Cleaner coal: The Mountaineer Power Plant is the first in the world to capture some of the carbon dioxide it emits from burning 3.5 million tons of coal yearly and sequester it two and a half kilometers underground.
Courtesy rmcgervey
Carbon dioxide removed from power plant exhaust and pumped underground
In addition to other environmental technology add-ons that strip out the fly ash, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the Mountaineer Power Plant in West Virginia now also uses a carbon-capture unit built by Alstom. Dubbed the "chilled ammonia" process, baker's ammonia is used to strip carbon dioxide from the cooled flue gas and then, by reheating the resulting ammonium bicarbonate, captures that carbon dioxide, compresses it into a liquid, and
pumps it 2,375 meters straight down into the Rose Run sandstone, a 35-meter-thick layer with a nine-meter-thick band of porous rock suitable for storage. (or...) into Copper Ridge dolomite, which has much thinner strata for possible storage, more than 2,450 meters down. Thick bands of shale and limestone that lie on top ensure that the carbon dioxide does not escape back to the surface. Scientific American
Only 1.5% but first in the world
Only about 1.5 percent of the carbon dioxide billowing from its stack is being captured now. Scaling up the process to capture 20% of the CO2 will cost at least $700 million. The removal of carbon dioxide will add abouts 4 cents more to the current cost of Mountaineer electricity (roughly 5 cents per kWh). This chilled-ammonia technology should be available commercially by 2015.
Learn more:
Slide show of Mountaineer Power carbon sequestering technology.
First Look at Carbon Capture and Storage in a West Virginia Coal-Fired Power Plant Scientific American
Tags : 
Microbes Coexist Peacefully with Other Marine Life: They are in there somewhere, even if you can't see them!
Courtesy Mila Zinkove
The Center for Microbial Oceanography: Research and Education (C-MORE) is a fantastic, state of the art research program. With grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and help from researchers from around the world they strive to impress upon people the significance of microbial organisms and through research gain a more comprehensive knowledge of microorganisms living in the ocean. Their primary goal is to create a better understanding of how these little tiny microbes affect the entire biome of the ocean.
They hope to find answers to life's persistent questions on climate change, and they think these little guys might hold the key. Some of these microorganisms from the ocean have the ability to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in organic matter. Not only is this one of the many talents of one kind of microbe, its actually the way they in a sense, breathe. If this one microbe can do all that, think of what other science secrets that are still hidden in the ocean waiting to be discovered and change the world! Hurray!
Earlier this spring C-MORE broke ground on a new facility in Hawai'i where they hope to develop new strategies that will unveil the link between the microbial genotype and ocean phenotype. I personally am very excited to see what they discover next! Good luck!
An environmentalist's dream: The rat-filled cans are too small to see in this picture.
Courtesy steven.bussHere at Science Buzz, we sometimes have what might seem like a Through the Looking Glass attitude towards Earth Day and environmentalism. I, for one, litter filthy old cans all over my yard, comfortable in the knowledge that these cans will provide wonderful little shelters for the population of rats in my neighborhood. Sort of counter-intuitive, huh? Well check this out: after I get rats living in those cans, I’m going to use highly toxic chemicals to poison the little suckers in their homes. I will then plant sunflower seeds in my dead rat filled cans. So litter + poison + patience = a beautiful garden + delicious sunflower seeds.
Sophisticated environmentalism can be complicated like that.
It feels good though, doesn’t it? A little weird, but good.
Here’s another one (and this one comes from scientists who published in the journal Nature, not just from, you know, me):
Air pollution is fighting global warming!
Say what? We thought global warming was caused by air pollution.
Yes, but… think back to flowers growing from cans of dead rats. It’s like that, kind of.
See, yes, air pollution in the form of carbon dioxide (and other gases, but we’re dealing with CO2 here) is warming the planet. But CO2 isn’t the only junk we’re burping up into the atmosphere. Think about the grey brown haze you see over some big cities. Co2 is invisible, so what’s that stuff? Some of the chemicals we put into the atmosphere have the effect of absorbing sunlight, or reflecting it back into space. Some particles form the nucleus of water droplets in clouds, and cause the same amount of water in a cloud to be spread out among a much larger number of droplets, and more droplets cause light to be reflected and scattered more. It’s all part a phenomenon sometimes referred to as “global dimming”.
