Engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have developed a new, energy efficient electrochemical-based device that can capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the chief ingredient in anthropogenic-caused global warming.

This new device operates much like a battery, in that it can absorb carbon dioxide from air that is pumped through it, and then once it is full it exhales the CO2 into compressed canisters for collection. Inside the enclosed device are rows of electrically-charged plates coated with a special type of carbon nanotubes. When a low voltage—less than 2 volts were used to test the devices—CO2 is attracted to the plates and collects on the nanostructures coating them.

CO2-rich air is pumped through the device, collecting the carbon dioxide from the mix of gases, and the CO2-depleted air exits the device via the exhaust. When enough CO is collected on the plates, the electrical charge is reversed, expelling the gas from the surface of the nanotubes, and the pure CO2 can then be pumped into compressed canisters for collection.

The devices tested were effective at capturing CO2 from air with concentrations as low as 6,000 parts per million, and up to 10 percent per volume, with an efficiency of over 90 percent. The devices could also be run for over 7,000 cycles and only suffer a 30 percent drop in their absorptive efficiency. The device can be used not only in open air applications such as scrubbing CO2 directly from the surrounding atmosphere, but also in enclosed devices that could be used to collect CO2 from sources such as fossil fuel-based power plants.

“In my laboratories, we have been striving to develop new technologies to tackle a range of environmental issues that avoid the need for thermal energy sources, changes in system pressure or addition of chemicals to complete the separation and release cycles,” explains T. Alan Hatton, a professor at MIT’s David H. Koch School of Chemical Engineering Practice. “This carbon dioxide capture technology is a clear demonstration of the power of electrochemical approaches that require only small swings in voltage to drive the separations.”

The development of carbon sequestration technologies is becoming more crucial as human-generated carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, compounding the advance of global warming. Toward this end, Hatton’s team has launched a company called Verdox to commercialize the devices: not only is the sequestration of carbon dioxide a boost to reducing the effects of global warming, but the captured CO2 can be sold to industrial interests, as it is useful in producing soft drinks, plant food, and carbon-based fuels.

Image Credits:
News Source:
Dreamland Video podcast
To watch the FREE video version on YouTube, click here.

Subscribers, to watch the subscriber version of the video, first log in then click on Dreamland Subscriber-Only Video Podcast link.


  1. Can collect “as low as 6,000 parts per million”
    I understood our atmosphere is about 400 parts per million. So how can it help?

    1. This was simply as low as they took the concentrations in their testing, I should have been more succinct in this. Needless to say, the device can absorb less lethal concentrations matching what’s being recorded in our atmosphere:

      “This binary affinity allows capture of carbon dioxide from any concentration, including 400 parts per million, and allows its release into any carrier stream, including 100 percent CO2,” Voskian says.

    2. No one ever mentions that from 13000 years ago to the 1800s sea levels rose some 400 feet…which had nothing to do with human activity. The whole climate change thing is a new religion to get YOU use to the idea of having a lower standard of living….which means living in a city in which private ownership of a car is banned and illegal

      1. Historical sea level rise is mentioned a lot, actually, especially on this website. Paleoclimatologists study past climate shifts, especially the end of the Pleistocene, as examples of what we should expect to happen as the climate faces yet another warming period.

        And yes, none of the previous climate shifts are known to have been caused by human activity. But this time around, human activity is quite definitively the cause.

        All–and by “all”, I mean one hundred percent–of the evidence points to the current climate shift as being a human-made catastrophe; conversely, there is zero evidence of any natural factors contributing to this shift. See my other posts here for further information, and as I’ve asked everyone else, if you have any actual evidence to the contrary whatsoever, I’d like to hear it.

        The idea that “They” (the Illuminati, I presume?) have somehow manufactured the whole concept of anthropogenic-based global warming doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The sheer cost of manufacturing the evidence and paying off virtually every organization and individual scientist that are in some way even tangentially involved with climate research would have reached well into the trillions of dollars over the past few decades, not to mention the re-writing of the last century’s scientific history and textbooks. Toward what end? To deprive you of an automobile? Aside from urban centers plagued with rampant traffic congestion, why would “They” ban automobiles? The resulting debt relief from not having to pay for a car would do nothing but contribute to the financial freedom of the average citizen–and debt slavery is what “They” want.

        My own personal test of whether a broad-ranging conspiracy (and you can’t get much bigger than global warming) holds water or not is whether or not it leaks: unlike something like the US government’s coverup of the UFO phenomenon, of which has leaked like a sieve over the last three-quarters of a century, not one single scientist has come forward with the claim that the climate data has been falsified. It seems inconceivable that amongst the hundreds of thousands of scientists across the dozens of organizations involved in climate research over the decades that not one of them would succumb to their conscience, and come clean.

