From gas to solid, that's not just physics, that's green tech

Summary: Courtesy: Carbon SciencesEvery inspirational speaker will tell an audience to take a negative and turn it into a positive. Politically CO2 emissions have become a negative in many parts of the world.

csi-comparison-chart1.JPG Courtesy: Carbon Sciences

Every inspirational speaker will tell an audience to take a negative and turn it into a positive. Politically CO2 emissions have become a negative in many parts of the world. CO2 is deemed to be one of the greenhouse gases that's lending its chemical and physical properties to processes that seem to be heating up the earth's atmopshere. While political arguments rage over whether the global warming is real or worth worrying about, many nations msigned the Kyoto Protocol and are moving ahead with taxes and/or regulations on CO2 and greenhouse gases. That's the negative.

Carbon Sciences has a way to turn that into a positive. You got your CO2, how would like to have it become a useful, stable, non-polluting solid? Presto change-o, we got your calcium carbonate (chalk) right here. And that can be used in buildings or as raw material in numerous industries. Chalk is already a globally marketed raw material.

CO2 is an inevitable by-product for many industires, especially those depending on fossil fuels for energy. CSA expects the world to be largely fossil fuel dependent for the next 150 years. That's a pretty long business outlook these days. As those fossil fuel emissions become a greater tax or regulatory liability for corporations, Carbon Science sees its new process for converting CO2 to chalk as a business solution that many industries will pay for.

I recently spoke with CS's CEO, Derek McLeish. He explained that CS will actually take TWO negatives to produce the positive, chalk. They will combine CO2 emissions with mine tailings and similar waste solids. In some parts of the U.S. these tailings have been "stored" in pits or piles for over a century. Just waiting, it would seem, for Carbon Sciences to come along.

CS and McLeish argue persuasively that sequestration by burial is not a great idea. That entails pumping CO2 into underground cavities and trying to keep it there. Forever? Is it safe? Just wait'll a huge leak opens, it's one scanario you don't want to contemplate. There were plans to put a Future-Gen coal burning plant at Mattoon, Illinois, and pump all that CO2 back into the ground. Future headline? "Mattooniacs gassed by CO2 release."

So far, there's limited use of undergrounding CO2, mostly by oil companies uing it to force oil up from wells.

Nobody will be hurt by chalk unless you drop wallboard on them. If the chalk market isn't enough, CS can turn to CO2 into Calcium bicarbonate, and that's good for anybody whose business worries are causing intestinal distress. A soothing thought, all that bicarb.

CS already has a mobile conversion plant touring the U.S. Our partners at CNET did a video of it. Michael Kanellos also did a CNET blog on CS.

The amount of material involved is enorous when looked at globally. A megaton of CO2 plus the solids involve din conversion would produce enough chalk to cover 4 soccer fields to a depth greater than 25 feet. Man, that;s a lot of wallboard.

The business model: payment to CS by industries that HAVE to find an outlet for their CO2 besides releasing it into thre atmosphere. The mine tailings are going to come cheap. There are transportatoion and energy costs involved in the conversion process. Then there is chalk, or bicarb, to be sold. Solid waste removal and processing companies make money all over the world now. CS sees a time with gaseous waste removal is just as viable a business.

Topic: Emerging Tech

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

9 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • It doesn't add up (literally)

    The scheme is to combine CO2 with calcium in "mine tailings" to make calcium carbonate, which is CaCO3, the way I understand it. The biggest problem (there are a host of little ones) is that calcium does not exist naturally as the neutral element. If it did, you could react:

    Ca + CO2 + H2O -> CaCO3 (just imagine the subscripts here)

    and everything would be hunky dory. However, the calcium you find naturally is the Ca2+ (superscript here) and you are then stuck with:

    Ca2+ + CO2 + H2O -> CaCO3 ???

