This new material could make carbon capture dramatically cheaper by cutting the energy needed to run it

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 1,986   +58
Staff
In context: Efforts to make carbon capture more practical have long run into the same problem: energy. Pulling CO2 out of emissions streams is technically feasible, but doing it cheaply enough to scale has been far harder. Most systems in use today rely on liquid chemical processes like amine scrubbing. These setups work, but they come with a major drawback. Releasing the captured CO2 requires heating large volumes of liquid to temperatures above 100 °C, which drives up both energy use and cost.

A research team at Chiba University in Japan is taking a different approach, focusing on solid carbon materials that can do the same job with far less heat. Their work centers on a new class of materials called viciazites, designed to control how nitrogen atoms are arranged within a carbon structure.

That level of control turns out to matter. Carbon materials have been studied for CO2 capture before, especially because they're relatively inexpensive and offer large surface areas for adsorption. Adding nitrogen improves their ability to bind CO2, but there has been a persistent issue: traditional methods scatter those nitrogen groups randomly, making it difficult to pin down what actually works best.

The Chiba team, led by Associate Professor Yasuhiro Yamada and Associate Professor Tomonori Ohba, set out to remove that uncertainty. Instead of random placement, they engineered materials where nitrogen atoms sit next to each other in specific configurations. The goal was to directly connect structure with performance.

They produced three variations. One featured adjacent primary amine (-NH2) groups and was created through a multi-step process involving coronene, bromine treatment, and ammonia exposure, achieving 76% selectivity. The other two used different starting materials to produce adjacent pyrrolic nitrogen at 82% selectivity and adjacent pyridinic nitrogen at 60%.

After attaching these materials to activated carbon fibers, the team verified the structures using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and computational modeling. The analysis confirmed that the nitrogen atoms were positioned as intended rather than randomly distributed.

When tested, the differences between the materials became clear. Both the – NH2 and pyrrolic configurations improved CO2 uptake compared to untreated carbon fibers. However, the pyridinic version showed little change.

The bigger distinction showed up during regeneration. For carbon capture systems, how easily CO2 can be released is just as important as how well it's captured. Materials with adjacent -NH2 groups stood out here. "Performance evaluation revealed that in carbon materials where NH2 groups are introduced adjacently, most of the adsorbed CO2 desorbs at temperatures below 60 °C," Dr. Yamada said. "By combining this property with industrial waste heat, it may be possible to achieve efficient CO2 capture processes with substantially reduced operating costs."

That temperature is well below what conventional systems require, which opens the door to using low-grade waste heat already available in many industrial environments.

The pyrrolic version, while requiring more heat to release CO2, may hold up better over time due to stronger chemical stability. That suggests different configurations could be suited to different operating conditions rather than a single one-size-fits-all material.

Beyond the immediate application, the work demonstrates a more precise way to design carbon-based adsorbents. "Our motivation is to contribute to the future society and to utilize our recently developed carbon materials with controlled structures," Dr. Yamada said. "This work provides validated pathways to synthesize designer nitrogen-doped carbon materials, offering the molecular-level control essential for developing next-generation, cost-effective, and advanced CO2 capture technologies."

The researchers also point to potential uses outside carbon capture, including metal ion removal and catalysis, where fine-tuned surface chemistry can play a similar role.

Permalink to story:

 
During the Early Carboniferous Period 350 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were nearly 8,000 ppm, a time when the earth developed most of the biodiversity of today, with plants and animals of all types flourishing.

Over time, the earth's own carbon capture mechanisms reduced that to a pre-industrial level of just 300 ppm, drastically stunting plant growth and nearing the dangerous 200ppm level where photosynthesis stops and all plant life dies. Thankfully man came along and began performing some much-needed planetary engineering or the Earth would have eventually became a lifeless rock.
 
Last edited:
During the Early Carboniferous Period 350 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were nearly 8,000 ppm, a time when the earth developed most of the biodiversity of today, with plants and animals of all types flourishing.

Over time, the earth's own carbon capture mechanisms reduced that to a pre-industrial level of just 300 ppm, drastically stunting plant growth and nearing the dangerous 200ppm level where photosynthesis stops and all plant life dies. Thankfully man came along and began performing some much-needed planetary engineering or the Earth would have eventually became a lifeless rock.

Ahh yes, when the world was 12 - 15°C warmer than today. Sounds like a lovely place. You should move to Indonesia where the weather is what you're wanting.
 