Some scientists believe that “global dimming” has had the effect of partially masking global warming; we aren’t as warm as we might otherwise be for the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere because a significant amount of solar energy has been prevented from reaching the Earth by other pollutants. So there’s that.
The Nature article, however, focuses on something else entirely. While many people might assume that plants have a harder time growing in our pollution-dimmed world, it turns out that they actually seem to grow better under a hazy blanket of pollution. The light-scattering effect of many air pollutants actually causes light to reach more plant leaves. So more photosynthesis is taking place under this diffused light than under direct sunlight. That means that plants are growing more, and growing plants suck up more carbon dioxide.
The scientists behind the study estimate that global dimming could be responsible for as much as a one quarter increase in plant productivity from 1960 to 1999, causing a 10% increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land.
This also means that as we have stricter air pollution controls, the rate of global warming probably won’t decrease as much as we’d have thought—there’d be less CO2 in the air, but because other pollutants would be reduced as well plants would be less productive, and suck up less of the CO2 that is released.
Well, shucks.
Pacaya-Samiria NR, Amazon
Courtesy Mark GobleScientists know that the Amazon rainforest can help to slow down climate change. The trees not only take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, but they also are made of carbon. All living things are made of carbon, and when these things die that carbon is released.
There was an unusually severe drought in 2005, which gave scientists a preview of the Amazon's future climate. Scientists think the rainforest will see hotter and more intense dry seasons with climate change. When Oliver Phillips a professor at the University of Leeds, looked at the effects of the drought, he found that it caused carbon losses in the rainforest. This is bad for us, because we rely on the Amazon to take in carbon dioxide, not release it!
In most years the Amazon absorbs almost 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide. In 2005, the trees did not absorb that much carbon dioxide, but the forest lost more than 3 billion tons. The losses were caused by all the trees that died in the drought. The impact of the drought, 5 billion extra tons of carbon dioxide is more than the annual emissions of Europe and Japan put together.
Oceanic revolt?
in Earth and Space Science, Chemical Reactions, The Water Cycle, Weather and Climate, and Energy Transformations
Changing chemistry and rising levels: Is trouble on the horizon for world's oceans?
Courtesy Mark RyanTwo recent stories in the news highlight environmental issues with Earth’s oceans. The first deals with how the oceans’ pH levels are changing at a much faster rate than normally due to increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. The second concerns the rise of sea levels due to climate change.
With the first story, Prince Albert II of Monaco and over 150 marine scientists are urging world policymakers to confront the problem of ocean acidification. They stated their concerns in the Monaco Declaration, a document that arose from the 2nd International Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World held in Monaco last October.
According to the Monaco Declaration, the rapid change in seawater chemistry is already measurable and could by mid-century cause oceans to become inhospitable to coral reefs, inhibit calcification in mussels, plankton, and other calcifying organisms, and subsequently harm the fish population to the extent of causing massive deficits in the food source for millions of people.
The world’s oceans have long acted as buffers against CO2 - absorbing up to a third of it - but are now straining to keep up with rising levels of the greenhouse gas. When CO2 dissolves in seawater it causes pH levels to drop, resulting in a more acidic chemistry. Oceans are 30 percent more acidic than before the Industrial Revolution, and in recent years, researchers at Scripps Oceanography have recorded a drop in the pH from 8.16 to 8.05
The declaration warns that only a serious and immediate reduction in CO2 levels will reverse ocean acidification.
You can find more info at the following links:
Story at Sciencedaily.com
The Ocean Acidification Network
EPOCA's blog on Ocean Acidification
In the second story, the rise of sea levels due to climate change may actually be a greater threat than previously thought. The potential for rising water from melting ice sheets is not news. Earlier studies have predicted rising ocean levels from the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet and other ice could, by the end of the century, inundate coastal cities and low-lying areas with up to 3 feet of water.
But previously unrecognized factors are ratcheting up the severity of that number. Authors of a new study say related events triggered by the initial ice melt could cause the sea-levels to rise as much as 21 feet. But it’s really more of a “could happen” rather than a “will happen” situation.
Geophysicist Jerry X. Mitrovica (University of Toronto) and geoscientist Peter Clark (Oregon State) predict not only would the melted ice add more water to the oceans, but also the reduced gravitational pull from the melted (and missing) ice sheet could cause the Antarctic water levels to decrease while northern water levels increased. Also, once the weight of the heavy ice sheet was gone the Antarctic land mass would rebound, pushing more water outward. Finally, the redistribution of water could cause a shift in the Earth’s rotation and potentially push more water northward toward highly populated coastal regions.
