Researchers from the US Department of Energy have developed a recyclable organic liquid capable of capturing toxic gases such as carbon dioxide or sulfur dioxide from industrial emissions originating from factories
Researchers from the US Department of Energy have developed a recyclable organic liquid capable of capturing toxic gases such as carbon dioxide or sulfur dioxide from industrial emissions originating from factories. The process can directly replace the methods used today and allow polluting factories to capture twice the amount of toxic gases emitted in a way that does not require water, has lower energy and is cheaper.
"Factories will be able to easily replace their existing methods with our method directly," said researcher David Heldebrant, the chief scientist of this project.
Toxic gases such as carbon dioxide or sulfur dioxide are called "acid gases". The new cleaning process uses organic liquids that bind these gases, which do not contain water and are similar to oily substances. These liquids trap the acid gases at temperatures close to room temperature. In the next step, the researchers heat the liquid to remove the acid gases in an appropriate and controlled manner.
Less energy is required to heat the circulating liquids, and they are able to contain twice the amount of such gases than the main adsorbents used today in gas-emitting plants. A combination of water and the substance mono-ethanolamine, a basic organic substance, is what enables the capture of carbon dioxide.
Previous studies by the scientists from this group focused on the capture of carbon dioxide only. The new research now demonstrates how the process can also be used for other acidic gases such as sulfur dioxide.
"Existing methods used to capture carbon dioxide emissions and release them from factories require a lot of energy because large amounts of water are pumped and heated during them," says the lead researcher. He notes that the mono-ethanolamine component is too corrosive (corrosive) to use without water.
In the new process, known as "Reversible Acid Gas Capture", the particles that capture the acid gas are already in liquid form, and are not combined with water. The organic liquids that trap the acid gas require less heating than water to release the trapped gases.
The scientists demonstrated their process in a previous study with the organic liquid that captures the gas carbon dioxide, called CO2BOL. In this process, the scientists put the substance solution into a storage tank where emissions containing carbon dioxide were collected. The new substance chemically binds to the carbon dioxide to form a liquid salt solution. In another container, the scientists reheated the salt solution to release the gas. Non-toxic gases such as nitrogen will not be trapped in the solution and released back into the open air. The toxic compounds are captured separately for storage. In this state, the liquid solution has returned to its original state and is ready for further use.
The researchers developed systems of organic liquids that trap three other acidic gases found in emissions: sulfur dioxide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide - all acidic gases that are harmful to the environment.
22 תגובות
Ugly people!!!!!!!111
"Who do not want to see the reality in the North Sea or in the glaciers"
Invalidating own imperfection invalidates
Arctic sea-ice 500,000 square kilometers (190,000 sq miles) more than at this time last year
The information –
arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/update_september.php
And the article
climateaudit.org/?p=6975
Every time I read about another growing glacier, I'm told that it's "the only glacier in the world that is bucking the global warming trend."
90 percent of glaciers grow worldwide
Examples
iceagenow.com/Alaskan_Glaciers_Grow_for_First_Time_in_250_years.htm
iceagenow.com/Alaskas_Hubbard_Glacier_advancing_7_feet_per_day.htm
iceagenow.com/Alaskan_Glaciers_Advance_One_Third_Mile.htm
iceagenow.com/Nisqually_Glacier_Growing.htm
iceagenow.com/Mount_St_Helens.htm
iceagenow.com/Glaciers_growing_on_Glacier_Peak_WA.htm
iceagenow.com/California_Glaciers_Growing.htm
iceagenow.com/Largest_glacier_in_Argentina_advancing.htm
iceagenow.com/Glaciers_growing_on_Canada_tallest_mountain.htm
iceagenow.com/Glaciers_in_Norway_Growing_Again.htm
iceagenow.com/New_Zealand_Glaciers_Growing.htm
iceagenow.com/Mont_Blanc_glacier_almost_doubles_in_size.htm
iceagenow.com/Glaciers_Growing_in_Western_Himalayas.htm
iceagenow.com/Greenland_Ice_Sheet_Growing_Thicker.htm
iceagenow.com/Antarctic_ice_growing_not_shrinking.htm
Here is the list of other growing glaciers
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
The lie is so gross.
