Carbon negative products – what are they?
Are they as positive as they sound?
It seems like a great idea, carbon capture, removing the CO2 from the atmosphere and using it to manufacture useful products.
Are there any negative aspects to this new technology?
The following video gives a short explanation of the process:
Voices of discontent
The only discontented voices regarding carbon capture that I could find were related to the drawbacks of ‘storing carbon’ as a ‘sequestration exercise’, so unless you know better, ‘carbon capture as a manufacturing (rather than storage) feature’ so far looks as if it is beyond reproach.
New Sky Energy of Boulder, Colorado claim to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and use it in manufacturing processes to produce building materials, plastics, fabrics, fertilisers and other products.
Here’s their press release:
New Sky Energy, Inc., a manufacturer of carbon-negative materials, has been named a winner of the Clean Technologies and Sustainable Industries Organization’s (CTSI) Utility Technology Challenge (UTC).
New Sky scrubs CO2 from flue gas or ambient air, using the salts from agricultural, industrial and other waste as a feedstock
The Utility Technology Challenge identifies and showcases the top technology solutions that can be adopted by utilities and municipalities, leading to more testing and pilot projects and faster adoption of clean technologies.
The UTC review committee selected New Sky from more than 100 companies for distinction of ‘Top Utility Technology.’
New Sky’s proprietary chemical manufacturing technology scrubs CO2 from flue gas or ambient air, using the salts from agricultural, industrial and other waste as a feedstock.
“We are honored to have been selected one of the top solutions for utilities and municipalities,” said Dr. Deane Little, founder of New Sky Energy.
“New Sky’s game-changing technology will bring real innovation to government and industry and we are excited to put it to work for businesses and consumers.”
New Sky is currently working with Westlands Water District to develop an integrated drainage water treatment facility in California’s Central Valley.
The project combines conventional desalination technology with salt conversion technology developed by New Sky.
The first phase of the project is projected to break ground later this year.
When fully deployed, the $3.2 million project will desalinate approximately 240,000 gallons of drainage water per day and convert approximately five tons of waste brine salts into carbon neutral and carbon negative chemicals such as acid, caustic soda and solid carbonates like limestone and soda ash.
In addition, the project will trap approximately 2.8 tons of CO2 daily.
New Sky presented its technology in Anaheim, California on June 22 in conjunction with the annual Clean Technology 2010 Conference.
For more information visit us at BOOTH 333 at the Clean Technology 2010 Conference.
About New Sky: Boulder, Colorado-based New Sky Energy is a carbon negative chemical manufacturing company that makes useful products out of carbon dioxide.
A 2009 Cleantech Open winner, New Sky uses a proprietary capture process to scrub CO2 from the air or flue gas and converts it into safe, stable solids.
These solids can in turn be incorporated into building materials, durable goods, fertilizers, and other manufactured products.
New Sky’s process is simple, sustainable chemistry, protected by nine US and international patent applications.
New Sky’s chemical inputs are waste salt, water and carbon dioxide; outputs are valuable carbon negative products — smart chemistry for a cleaner planet.
For more information, go to www.newskyenergy.com.
BOULDER, CO, Jun 17 MARKETWIRE
Related articles by Zemanta
- Skyonic to capture carbon from coal in baking soda (news.cnet.com)
- GE Using Nanotechnology to Green the Alberta Oil Sands (eon.businesswire.com)
- Can Stored Carbon Dioxide Leak? (scientificamerican.com)
- Carbon capture concerns raised (cbc.ca)
While most environmentalists have been pushing for the reduction of carbon emissions, it is somewhat surprising that some organizations have found carbon capture and storage to be another solution to preserve our environment:
“New Sky’s proprietary chemical manufacturing technology scrubs CO2 from flue gas or ambient air, using the salts from agricultural, industrial and other waste as a feedstock.”
What can carbon capture contribute to the environment?
I found this article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-fast-can-carbon-capture-and-storage-fix-climate-change
” . . .the CO2 basically scours more hydrocarbons out of the oil field. When injected into the oil reservoir, it mixes with the oil and mobilizes more of it—like turpentine cleaning paint—and then allows it to be pumped to the surface.”
“Using carbon dioxide to churn out more fossil fuels—and permanently storing some of the CO2 in the process—might sound counterproductive to limiting climate change because those fuels, when burned, put more CO2 into the atmosphere. But it does reduce overall emissions by at least 24 percent, calculates petroleum engineer Ronald Evans, Denbury’s senior vice president of reservoir engineering: every recovered barrel of oil eventually puts 0.42 metric ton of CO2 into the atmosphere, but 0.52 to 0.64 metric ton are injected underground recovering it. In fact, Kinder Morgan’s Bradley estimates that enhanced oil recovery in the U.S. could reduce CO2 emissions by 4 percent, if done correctly.”
The problem with carbon capture and storage is that it is an expensive process.
If carbon capture and storage will help reduce overall emissions, is there a way to make this process less expensive?
Probably the only option is down the technology innovation road. It is estimated that in today’s world, carbon capture and storage systems would add about 25% to the price of producing energy, as stated in this article:
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/co2-capture-storage/l-2/8-cost-capture-storage.htm#0
Using this captured carbon by companies like New Sky Energy might reduce the cost by some amount, but would it be enough to invest in costly CCS systems? Let’s hope new technologies would make it way cheaper to what we have now.
I think it’s a start Greg. and since it is quite costly to use CCS systems, I think it would be best if this is not left to big businesses but also made available to smaller investors and business, through state and government measures, of course. Looking at it now, it does seem like a long shot but it would be a significant move forward.
Take this for example: http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/british-cleantech-firms-partner-on-carbon-negative-building-projects-1197.aspx
It’s a project between two cleantech firms but a project initiated by the government nonetheless. Hopefully in the future more initiatives can be done by the government, and other states for that matter.
With the kind of money involved in such technologically advanced projects like CCS systems, government aid is the only way for small, private companies to acquire a piece of cake for themselves.
But technologies involved in the process would have to be more widely available, which comes down to my original statement – it needs time to develop on wider scale I’m afraid
I agree Greg, more time and a more thorough planning are needed to really make CCS systems beneficial not only for a chosen few but for more people. But what I am wary about is the danger of using the CCS system as an excuse to defer checks and balance by concerned groups.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/813/1
It says in the article that “Virgin Galactic has recognized the issue and stated that their spaceport will use renewable energy and may even be a net energy producer, which could make it “carbon negative”. It has also stated that its suborbital flights will have emissions equivalent to a London to New York business class flight.”
This sounds good and OK, as long as companies are really serious about using CCS system. But since the costs are quite high, I wonder how serious companies really are in this regard.
Hmm, there is only one way to make companies treat CSS systems seriously in the future – make using CSS systems widely abided law. Is it possible? I imagine it is, if the costs of installing one goes down and proven environmental and industrial advantages are presented.
It does sound possible, kind of like what the British government did with green investment banking.
here’s the bit about GIB: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62K1X120100321
“The green bank, designed to help finance projects such as railways, offshore wind power generation and eco-friendly waste management, will be half-funded from government asset sales with the remaining one billion pounds coming from the private sector.”
If something similar to this is initiated by the government, then better in addressing the development of CCS systems for the environment. This way, state and private sectors are both involved and committed, ideally.
Thanks Rob, wanted to ask where do you have such info about green investment banking in the UK, but you have actually got ahead of me
GIB might serve as a good base for governments and national agencies in their struggle to create cooperation system with small companies that actually works, good spot!