    See the problem here? You need to find two electrons somewhere to make the equation balance. How are you going to get the electrons? Hmm... electricity? But that uses fuel and unless you are going solar, or burning hydrogen (from somewhere), or using hydroelectric power, you're going to make more CO2. Well, if either of these three options are available, you wouldn't even be burning things to form the CO2 in the first place, you'd be using them as an alternate form of energy.

    Oh, you could add an alkali, such as sodium hydroxide, but that's not mentioned anywhere in their strategy. Where are you going to get it from?

    Now, also, in what forms are you going to find the calcium ions in minerals? Silicates, carbonates (already formed), sulfates, phosphates, fluorides, and mixes of all of the above, often with other metals (Wikipedia has 153 pages of different calcium-containing minerals). Many of these are more stable than calcium carbonate, but all of them contain calcium ions, not elemental calcium. So you're hosed here.

    Oh, and what about the other metals? You can find carbonate containing minerals with Ni, Mg, Fe, Cd, Mn, Zn, Co, Pb, Sr, U, Ba, and Cu, just to list off a few in another Wikipedia article, and many of the carbonate minerals are mixed-metal minerals. Also, many of the other carbonates (such as Fe) are less soluble than CaCO3. So, in order to make gypsum from these mine tailings, you're going to have to do a whale of a job of cleaning/purifying to keep it from being discolored or having other toxic or corrosive stuff included.

    And then there's the dirt in the tailings. 'Nuff said.

    Unless their "patented technology" (which they mention but do not describe at all on their website) has some way to pull electrons out of nothing and then clean up the mess, all without significant energy costs, it's a non-starter. Cute for making chalk out of "simulated mine tailings and other chemicals," but absolutely useless on a large scale, a big energy sink.
    cd2_z
    • Snake oil attracts snake oil

      Why should anyone be surprised that global warming scam
      artists attract like minded souls?

      BTW, global temperatures dropped .75 C in 2007. Because
      of reduced solar output. Apparently all the tons and tons
      of this powerful greenhouse gas we've been dumping into
      the atmosphere couldn't even compensate for a tiny
      fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a change in solar
      output.

      But, don't expect anyone on the global warming
      bandwagon to pay it the slightest attention. It's all about
      telling you how to live. It has never been about saving the
      planet.
      frgough
      • Why do you think it's a scam?

        The western US is certainly a warmer, dryer place than it was when I was a child (I know that from personal experience). You may be right that human activity has little or nothing to do with it, but tell us why you think so and why you think that efforts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide are injurious.
        John L. Ries
        • ...

          Simple, his masters would stop paying him if he didn't disseminate FUD about global climate change. The evidence is all around us. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that something bad is happening to our climate... around the world. ]:)
          Linux User 147560
          • Let's let him answer, shall we?

            Unless you claim telepathic powers, there's very little evidence to support your first assertion. It's possible, even likely, that he is entirely sincere and thinks he has good reasons for believing that human-caused global warming is a fraud.

            And even if he is on the take, neither of us can prove it, so it's better to take his arguments at face value and see if they make any sense.
            John L. Ries
          • ...

            Thing is, he is just like NAG when confronted and called out he disappears. I know... I have tried. ]:)
            Linux User 147560
    • You may be right

      The proper question is, what sort of calcium compounds exist in mine tailings and to what extent can they be used to absorb carbon from the air, without putting it back in some other way?

      Certainly, it doesn't do any good to burn calcite to lime for the purpose of reducing the carbon content in the air.
      John L. Ries
    • chemistry

      is not my strong suit but the CS folks told me for this blog that there is significant magnesium in the mine tailings and I believe it is lkikely the calcium replaces the magnesium during the chemical reaction
      atowhee
      • Calcium, magnesium, makes no difference

        They are both found as ions in nature, together (both carbonates, and there is almost always much more calcium around than magnesium) as dolomite, the story remains the same. Somewhere you are going to have to expend the energy (and find some spare electrons) to convert magnesium ions into the metal to combine with the CO2. If "the CS folks" are telling you that this makes a difference, then they are either totally ignorant of what they claim to be experts in, or they are deliberately lying.
        cd2_z