Our presentation will be describing currently proposed methods against the greenhouse effects of CO2, and why they are not feasible. In the second half of the presentation we will demonstrate to you our own genuine method for solving the problem.
If the carbon-dioxide danger is real, can the general application of known methods provide protection from it?
Defence methods can basically be classified into two groups.
In the first, we try to remove the produced carbon dioxide.
In the second, we try to prevent the formation of carbon dioxide.
I.1. The removal of carbon dioxide
This can be done at the place of emission or anywhere in the air.
There are carbon dioxide producers which produce large amounts of carbon dioxide in a concentrated way (power plants, and certain industrial plants). This group accounts for about 55 % of carbon dioxide production. In this case, since there are relatively few producers, it is not a great challenge technologically to collect the emitted carbon dioxide but it is very costly.
There is, unfortunately, no method to get rid of or utilize really great amounts (billions of tons) of carbon dioxide.
I.1.a. Methods recommended by others
Let us go through the methods proposed by others.
- Batteries: We would need approximately 800 times the known amount of lithium reserves of the Earth, which we obviously do not have.
This has been explained in more details by Márton Simonyi during his lecture at Falling Walls LAB 2016.
- Artificial leaves: It needs four times the amount of the world’s actual electricity production to give the fuel consumption of the US.
This topic has also been thoroughly explained in more details by Márton Simonyi during his lecture at Falling Walls LAB 2016.
- Hiding CO2 underground: Although this would require “only” 1% of land mass per year, the necessary amount of land grows year by year and it is more and more difficult to find appropriate places. It would also require pipelines and transport facilities of enormous cost.
“It’s really expensive to separate the carbon dioxide from the flue gasses coming out of the power plants,” said Ronald Falta, a professor in the Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences at Clemson University in Clemson, S.C. said. “There is a significant buy-in, so all this development and infrastructure comes with a cost,” Peter Warwick, chief of the geologic carbon sequestration project at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said. “If you’re willing to pay for the cost to capture CO2 and put it into the ground, then it could make a significant impact.”
The USGS is also investigating other risks involved with injecting carbon dioxide deep underground, including whether this process could induce unwanted seismic activity, Warwick added. Injection of waste water from fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, has been linked to increased seismicity in areas where the injection occurs.
“The U.S. has more of these rock formations than any other country, and more than any other continent, so in that respect, we’re kind of lucky,” Falta said. “It will probably boil down to a question of economics. Will people think it’s worth it to do this, or should we continue to use coal? And we have a lot of coal, too.”
Because of a lack of time we will just give you the results of our calculations about other methods.
- Mountain water reservoirs: We would need two thirds of the land area of Earth. It is obviously impossible to build so many reservoirs.
- Grid: We would need about 100 times the present electrical networks. The materials and staff need for this goes way beyond what we can do and afford.
- Methanol and hydrogen economies: More energy is used in winter, while more gas is produced in the summer. The storage and transport of such a vast amount cannot be done.
Other sources of carbon dioxide are small but they are in great numbers (households, vehicles, etc.) and some of them are moving, too (e.g. vehicles). These account for 45 % of carbon dioxide emission. The method of collection would be to capture anywhere from the air.
Collecting carbon dioxide in the air anywhere else than at the source poses a really great problem for two reasons. One is the extremely low concentration (around 0.04 %), and the other is the vast amount of area or volume to process (the whole surface of the Earth, or at least the whole land area of Earth). No industrial-scale method exists for this problem, at present there are only experiments.
We held a lecture in Section 2-1 about a method that can be extended only to big cities.
I.1.b. Renewable fossil
Is there a method that can provide a solution to the carbon-dioxide problem?
RENEWABLE OR FOSSIL?
These are no big words, but achievable aims! The renewable lobby demands to be supported, and they refer to the greenhouse effect of the fossil technologies. The fossil lobby demands to not to support the renewable technologies and they refer to the high costs. Both of them are right. But there is a solution that resolves the conflict and turns the enemies to allies.
I.1.c. Why is “renewable fossil” better than anything else recommended?
It is not necessary to build and operate expensive pipelines, and there are no security problems concerning transport and storage, like in hydrogen and methanol economies.