You are the one who is not interested in seeing reality. point
to 4. You probably meant Formaldehyde CH2O or
Formaldehyde (its solution in water is called formalin)
For me, my father is worthy of respect. The decision to confront factual matters with
Snoozers like Ron, who don't want to see the reality in the North Sea, in the glaciers
The Alps and in Greenland - is not something that is taken for granted in our world.
Even if the attempt to stop gas emissions is charlatanism at best or corruption at worst. The broad public campaign on the subject is the one that contributed to the increase in awareness about the environment we live in and its preservation. And it is possible that without him we would not have seen the revolution that is taking place in the world also in other environmental issues, such as the pollution of water sources or recycling, which are not directly related to the FDF.
Yes, it is clear that in high concentrations it is dangerous, that is indisputable... but that is not what the court intended when it ruled on the "toxicity" of the gas... (by the way, 10,000ppm is the doomsday forecast - today we are at ~378ppm in the atmosphere)
Here is the politicization of science at its most dangerous level.
We do not understand so much what we are dealing with that it is unbelievable... Let's say we stop emitting PAD, won't it change something in the ecological structure. I just saw graphs that show a steep increase in the growth of trees and vegetation since the industrial revolution. (More PAD is greener - how much Ironic - it's photosynthesis).
And there are many more examples.
My conclusion from this whole story is that we need to invest more in research and development and understanding the processes and less jumping in and scaring people. The problem is that there are people among us who take advantage of this fear to make money from this whole issue. In itself it doesn't bother me personally, but when people change their priorities from causes of death such as the emission of real toxic gases from factories that cause death here and now or pollution of water sources or pollution from cars to "stopping" global warming - then it bothers me.
Shlomi:
I don't get into this debate because I don't feel like I'm an expert enough on the subject.
Just one thing about carbon dioxide.
I checked and found that this gas is nevertheless poisonous - even in fairly low amounts.
בIts description on Wikipedia Among other things, it says:
CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[2] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour
I decided to check after hearing an article on TV that presented similar data with the addition that when the percentage of gas exceeds 17, death comes within seconds
Well, then I read the simulation (at least the abstract) and immediately encountered something familiar...
One of the assumptions in his model (David Rind 2004) is a huge climate sensitivity of 1.2 degrees/Wm^-2.
No one assumes a lower climate sensitivity for the simple reason that the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases is insufficient to explain the 20th century increase. In general, you can play with the radiative forcing or the climatic sensitivity to get the same increase in temperature (to that extent we don't know what is happening there and whoever tells you otherwise - well then he is simply lying).
And on a personal note, I understand your situation and that you are personally affected by the story of the bay (I grew up there and after we fled from there my father's asthma disappeared).
I can only tell you this, don't side with the fake greens, and the end doesn't justify the means because in the end they will see that the temperature increase is small and the whole business will blow up in your face and the green trend will collapse, the public will no longer believe in any other green.
Real greens fight for the quality of the air they breathe (which kills here and now and not virtually in another 100 years), real greens fight for an economic future and well-being based on renewable and non-polluting energy sources - and yes - hot fusion is the future and that's where money should be put.
my peace. Where did you get that in the simulations the solar radiation has zero effect? You probably haven't read all the simulations.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/not-the-sun-blame-19805083/
Scientific articles are accepted or rejected not based on the amount of budgets, but based on their scientific credibility. It is a fact that even the deniers of global warming prefer to attack side issues and do not come directly, because apparently directly they have no case. It is clear that anecdotally, because there is probably an effect of about a third, they manage to find places on Earth that have cooled (a fact by the way that no one denies that Europe will cool if the Gulf Stream stops its flow, despite the greater average overall warming, it will simply reach the situation of Canada - there in the same line A latitude north of Paris, where Europe begins to live - only Eskimos and reindeer live.
