Author Archives: R.C.

Posts by R.C.

Memo 3: Annotated Bibliography: Virtual Trees

Posted on April 15, 2013 by R.C.

To: Professor MacBride

From: Richard Chan, Amanda Huang

Date: April 15, 2013

Re: Artificial Trees

Artificial Trees: The Annotated Bibliography

1. Keith, David W., Minh Ha-Duong, and Joshuah K. Stolaroff. “Climate Strategy with Co2 Capture from the Air.” Climatic Change 74, no. 1–3 (January 2006): 17–45.

This journal article goes into detail the thermodynamics, physics, mathematics, chemistry and other limits of carbon capture. This is a hypothetical set of calculations, with the intent to identify the outer limits of this particular carbon capture technology, and using it as a baseline for more realistic scenarios. It then extrapolates from those hypothetical limits a more reasonable cost-benefit analysis argument, identifying energy outputs and costs, both physical and economic, as well as a predictive risk analysis of atmospheric carbon levels with and without the carbon capture technology, as well as various scenarios, presumably to cover the range of best- and worst-case scenarios. The appendices of this article are ripe with data, and more critically, an almost step-by-step analysis of an example carbon capturing tower device. All of the information is made with the presumption and notion that such technology is well within reach by current standards, and has simply yet to be implemented on a large scale.

This source is incredibly rich in detailing many important variables regarding carbon capture technology. While the example is not exactly an artificial, carbon-capturing “tree”, it uses the same chemical process, and functions fairly similarly, if not identically, as that which is described by the artificial tree and carbon capture pioneer Klaus Lackner. The source details the energy required for carbon capture (that is, in Joules), the space in which such technology must be deployed in (the amount of carbon captured within a time frame), the costs that would entail the capture of carbon, and future projections depending on how this technology is implemented. Appendix B shows, in extreme detail, how such a device will work, down to the chemical reactions of sorbents and recycling sorbent materials, with an example device with hypothetical conditions, as well as an excellent diagram of the process. Such a description will be paramount in relating this technology into realistic terms, as it may provide a foundation in which further extrapolatory analyses may be considered, beyond the scope of the article and implemented on a New York City scale.

2. Lackner, Klaus S., Patrick Grimes, and Hans-J. Ziock. “Capturing Carbon Dioxide From Air,” 2001. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf.

Capturing Carbon Dioxide from Air explores the feasibility of air extraction in terms of technology and cost. Though alternative sources to carbonaceous fuels have been proposed, Klaus, Grimes, and Ziock argue that this technology poses multiple obstacles. For starters, it is not economically beneficial. It would also take much longer to make the transition to alternatively-fueled vehicles and may render existing energy and transportation infrastructure obsolete. Carbon dioxide capture, on the other hand, could collect CO₂ emissions after the fact, from any source, does not require a network of pipelines to the disposal site, and can be implemented virtually immediately.. The burden of the cost lies more in sorbent recovery than the actual process of capturing. Essentially, the atmosphere would serve as a temporary storage and transport system.

Klaus, Grimes, and Ziock then do a dimensional analysis, concluding that extracting CO₂ is more efficient than collecting wind energy. Their analysis estimated that using alkaline solutions of Ca(OH)₂ as a sorbent will result in $10-$15 per ton of CO₂ and 3 cents worth of coal per gallon of gasoline. Though there is energy and CO₂ released during this process, it is significantly lower than what it removes. The cost could still be lowered by using other sorbents with lower binding energies and chemical kinetics. The researchers also explored the overall scale of capturing carbon. This source details preliminary research and exploration performed by Klaus and his team prior to development of artificial trees. These beginning studies lead to the feasibility of the extraction of CO₂ from the air, as well as further investigation of other potential solvents and process design.

3. Figueroa, José D., Timothy Fout, Sean Plasynski, Howard McIlvried, and Rameshwar D. Srivastava. “Advances in CO2 Capture technology—The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Program.” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2, no. 1 (January 2008): 9–20. doi:10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00094-1.