It is also not necessary to build a costly network like in the case of the grid system; a network is only needed to the nearest power plant, which already exists everywhere. A serious blackout such as the one that happened in New York State or a far more serious one cannot happen with our system because it is not over-centralized. In our system it is not electric current that is transported over long distances because it cannot be stored. Instead, coal is carried where and when it is needed. (Electric charge in batteries does not solve the problem of storing a large amount of energy over a long time. Another one of our materials proves this.) No additional infrastructure needs to be built because coal can be transported safely on the existing rail network and stored in existing storage facilities.
There is no security risk. (Neither because of a natural disaster, nor because of terrorism.)
I think after Fukushima, I don’t need to emphasize its significance.
Is it true?
Yes, it is!
In the international conference COALASIA 2012, Dr. Endre Simonyi gave a live presentation in front of an audience of experts. He demonstrated that with a certain material he can produce coal in a test tube at room temperature and atmospheric pressure without the use of external energy or a catalyst, from soda water, limestone powder, washing soda and potash (potassium carbonate), that is, carbonates.
(“DEMO” and “CONSULTATION” figures).
These carbonates are materials that can be produced by washing from gases emitted from all types of thermal power plants.
Of course, he is not a miracle worker therefore during the process the material transforms, but with energy it can be converted back and can be used in the process again.
And also with solar energy!
With the help of another invention of ours, devices that convert solar energy directly to heat or electricity can be made far cheaper.
- this is a universal solution, which can be used with both PV panels and solar thermal collectors,
- it is far less sensitive to environmental influences (pollution, breaking) than a solar panel or solar thermal collector and therefore it is more durable,
- its manufacturing does not require new technology since it is simply an unusual processing method of a common mass-produced product,
- as this is a concentrator, its use requires fewer PV panels or solar thermal collectors, which means fewer connections and materials and therefore also provides greater stability This can be seen on the “contacts” figure.
Whoever first shows us more than a hundred solar collectors in this room until five minutes after our lecture, we will give them a thousand dollars right away.
If we combine
- the technology that produces coal from carbon dioxide,
- the technology that produces energy from sunlight,
- and the technology that extracts carbon dioxide from the air, which also extracts the poisonous sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from the air,
they provide a full, sustainable and economical solution for the carbon dioxide problem.
Power plants produce CO2. CO2 goes into the reductor reactor, where it gets reduced into coal. Coal, after cleansing goes into the storage, and afterwise again into the power plant.
This is the coal cycle.
The used reagent goes from the CO2 reductor reactor to the inactive reagent storage, where it gets stored until there is enough energy for activating it again. When there is, it goes to the reagent activator, where – with the help of the energy – it again becomes capable of CO2 reduction.
This is the reagent cycle.
CO2 cannot only arrive from the power plant. It can come from the air, captured by the capturer reactor. The captured material is then separated by the separator2 into products from CO2, SO2 and NOx. Out of these three, the CO2 product is the one that provides CO2.
The capturer material, after the recovery, becomes inactive. This inactive material is stored in the inactive capturer storage up to a point when there becomes enough energy for the regeneration. When there is finally enough energy, CO2 is separated from it in the capturer regenerator and by this, it again becomes usable as capturer.
This is the CO2 capture from the air cycle.
I.2. PREVENTING CO2 FORMING
There is no general solution for this, but we explained the solution for power plants, for vehicles there will be the electric cars, if they are supplied with electricity by solar energy, and for the industry, Dr. Endre Simonyi has a solution for eliminating CO2 emission caused by the biggest emitter, ammonia production.
He worked out such technology of ammonia production which runs under atmospheric pressure, relatively non-high temperature, without catalyst and liquefaction of air, without using of coal nor natural gas and is cheaper than other existing process techologies.
Therefore, it means that the feedstock shall not be purified from catalyst inhibitors. There aren’t the energy consuming liquefaction of air and compression. There isn’t any carbon-dioxide emission. Furthermore, the complete technology is less explosion hazardous.
Thank you for your attention! If you have any questions, we will be happy to answer them!
Dr. Endre Simonyi, Scientist
Mr. Márton Simonyi, WCM Engineer