It is indeed not a law of nature, but this is measured by different and independent methods - on the ground, satellites, etc. Sea level rise is a fact felt by the inhabitants of low-lying islands. There are islands where every roof of a one-story building is higher than the highest natural point on them. There are islands in the Pacific Ocean, which the governments of Australia and New Zealand have agreed to take in their inhabitants, when it would be unbearable to live there.
As for the sea surface temperature - there are measurements from satellites that show a warming trend from the 30s, it is true that before the measurements were unreliable, but they can be calibrated according to the findings of the satellites, and even about XNUMX years of more reliable measurements are enough to see a trend.
The original global warming deniers are people like George Bush and his deputy who are invested up to their necks in oil companies in Texas. I have no idea why innocent Israelis follow them. And I'm not talking about people who are looking for a conspiracy (or other truth) in any field and are not willing to accept an official explanation just because it is one. If there is already big money, it is precisely on the side of the global warming deniers, and the fact is that in the end it does not help them. Just like the big money of the tobacco companies only managed to repel but not suppress the scientists who eventually disowned them. Pity only for people like my father for whom the awakening was too late.
I became interested in the quality of the environment after the newspaper I worked for in the XNUMXs, Kalbo-Haifa, suffered threats from powerful industrialists and the workers' unions of the electricity company and the refineries every time it published news about the level of air pollution in Haifa. I realized that something stinks, literally, and I studied the subject.
Abby, I just can't believe you put creationists and global warming deniers in the same sentence...
At this very moment, all the credibility you had for me is gone.
Ron may be guilty of conspiracy, but he's not far wrong when it comes to climate...the science there is just weak.
And unlike other weak sciences, this science has a huge bias in the last 20 years.
The amount of money that flows into the field makes people say a lot of things and everyone understands that in order to make a profit they must cooperate. They don't have to put in much effort, they just go with the dominant paradigm.
There are few who are really willing to say what is in their heart and risk their position.
It's not that Newton's laws of nature are being disputed here or anything like that.
There is a lot of evidence that the sun has a stronger effect on the climate than it is given in the simulations (closer to 0).
The question of climatic sensitivity: the simulations give an extremely high sensitivity when we learn from volcanoes that the sensitivity should be much smaller, which means that the increase will not be large.
And in general there is still not a single piece of evidence (smoking gun) that the Ministry of Defense is responsible for the increase in the TMP. We assume that there is a connection and that is what we are symbolizing, but simulation is one thing and evidence is one thing.
And let's not even start talking about the huge measurement errors of the TMP (real measurement of non-reproducible thermometers) from the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.
These are just some of the sore points that need strengthening in this whole issue.
So comparing creationists (whose ridiculous argument suffers from a logical fallacy at all) and global warming deniers (and I assume you mean those who dispute the theory of global warming by humans) is simply sad.
Maybe Ron is right and you finally surrender to the green religion... (or maybe you've always been like that?? )
Do you have 30 thousand fingers?
Probably if over 30000 scientists decide to sign a petition.
Science is ignored
And water really came to the soul.
Is the Middle East warmer?
2008
Coldest January in 15 years falls short of being Israel's harshest winter
Snowstorm blankets Golan, Jerusalem area for the third time this year
haaretz.com/hasen/pages/955532.html
Snow in Saudi Arabia in May 2009 !!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/12/snow-in-saudi-arabia-in-may/
It is impossible to argue with you - you are like a religious person.
Syrian
I'm talking about 8 years of total cooling of the sea.
And in just one year only - all the warming gains in the last 100 years were erased.
Abby, read my response.
Regarding the story of the ships - this is a publicity stunt
See my third response in the ship article, .
If you want - answer me there.
What exactly did I demonstrate self-promotion? By saying that I'm willing to leave a living even for websites that think differently? By the word income, I didn't exactly mean money, income is also another word for employment...
And besides, what kind of self-publication am I doing when I support the opinion of the absolute majority in science (with the exception of exceptions that can be counted on the palm of one hand). After all, if I wanted a living I would have to resort to the method of a different truth project and say that what most scientists think is suspect as a lie, believe me then they would say I am brave but unfortunately in such a case I am not telling the truth either, and scientific truth is the most important thing.