This journal article is about the governmental pursuit of reducing carbon dioxide from the air. It addresses the United States’ concern over the rate at which carbon dioxide concentration is increasing, and will increase in the coming decades. The article describes three potential solutions to solving the problem of exhaust output from productions facilities: post-combustion, pre-combustion, and oxy-combustion systems. Post-combustion methods involve the removal of carbon dioxide after the fuel is burned, via the flue gas. Pre-combustion methods involve the removal of carbon dioxide prior to burning, which may result in the production of (and subsequent use of) synthetic hydrogen gas. Oxy-combustion methods emphasize the concentration of carbon dioxide within the flue gas, which, when burned, leave primarily water and carbon dioxide, resulting is more ease in extracting the carbon dioxide for sequestration. Each technique has its own advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of application; thus, every option is explored to maximize usage in their respective niches.

This particular article does not explain how an artificial tree works. Rather, it explains a separate yet intriguingly similar technology: extracting and siphoning carbon dioxide from power plants. While artificial trees are intended to scrub relatively ambient air for carbon dioxide, these techniques are meant for generally more concentrated levels of carbon dioxide, given their proximities to heavy levels of exhaust. Thus, this article provides an effective backbone to our research on artificial trees. Its lengthy supplementation of various sorbent technologies, explained in fair detail and quite vital in understanding not only Klaus Lackner’s intended design, but alternatives as well. The governmental backing of this article lends much credibility in the success of such technology; as Lackner’s designs are essentially an offshoot from carbon capture filters for power plants, implementation of this technology within New York City seems more realistic and predictable, however improbable an actual implementation of artificial trees may or may not be (it’s a bit of arguing “if so, then why not”).

4. Anderson, Soren, and Richard Newell. “Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 29, no. 1 (2004): 109–142. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.29.082703.145619.

This journal article describes broadly the feasibilities of carbon capture and storage technologies. It goes into some detail about various techniques of capturing carbon, from flue gas scrubbing to gasifying coal to oxy-combustion. It also compares the application and costs of carbon capture technology to several key industries, ranging from oil refining to cement mixing, that produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide exhaust. It then goes on to describe the costs and methods of moving and sequestering the carbon dioxide for more permanent storage. Finally, it lists alternative uses for carbon dioxide, aside from sequestering it into reservoirs, as well as address concerns regarding the storage and transport of carbon dioxide, especially the potential for leakage. Much of the article speaks in terms of costs and rates, as well as potential hazards. There is also some arguments for using carbon capture and storage technology for electricity generation, with accompanying models.

The major addressing point that we will derive from this article is the sequestration aspect. Most of the other sources focus primarily and extensively on the capture aspect, but few address the costs of what to do with that captured gas. The costs of piping carbon dioxide is laid out in a surprisingly simple equation (which, while being wary in its overly simplistic form, will nevertheless provide a bedrock for further calculations). Details into the effectiveness of certain reservoirs provide us with a way to analytically calculate the storage of locations nearest New York City (given that the Marcellus Shale Formation is obviously out of the question). Thus, two contingencies are covered: if nearby reservoirs are impractical, then pipeline costs is primary to reservoir costs, and vice versa. The idea of oceanic sequestering is incredibly intriguing, and should be considered an option (albeit a very hazardly one), given New York City’s geographic position.

5. Lackner, K. S. “Capture of Carbon Dioxide from Ambient Air.” The European Physical Journal Special Topics 176, no. 1 (September 1, 2009): 93–106. doi:10.1140/epjst/e2009-01150-3.

Unlike the journal article of a similar title, Lackner here goes into fine detail about his studies that culminated in a prototype carbon dioxide collection device. He uses a great deal of values and rates to describe the amount of energy needed to facilitate the scrubbing reaction, from mols to wattage. Several equations and scientific concepts set the backdrop for his concept of a passive, sorbent-based air collector. The concept is fraught with numerical details, considering variables such as wind speed and size of the collector. He also goes on to consider the type of sorbent material to be used in his concept device; rather than generic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide, his sorbent, amine-based resin seems more proprietary. His experiments and subsequent modifications then resulted in a prototype, one that could capture more carbon dioxide than it would produce via electricity. Finally, he leaves a word on future possibilities, including larger-scale and/or more efficient products.

This journal source is essentially the prime source about artificial trees, given Lackner’s involvement in this field more than anyone else (presumably, from data-gathering). Lackner puts forth all manner of scientific vernacular in describing his concept of an artificial tree to a tee. It also provides a level of redundancy with journal articles like that compiled by Keith, et. al. For the finest levels of detail, it would be paramount to use this source as the baseline for other articles to compare with, from construction technique to rate of scrubbing to sorbent material; it can also bind information from flue gas scrubbing of power plants and such, which use similar technology. With sufficient data concerning the conditions of New York City, it shouldn’t be too difficult to hypothetically, if not realistically, apply Lackner’s prototype to a cityscape or surburban scenario. The details to his sorbent resin material, which is never named, though is dealt with in depth, is vital in its own right in assessing his design, which may not be possible with generic sorbents.