University of Toronto physics grad student Natalya Gomez also contributed to the study that appears in the journal Science.
LINKS
USA Today story
Voice of America news story
Rising sea levels at NASA site
Sun with sunspots
Courtesy NASA
One of the most common questions I hear about climate change is "Isn't it just the sun?" Days (sun out) are warmer than nights (no sun), and sunny days are usually warmer than cloudy days. Let's be honest, it would also be much easier on the conscience. After all, we have about as much chance of controlling the sun as I do of getting my cat to do the laundry. But our actions do impact the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Scientists who are interested in climate have been looking into this. A new paper by Anja Eichler and her colleagues from Switzerland and Russia looks at this problem by comparing records of how brightly the sun has been shining to the temperature in central Asia over the last 750 or so years. Now you're probably thinking, "Hey, who had a thermometer in Siberia 750 years ago?" It turns out that the part of Siberia near Mongolia and Kazakhstan has glaciers that are actually pretty good at recording the temperature.
So what'd they find? The sun is pretty important. It explains well over half of the wiggles in the temperature curve . . . until 1850. After that the sun is still kind of important, but changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere do a much better job explaining the recent warming.
Other scientists have found the same story using different methods, so I think we're homing in on a solid answer.
If you want to read the paper yourself, it is in press in Geophysical Research Letters. The story's not free on-line, so you might need to head to a library to check it out.
Water vapor in action: Hoh Lake, Washington.
Courtesy S. McAfee
I hate it when bad news gets confirmed.
That’s just what happened when Andrew Dessler and his colleagues at Texas A&M were able to show that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. Unfortunately, water is a greenhouse gas, so more water vapor means the earth warms, so the atmosphere can hold more water, which is a greenhouse gas . . . I think you can see where this is going. It’s a nasty feedback circle. If the earth stays more or less the same temperature, we don’t worry about this too much because there’s a really good way to get water out of the atmosphere. In fact, it just shut down air and highway travel all over the East Coast.
It may seem like a no-brainer that warmer air holds more water, but these scientists were able to put solid numbers on the link between temperature and water vapor, which is a big deal. They used information from a satellite called the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder to measure the amount of water in the air.
Using information from 2003 to 2008, they found that for every 1 degree Celsius the earth warms, the extra water in the air traps 2 watts for every square meter of the earth. If you stored that up over a square meter for an hour, you could run a 100-watt light bulb for about a minute. Bet you wouldn’t even notice that in your electric bill. But the earth is big, so let’s put it in perspective and do the math.
The surface of the earth is 510,072,000 square kilometers. According to howstuffworks, your run-of-the-mill power plant puts out 3.5 billion kilowatts in a year. That means the extra warming that water vapor adds for every degree the earth gets warmer is about the same as the annual output of 290 power plants, give or take. That’s a lot of light bulbs.
Methane ice
in Earth Structure and Processes, Structure of Matter, and Energy Transformations
Burning methane hydrate
Courtesy United States Geological Survey
What is Methane ice?
Huge amounts of methane are being found on the ocean floor, trapped within cages of water molecules.
Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate or methane ice, is a solid form of water that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure (a clathrate hydrate). wikipedia
Geologists estimate that significantly more hydrocarbons are bound in the form of methane hydrate than in all known reserves of coal, natural gas and oil combined. India and China plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars learning how to tap into this huge reservoir of energy (Spiegel online).
Carbon curse or cure
Relying on this carbon based energy instead of renewable energy sources could worsen global warming by releasing more greenhouse gases. To be carbon neutral the carbon dioxide from burning carbon fuels needs to be captured and sequestered (locked up). Harvesting methane ice offers just this opportunity.
When a certain amount of pressure is applied to the cage-like crystal structure, carbon dioxide can penetrate the layer of ice, at which point it displaces the methane. Then a new cage of frozen water molecules forms around the carbon dioxide. Klaus Wallmann, Uni Kiel
Wallman is also impressed by the ratio at which the gases are exchanged. For each dissolved molecule of methane released, up to five molecules of carbon dioxide disappear into the ice cage. Wallmann hopes to see, in the not-too-distant future, tankers filled with CO2 heading out to sea to pump their climate-damaging cargo into the depths.
You might also read about research being done at Columbia University, "Carbon Neutral Methane Production Via Hydrates".