You also talk about one year of cooling, no one said the warming is continuous, but the trend has not changed. What's more, the average is misleading, if you live in Israel you know exactly what a hot summer it was and what a cool year it was last year. And even with the apparent cooling, it is still among the 10 warmest years in history.
It takes 10-20 colder years for the trend to change.
And besides, what do you have against the unequivocal proof of the opening of a waterway that was frozen for thousands of years? Two ships made the journey, this is unequivocal proof. post Scriptum. Scientists should not write petitions, they leave that to creationists and global warming deniers. Scientists can write articles in scientific journals, it is a fact that Nir Shabiv's articles are also published in the most important journals.
It took you 6 minutes to answer me from the moment I posted my comment.
And my response is detailed and detailed.
You did a thorough investigation before you responded.
Regarding -
"Tonight there is news about the opening of the northeast lane from north to Asia for ship traffic as a result of the warming"
This is a natural phenomenon for the month of September - I wonder why "they" don't report what happens in March -
Judge for yourself here is the information
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Here is the article
iceagenow.com/Arctic_Sea_Ice_Extent_Updated_Daily.htm
It is not related to livelihood - it is related to the scientific data that are not falsified.
I thought your site was called "Hidan" and not "Hamprans"
The only one so far who has shown a desire for "self-publishing" is his honor
Too bad.
Opposite question, why does the science site which is a scientific site have to support alternative theories that it is all kinds of people who want self-publishing and therefore go against the flow?
Just so you know, tonight there is news about the opening of the northeast lane from north to Asia for ship traffic as a result of the warming. Why should I steal a living from a different truth project website, which automatically believes that everything the establishment says is a lie?
Why does the science website that considers itself scientific support such a gross lie??
Global warming theory
It is mostly based on an assessment based on a computer model
While the physical data proves the opposite
The whole agenda of global warming by humans -
is a political agenda supported by pseudo-science and lies.
You have to start by finding out who benefits from it.
Then you find out how much money, power, influence,
Suppression is related to the theory of global warming
asked Gore, a member of the infamous CFR,
received a Nobel Prize for it despite the many lies it contains,
And even though thousands of scientists signed a petition against it.
And then you find out that the "Club of Rome"
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome
A club for rich members, politicians and bankers, only
closely related to the Bilderberg group said this:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us,
we came up with the idea that pollution,
the threat of global warming, water shortages,
famine and the like would fit the bill...
All these dangers are caused by humans
intervention and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior
that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself
Over 30 thousand scientists have signed a petition that the theory that humans release greenhouse gases - and the earth is warming - is a bluff
petitionproject.org
The famous congressman Dr. Ron Paul used the above information for his speech in Congress
globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14000
400 scientists from all over the world related to the issue of climatology in a report of the US Senate - "Man Made Global Warming" is a lie
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
The US Chamber of Commerce
has shocked the global warming debate
by its formal call to hold a public
global warming trial to decide on
the "evidence" that mankind
is driving a climate catastrophe
climatedepot.com/a/2597/Exposed
Climate-Fear-Promoters-Greatest-Fear
–A-Public-Trial-of-the-Evidence-of-
Global-Warming-Fears-Inconvenient-
Developments-Continue-to-Mount
Not only is there no global warming, there is global cooling - and very fast
iceagenow.com
Let the facts speak for themselves:
90% of the world's glaciers are growing
But in the mainstream media they always show us
10% smaller pictures.
Here is the list of the growing glaciers - check for yourself:
climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3690
-
It's nice to mention West Antarctica, which it is
The much smaller part to the east
Antarctica - where the ice does grow
In the west it melts not because of the temperature but because
Because of active underwater volcanoes.