6. Herzog, Howard J. “Peer Reviewed: What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration?” Environmental Science & Technology 35, no. 7 (April 1, 2001): 148A–153A. doi:10.1021/es012307j.

This article explores carbon sequestration that calls for enhancing uptake of CO₂ in natural sinks (soils, vegetation, and/or the ocean). The concept behind carbon capture and sequestration is derived from similar technologies used to lower SO₂, NOₓ, and particulates, and other pollutant emissions. This article is extremely useful in detailing the sources to capture and store anthropocentric CO₂. Prime sources to capture large quantities of carbon dioxide can come from industrial processes, power plants, or producing hydrogen fuels from carbon-rich feedstock. This carbon can be stored in geological sinks, such as deep saline formations, depleted reservoirs, and coal seams. Sequestering the carbon can be done by a combination of displacement, dissolution, and reaction of CO₂ with present minerals.

The article went on to discuss the Sleipner Project, which is the first commercial use of carbon capture and sequestration technology. Sleipner is being carefully monitored as it sets the precedent for future potential CO₂ injection projects. Other programs, such as the Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth are also discussed and explored as foundations to further projects. It is essential to study these projects to ensure that sequestration is safe, practical, and environmentally sound. Since the ocean and atmosphere are ever changing, it is estimated that 15-20% will escape over a few centuries. In extremely high concentrations, CO₂ can cause suffocation. Though geological formations are thought of as insensitive, some are located near populated areas. The article argues that the best way to address these safety concerns is to conduct more simulated and closely supervised projects.

*Cited using Chicago Manual Style (full note).

Engage Week 7: Madness to Method

Posted on March 9, 2013 by R.C.

Cornish, Ratcliffe, Krawczyk and other futurists understand the necessity for a flexible, understandable, applicable plan for the long-term survivability of the human race. Flexible is a keyword here: as Cornish explains in chapter 5, there are events and acts that are unexpected or seemingly trivial that can leave significant consequences. So far, many of our readings have focused on both private governmental requests-for-proposals, mandates and other such edicts that, while do focus on major problems for the future, are very broad and vague in their explanations or requests. That is not to say that no great ideas have been put forth, but many are generally in a pilot or testing phase, or else too broad to be replicated sufficiently across areas.

I digress to ask, then: what might we have now that might be a gamechanger, a curveball, an unexpected or seemingly inconsequential event or concept that might majorly influence how we develop our water and waste systems? What might have we overlooked in our quest to look at the heart of the problem? What may have been discarded or forgotten that might nevertheless make an impact?

Memo 1: Research Topic: Virtual Trees

Posted on February 13, 2013 by R.C.

To: Professor MacBride
From: Richard Chan, Amanda Huang
Date: February 12, 2013
Re: Research Topic: Virtual Trees

I wish to conduct research about virtual trees. I am curious about the rather ambitious notion of capturing massive quantities of carbon dioxide for sequestration that also offers the opportunity for recreational usage. My question is: Is it feasible to “plant” enough virtual trees in New York City to offset the current rates of carbon dioxide emission of the city? “Feasibility” is a question of practicality of resources as well of environmental significance and distraction (akin to the argument of aesthetics about windmills), given its possibility to be a game-like recreational unit.

My general plan of research is to use online databases as a starting point for information. It will then be supplemented with some broad googling, to identify official websites pertaining to the businesses in question, to glean more knowledge. If at all possible, I could contact one of those persons, or their representative, if appropriate, for research as well as personal opinions. I expect plenty of resistance from superfluous journal articles (bar those that sit at the top of the search page, of course), and the information from websites could be limited, or worse inaccurate.

(On a side note, I did want to do a topic on methane extraction from landfills, but then I realized that there were no landfills in New York City, as per part of the requirements in the topic, and that trying to tie in the landfills that we do use would probably be a stretch. Also, there was a gaming element for the current proposal, so that would be hard to pass up.)

Week 2: Engage

Posted on February 2, 2013 by R.C.