A Permian anteosaurus: He feels vaguely nervous, and oddly sweaty. (image courtesy of Wikipedia Commons)65 million years ago something very sad happened. Well, it was sad for the dinosaurs, because they all died, but great for us mammals. Here – I’ve written a little play about it:
Scene 1
Dinosaur 1: Hey, have you noticed that there seem to be a lot less of us these days?
Dinosaur 2: What? I don’t know. Why?
Dinosaur 1: Probably just my imagination. Forget about it.
Dinosaur 2: …
Dinosaur 1: Hey, what’s that thing up there?
Dinosaur 2: We call it the sun.
Dinosaur 1: No, that thing – it’s getting bigger, I think.
Dinosaur 2: Oh, not to change the subject, but did you watch Entourage last nigh*
Scene 2
(fiery, dusty chaos)
Scene 3
Rodent-like mammal: Yes!
The End
Anyway, the extinction at the end of the Mesozoic (dinosaur times) was a big deal. But, dramatic as it likely was, it was nothing compared to the extinction at the beginning of the Mesozoic.
Before the dinosaurs existed, the world was ruled by a different kind of animal, the therapsids, or “mammal-like reptiles.” These ranged from little rat like guys to huge fanged and clawed lion-like creatures. About 250 million years ago, though, at the end of the Permian period, there was an extinction event way bigger than the one that would eventually kill all the dinosaurs.
The Permian extinction killed off 90% of all the life on the planet, both on land and in the oceans. Life as we know it just squeaked by complete annihilation. The thing is, scientists still aren’t sure exactly what initiated the extinction. Whatever it was, it caused massive amounts of carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere. The earth would have gotten warmer and warmer, the oceans would have become acidic, and by the time things got back to normal, almost every species on the planet had died out.
Jonathan Payne, a paleobiologist at Stanford, is investigating one of the possible causes of the extinction – a massive volcanic eruption occurring at the end of the Permian. This eruption was the larger than any other that has happened in the last 600 million years, and it spread a four-mile thick sheet of basalt the size of the continental US over Asia. Along with the poisonous gases spewed by the volcano itself, it is believed that the spreading magma may have heated the coal-rich strata near the eruption and released vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Then, you know, the whole horrible global warming and acidic oceans thing.
Fortunately, for all our CO2 production, we aren’t yet in the Permian extinction league of global warming gases. Still, Payne is comparing contemporary signs of global warming to those leading up to the Permian event. For example, under increasing environmental stresses, coral colonies tend to bleach (as algae leaves the reefs). Researchers will be examining fossilized coral colonies from the end of the Permian to see how they reacted to the changing environment. "We hope to reconcile the short-term processes we observe operating in the modern world with the very long time scales seen in the geologic record," says a researcher in Payne’s lab. If the analogy works, we could better understand the processes of past environmental change, as well as the potential future effects of the environmental changes that are occurring today.
My own theory regarding the Permian extinction largely focuses on the refusal of therapsis to carpool, and their insistence on driving larger vehicles than they really needed (cyconodonts were notorious SUV lovers). Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult to verify in the fossil record. I chalk this up to the poor preservation of pre-Triassic GM products, or, possibly, to the fact that therapsids had adapted to finding (and then losing) well concealed parking spots (they were, after all, much more primitive than us).
Nanotech sponges can absorb hydrogen, carbon dioxide, or methane.
COF-108: Credit: José L. Mendoza-CortésOmar Yaghi was named one of the "Brilliant 10" by Popular Science magazine last fall, describing him as a "hydrogen nano-architect". Like an architect, Yaghi links together well-defined molecules like building blocks to create porous crystalline structures. Referred to as metal-organic frameworks, or MOFs, these crystal sponges have nanosized openings which can be customized to soak up only molecules of a particular size (like hydrogen or methane). MOFs could lead to the first workable fuel tanks for a hydrogen cars, or laptops and cell phones.
New material sets record for most surface area per gram.
Yaghi's newest material, called covalent organic frameworks, or COFs "(pronounced "coffs") are crystalline porous organic networks. A member of this series, COF-108, has the lowest density reported of any crystalline material. One gram of COF-108, has a surface area equal to 30 tennis courts. Yaghi specifically cited COFs as a possible storage medium for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration systems.
Learn more about Omar Yaghis and his research:
Subscribe
I want to learn about
Science Buzz is supported by the National Science Foundation.Copyright © Science Museum of Minnesota, 2004-2010, except where noted.
Add a new comment