The amount of snow has doubled since 1890
iceagenow.com
Antarctic_Snowfall_Has_Doubled_Since_1850.htm
-
The sea level rises and falls is its natural cycle
No more than 1 mm every year
Where do they measure? Near Hong Kong there is
Changing the surface of the earth is not science
iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level
_Claim_a_Total_Fraud.htm
—
We are told that the average temperature in the 120 years
The latter increased by 0.8 degrees
But only in the last year - all this achievement disappeared
- in one year
dailytech.com/Temperature
+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+
Cooling/article10866.htm
-
Prof. Richard Lindzen, a world-renowned scientist:
15 years that there is no longer a tendency for warming but the opposite
In the last 8 years the temperature has been decreasing
and also of the sea.
examiner.com/x-7715-Portland
-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-
Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-
debate-says-MIT-Scientist
The lie speaks to the heart.
Are polar bears in danger?
– That's what National Geographic shows us, isn't it?
Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor,
one of the foremost authorities
on polar bears, says: "We're seeing an
increase in bears that's really unprecedented,
and in places where we're seeing
a decrease in the population
it's from hunting, not from climate change.
thenewamerican.com/index.php
/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/675
The earth enters its natural circle -
The beginning of Ido Korach
-About every 11500 years - the great ice ages started and ended
-Approximately every 179 years - it is colder on Earth due to the position of the planets in front of the Sun and the magnetic field
- About every 360 years - there is a mini ice age
-Approximately every 1440 years - the Earth is in a colder state
All these cycle data were not put into the computer models that the global warming movement mainly relies on.
And most importantly - we are now at a time when all 4 cycles intersect in our time, meaning that now all four are being fulfilled together.
Robert (Bob) Felix's lecture on the matter -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jEE1_0i_rY
I felt that it was necessary to take the word... In 2007 the US Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide is a polluting gas... What will happen next? Will elements be removed from the periodic table? Here is a link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6519923.stm
And PAD in the atmosphere is not harmful at all...
It is assumed to cause a considerable greenhouse effect.
1) There is not a single testimony! For a causal link between the rise of the PADF and the rise of the TMP in the 20th century or in general (don't show me Al Gore's graph). There is only the assumption that he is supposed to raise...but there is no evidence.
2) Let's say that the FDH does force the climate to increase its temperature, the increase will not be large since the climatic sensitivity of the earth is low, that is, the doubling of the FDH will cause an increase of about 1 degree in the next hundred years and not in 3-4.5 As the IPCC claims.
3) What's wrong with being in a warmer world above? What's wrong with being in a colder world above? As humans, the range of these temps is still harmless and from a technological point of view we can always adapt to the environment. What's more, the change will be gradual.
4) Order of priorities: Why doesn't the Supreme Court deal with the other gases that are emitted from the cars that cause death, surely from respiratory diseases? That is, a real infection that kills and not a virtual one! It's always easy to scare and say that in a hundred years there will be chaos here and let's take responsibility and start now. We need to transfer money to alternative energies such as hot fusion, sun and wind and tides and change the cars to trams and not budget for campaigns based on fear such as global warming. But politics like politics...
And on a personal note, I'm just nervous and I had a full stomach about it and just put it down 🙂
Roy:
You didn't get the joke.
This is probably due to excess carbon.
Read again and see what material it is.
Hint: you can get water poisoning from it.
On the other hand, Shlomi, there was no need to mince words.
The author's intention was for substances (which in the current state of the atmosphere are) harmful.
Here in the article we are talking about carbon dioxide, that is CO2
The link you sent is about COH2 (it doesn't have a catchy name in Hebrew)
It's not the same gas...
So then, I have no problem calling water a toxic liquid...as you said, everything in moderation. (70% of the planet).
On the other hand, I have 2-3 hours to swim in the ocean before I run out of energy and drown, and I'll probably die from a car accident (or a good return) before global warming kills me.
Either way, below is a link that warns against a highly toxic substance:-)
http://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html
Shlomi, you are 100 percent right!
And water too, but if we throw you into the middle of the ocean I don't think you'll survive...
Everything in moderation. Too much carbon dioxide causes global warming. There is now in the atmosphere about 1.5 times the amount of 200 years ago.
The problem with that is that you still have to store somewhere all the FDF that you capture....
Carbon dioxide is not a poisonous gas, and is essential to the ecosystem. Without it there is no life and no plant...