To what extent does Sanderson’s pre-colonial Mannahatta coincide with, as well as oppose, Jacobs’ “organized complexity” vision of Manhattan?

Comments by R.C.

"It's a mixed bag, really. On one hand, offshoring trash does provide such developing countries with an economic opportunity. Of course, that hand is shaky at best, since the conditions naturally associated with trash are horrid, resulting in health and ecosystem concerns. The other hand is that the ignorance of garbage means that we will do little to improve what isn't there (out of sight, out of mind). It wouldn't be a bad idea to combine the two options: centralize the system of disposing and recycling trash within the country. It's the best compromise that can be had; with everyone yelling NIMBY, we can't make every state have their own backyard landfill and/or processing facility. Thus, with a semi-out-of-sight system, out in hopefully scenic nowhere (no offense to Courage the Cowardly Dog), we can deal with our trash without international incident. Come to think of it, we do that now, to an extent. It would behoove us to attempt to improve and modify existing sites within the states, as well as plan new sites, to the point in which we would not have to or need to export our "goods". I suppose, ultimately, I would advocate for a domestic option for operating."
--( posted on Apr 14, 2013, commenting on the post Where do we send the garbage? )
 
"That'd be hard to say. NYC would have to build a recycling program from the ground up, since relying on resin codes is difficult at best. Their recent act to put the onus on retailers is one step toward recycling plastic bags. Nevertheless, a start would be a cohesive differentiation of plastics by both method and material. Start with the resin codes, then stratify the different plastics of the same code. Essentially, differentiate plastics down to the required level, then process and recycle based on individual properties. That guy from TED had a good general idea. More likely than not, it will be a costly and lengthy process to simply initiate for operation, let alone maintain such a facility or method. This'll likely require the cooperation of lawmakers, manufacturers, retailers, taxpayers, and any other intermediary. In other words, it'll be a heated debate, likely with little headway or Pyrrhic victories. The problem, as it has always been, is going to be who will shoulder the costs."
--( posted on Apr 14, 2013, commenting on the post What to do with plastics other than one and two? )
 
"I'd say that footing the bill might be a necessary evil, if even a fraction of it. After all, the opposite would certainly not be preferred: sitting on antiquated or unprepared infrastructure, waiting for the next storm to do a take two of what Sandy had transpired. There must be some evolution of infrastructure if damages or damaging conditions are as they are predicted. A compromise would have to be reached to balance how taxing an implement should be for the consumers. That'll be a mountain in its own right. The City has tons of ways of mitigating severe storm damage. Well, proposed anyway. From wetland barriers to giant stone water gates, infrastructural upgrades to active meteorological defense (okay, so that last one is probably very farfetched), it's only a matter of costs and benefits, choosing the one best for the situation, and returns on investments that might never be."
--( posted on Mar 4, 2013, commenting on the post NYC’s Electrical System )
 
"To be fair, the reading does mention that interdependencies within infrastructures are a strength in the system. It might be there that could be focused upon; by strengthening interdependencies within infrastructures, it would allow for increased flexibility because it would be like a parallel circuit; the loss of one won't collapse the whole system. By keeping one infrastructure up longer, it would sustain other infrastructures longer as well. For instance, by insulating more of the grid, the act would potentially keep the telecommunications system up longer, or perhaps it would cut down on the downtime in such a climatic event. What New York is lacking, for the most part, is space. New York City is extremely dense; any changes to major infrastructural areas may cause more immediate problems, both aesthetic and practical. The expanded subway track, for example, has caused a number of noise complaints, as well as physical damages or alterations to intercepting infrastructure (I believed a water main or two have been intercepted before, though I may be mistaken). It's also difficult for New York to renovate all of its infrastructure. As stated in the post-hurricane reading, the funds for doing such a task would be astronomical, and they only stated electricity as their proposed fix. It is doable, however, so long as funds are allocated properly, i.e. immediately for shoreline structures (though since most major infrastructural plants are located on the waterfronts, that could still be a major challenge). In the end, New York City will not likely be sufficiently prepared for another Sandy-like storm in the immediate future. The needed processes are not moving quickly enough; partly due to typical bureaucracies (some understandable, others shamefully filibuster-like), partly due to funds, partly due to physical practicality. The resources aren't just being utilized to their fullest extent."
--( posted on Mar 4, 2013, commenting on the post The Interdependencies and Dependencies among NYC’s Infrastructure )