed the “new self-forming membrane” paper (non-fee) and find it possibly (NOT certainly) important to those members of this list with an interest in capturing CO2 AND whose CO2 is available at high temperature.  That is BECCS and biochar,  almost certainly NOT DAC.  So I will be passing this paper’s information on to the charcoal-making community.  

In addition to Renaud’s cite, the main paper (non-fee) is at:

For many groups, the need for temperatures like the 650 oC reported here would be a problem.  The combustion of pyrolysis gases obtained “for free with biochar production” 
provides that easily.  Same for BECCS.

The main reason for biochar interest in this means of capturing CO2 is projected low cost.  This sentence  (emphasis added) is one of the last in their Conclusion:  
"We reported the highest flux of any metal–carbonate, dual-phase membrane to date (1.25 ml min−1 cm−2 at 650 °C), and ultrahigh permeabilities (10−11 mol m−1 s−1 Pa−1), outperforming the permeability requirement for economically-competitive CO2 capture (10−13–10−12 mol m−1 s−1 Pa−1).49,50 
Apparently beating the price by one-to-two orders of magnitude!!
 
Ron

On May 2, 2020, at 10:43 AM, Greg Rau <ghrau@...> wrote:

Via Renaud de Richter:


Importantly, the performance of the membrane was shown through permeation measurements to be at the level required to be competitive with existing carbon capture processes. The permeability of the membrane was one order of magnitude higher than that required, and the flux of CO2 was the highest reported for this class of membrane.

Dr. Mutch added: "These savings are important—the cost of carbon capture is one of the key factors limiting uptake of the technology. There is a common metric for membrane performance—the "upper bound". As our membrane relies on a unique transport mechanism, we avoid the limitations of most membrane materials and go far beyond the upper bound!”

GR - CDR apps?


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscribe@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/7056AB29-3DDD-4700-AEA2-8B2CDE904E0E%40sbcglobal.net.




Ron Larson
 

Kim and List cc Renaud

See inserts below:

On May 4, 2020, at 9:02 PM, Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:

Hi Ron,

Thanks.  This sounds interesting.  I can see how having a cost-effective way to concentrate CO2 could help BECCS, but how would it help biochar?
[RWL:  Biochar is in direct competition with BECCS - generally seen (I think incorrectly) as being better than biochar because more carbon is sequestered (which ignores all the out-year carbon sequestration if biochar is providing more NPP (productivity) and additional added soil carbon in rootmass, fungi, microbes, etc.
It has always been true that the spent pyrolysis gases naturally occurring in all biochar production could be captured and stored underground in exactly the same manner as BECCS.  There need never have been any difference in first-year sequestered carbon (and biochar would win out with late additional sequestered carbon and NPP).  It is just that the biochar community has never emphasized that deep underground storage topic.  Our fault.
So this article gives us a chance to correct this misconception on who can do more.
But I am not suggesting that we switch over to promoting CCS.  Way too many problems going in the direction.
More interesting is to see the way the DAC community is handling the usage of captured CO2.  Their prime market target has been use in green houses;  biochar can do that much more economically.  The DAC folk also see future gas and liquid (carbon neutral - not carbon negative) fuels being possible through converting their captured (starting very dilute at 450 ppm) CO2 with hydrogen from low cost renewables to form synthetic fuels.  If that makes economic sense for DAC, it is much more so with CO2 that can be captured during any of a dozen different char-making processes.
This last is the main reason I can see value in this paper that Renaud has identified.  They are saying that they have a new high-temperature means of doing much better than is needed for cost-effectively producing such fuels. 

 Are you talking about burying the CO2 in the exhaust generated during pyrolysis deep underground?   Thanks.
[RWL:   Only a little bit.   If CCS ever makes sense for any CDR approach -  biochar should be the technology of first choice (least risk).  To repeat - concentrating CO2 is NOT a bad idea - but because biochar is necessarily produced at temperatures above those analyzed in this paper, the paper could be important to the commercial biochar community.  This paper offers as good a method for economic concentration as I have read about.  I am too far removed from this field to know if their claim is valid.


Kim



On May 4, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

List:  cc Renaud

This paper describes a new way to concentrate CO2 that seems possibly appropriate for some who are thinking large-scale production of biochar.

Ron


Begin forwarded message:

From: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [CDR] CCS: New self-forming membrane to protect our environment
Date: May 4, 2020 at 2:22:25 PM MDT
To: Greg Rau <ghrau@...>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval@...>
Cc: Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.derichter@...>

Greg and list,  cc Renaud

I respond to your below question re “CDR apps?” (hopefully in addition to Renaud) as his initial message was to you and he probably felt sufficient in the initial submission.   I have skimmed the “new self-forming membrane” paper (non-fee) and find it possibly (NOT certainly) important to those members of this list with an interest in capturing CO2 AND whose CO2 is available at high temperature.  That is BECCS and biochar,  almost certainly NOT DAC.  So I will be passing this paper’s information on to the charcoal-making community.  

In addition to Renaud’s cite, the main paper (non-fee) is at:

For many groups, the need for temperatures like the 650 oC reported here would be a problem.  The combustion of pyrolysis gases obtained “for free with biochar production” 
provides that easily.  Same for BECCS.

The main reason for biochar interest in this means of capturing CO2 is projected low cost.  This sentence  (emphasis added) is one of the last in their Conclusion:  
"We reported the highest flux of any metal–carbonate, dual-phase membrane to date (1.25 ml min−1 cm−2 at 650 °C), and ultrahigh permeabilities (10−11 mol m−1 s−1 Pa−1), outperforming the permeability requirement for economically-competitive CO2 capture (10−13–10−12 mol m−1 s−1 Pa−1).49,50 
Apparently beating the price by one-to-two orders of magnitude!!
 
Ron

On May 2, 2020, at 10:43 AM, Greg Rau <ghrau@...> wrote:

Via Renaud de Richter:


Importantly, the performance of the membrane was shown through permeation measurements to be at the level required to be competitive with existing carbon capture processes. The permeability of the membrane was one order of magnitude higher than that required, and the flux of CO2 was the highest reported for this class of membrane.

Dr. Mutch added: "These savings are important—the cost of carbon capture is one of the key factors limiting uptake of the technology. There is a common metric for membrane performance—the "upper bound". As our membrane relies on a unique transport mechanism, we avoid the limitations of most membrane materials and go far beyond the upper bound!”

GR - CDR apps?


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscribe@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/7056AB29-3DDD-4700-AEA2-8B2CDE904E0E%40sbcglobal.net.