Ahh yes, when the world was 12 - 15°C warmer than today. Sounds like a lovely place. You should move to Indonesia where the weather is what you're wanting.
I spent several months there in the early 1990s, actually. But unsurprisingly, your facts are entirely wrong. The average temperature of the planet during the Early Carboniferous was about 68 Fahrenheit, or five degrees Celsius warmer than today.


BTW, when people want a pleasant spot to vacation in, they almost invariably choose a balmy tropical location -- they rarely travel to Greenland or Siberia.
 
Last edited:
I spent several months there in the early 1990s, actually. But unsurprisingly, your facts are entirely wrong. The average temperature of the planet during the Early Carboniferous was about 68 Fahrenheit, or five degrees Celsius warmer than today.


BTW, when people want a pleasant spot to vacation in, they almost invariably choose a balmy tropical location -- they rarely travel to Greenland or Siberia.
Cool, so you linked to a slide deck that cites "Wikkipeda" so... yeah, that's totally legitimate. I'm sure you just googled the information and... sent the first link you could find. Anyway, the world/continents/oceans were all very different then. Also, the Early Carboniferous was a hot house and later became ice house. According to Science.org (graph of temps at the bottom), 363M years ago, it looks around 25°C (mean temp, not ave). Granted, maybe that's the end of the Devonian, can't really tell. So anyway, besides that point, you think a global 5°C increase in global ave temp would be totally fine. Sure, maybe for some plants, not for people or many other species of animals. I would imagine under those circumstances places like Sibera and Greenland would be nice to vacation. If you'd like to read about what would happen with an increase in global ave temp to just 4°C above current levels, knock yourself out. https://unclimatesummit.org/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1-5c-2c-3c-and-4c/
 
Cool, so you linked to a slide deck that cites "Wikkipeda" so... yeah, that's totally legitimate. I'm sure you just googled the information and... sent the first link you could find.
Eh? I sent you slides from a Paleontology lecture at Marist University, confirming what I learned myself in college back in the 1970s. Did they not teach you this in school?

Anyway, the world/continents/oceans were all very different then.
But the laws of physics were the same.

. According to Science.org (graph of temps at the bottom), 363M years ago, it looks around 25°C (mean temp, not ave)
Was that a joke? The mean and the average are the same. This isn't even college level statistics, but middle school math.

...Granted, maybe that's the end of the Devonian, can't really tell.
Yes, you're citing the wrong geologic period entirely.

So anyway, besides that point, you think a global 5°C increase in global ave temp would be totally fine.
Actually, it would more than just "fine", it would be beneficial to mankind. The average temperature of the planet today is closer to 57F, whereas mankind - and most of the plants and animals upon which we depend - prefer one closer to 72F. It is the cold periods on Earth that we need fear; warm periods are times of plenty.
 
Eh? I sent you slides from a Paleontology lecture at Marist University, confirming what I learned myself in college back in the 1970s. Did they not teach you this in school?
Oh, and nothing about what we knew about the world has changed in the past 50 years. Also, didn't have people citing "Wikkipedia" (not even Wikipedia) back then.

But the laws of physics were the same.
Geography makes a big difference in how the types of land are and what type of environment the land would have.
Was that a joke? The mean and the average are the same. This isn't even college level statistics, but middle school math.
I know mean and average aren't the same, which is why I stated it was mean. Still, you can be a stickler about this or just accept that the forecast of the world ~363M years ago might involve a bit of guessing.
Yes, you're citing the wrong geologic period entirely.
Oh, ok. So only off by a couple million years.
Actually, it would more than just "fine", it would be beneficial to mankind. The average temperature of the planet today is closer to 57F, whereas mankind - and most of the plants and animals upon which we depend - prefer one closer to 72F. It is the cold periods on Earth that we need fear; warm periods are times of plenty.
Argh, I need to remember to stop feeding trolls. You clearly do not understand how global climate works, but you're convinced you're right. While 72F is fine for us locally, as a GLOBAL average, it is not fine. This conversation would have been more productive if I were talking to my wall.
 
I know mean and average aren't the same, which is why I stated it was mean
Mean and average are the same. Or rather, the arithmetic mean is ... which was the context here. I think you've confused mean with median. And -- given your level of understanding here, I think this conversation isn't going anywhere.

You clearly do not understand how global climate works, but you're convinced you're right. While 72F is fine for us locally, as a GLOBAL average, it is not fine.
Oops! You missed the point again. CO2 levels of 8,000 ppm -- twenty times our current level -- only took mean global temperature to 68F. And -- not that we'll ever get anywhere near that -- if we did it would be a net win for mankind.
 
Last edited:
Back