        But you are right, in that there is indeed a “religion” regarding anthropogenic-based global warming, one started in the late 1980s via a conspiracy perpetrated by Exxon Corporation, a cult of denial they systemically spread over the years to protect their profits, after their own extensive (and frighteningly accurate) research said that the continued use of their product would dramatically alter the Earth’s climate.

        ExxonMobil has long since abandoned any interest in the fantasy that dumping tens of billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn’t result in a planet-wide greenhouse effect, although there is still an unfortunate segment of society that clings to the outdated propaganda they spread over the past few decades. The company is currently facing criminal charges in numerous states over the issue.

      2. Post-Pleistocene sea level rise is, indeed, “mentioned” quite a bit, provided you’re not stuck in a climate-change denier echo chamber: paleoclimatologists study the history of past climate change in an effort to anticipate what we’re facing in regards to the current crisis, and this site has a plethora of articles on the subject.

        However, I assume that you’re insinuating that because climate shifts have happened naturally in the past that that means that the current shift is also natural. That’s like assuming that since strong winds have been felling trees since the invention of trees, then that means that lumberjacks don’t exist.

        The simple fact of the matter is that ALL of the evidence points toward the current climate shift as being a product of human activity, and there is ZERO evidence supporting natural processes being the cause. Unknown Country is a treasure trove of information regarding how humans have impacted the Earth’s climate.

        As I have asked everyone else that I’ve responded to in this thread, if you have any evidence whatsoever to the contrary, I’d like to see some links. But I suspect that you’ll provide none, because there is no evidence to the contrary.

        Yes, there is a “religion” surrounding anthropogenic-caused global warming: it’s a cult of denial that started in the late 1980s when the fossil fuel industry launched a conspiracy to deceive the public into believing that the looming crisis wasn’t an issue, all for the sake of protecting their short-term profits:

        The notion that the Green New Deal (I assume that this is what you’re referring to) aims to ban cars, or “permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military,” as per the Tweeter-in-Chief, is a regurgitated load of propagandist bullshit–and verifiably so–an outright lie that isn’t supported by the non-binding resolution itself, nor its supporters.

        For further information, please see my other posts in this thread, and perhaps read a few of the climate-related articles on this website.

  2. Back in the 1960’s, I was really into poetry and meditation. God gave us trees to turn CO2 into soil. This poem came to mind when I saw this article.

    I think that I shall never see
    A poem lovely as a tree.

    A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
    Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast;

    A tree that looks at God all day,
    And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

    A tree that may in Summer wear
    A nest of robins in her hair;

    Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
    Who intimately lives with rain.

    Poems are made by fools like me,
    But only God can make a tree.

  3. ‘anthropogenic-caused’ is redundant. It is also still debatable IMO. I happen to believe that the consensus is not as unanimous as it is made to seem. Regardless of the actual percentage, ‘concensus’ is a social phenomena that shouldn’t be conflated with the scientific method – especially with something as imprecise as so called ‘climate science’. I get that Whitley trusts the word of the visitors in regards to this question but I also see that it aligns with his own political leanings. One aspect to this question that must be taken into account is that, in the words of the late great Karla Turner, ‘these entities are liars’. Now for what reason we do not know but time and time again over the last 60+ years there have been warnings of disasters that never come. We should not blindly accept it this time.
    Personally I am more concerned with toxic industrial pollution than CO2. Humans have survived radical climate shifts before – but toxic nuclear/biological/chemical pollution is completely new and far more pernicious to our human organism. And yet here we are getting in a huff over CO2 and inventing/using intentionally divisive words like ‘climate-denier’ to shut down debate by attempting to equate skeptics to neo-nazis. Why?

    1. The cause of global warming is no longer debatable. That train left station long ago, and the only climate forcing factor that has been found that could possibly be responsible is the recent gigaton-level spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide (a laboratory-proven greenhouse gas) levels is the gigaton-level output from human industry and transport. The scientific method says so, and the consensus is that the science is correct.

      Former Senator Al Franken quite succinctly explained the state of the long since redundant notion of further “debate” on global warming to Energy Secretary Rick Perry during a budget hearing in 2017:

      “Anthropogenic-caused” is not a redundant concept, but assuming that hard science, replicated by thousands of individuals across dozens of climate research organizations–including climate skeptic organizations such as Berkley Earth and Exxon Corporation–is somehow still debatable, is redundant.

      As for the anthropogenic aspect, the debate on that aspect is also long done, and the science-based consensus says that there is no natural source that could account for the more than 30 billion tons of CO2 (and rising) that is appearing in the atmosphere *annually*: only mankind produces that much excess carbon dioxide. The only natural source that comes even vaguely close is volcanic activity, and *all* of the world’s volcanoes combined only produce about 200 million tons per year. That’s a shortfall of over *two orders of magnitude*, meaning the only other natural source that could conceivably produce this much CO2 is a supervolcano eruption or a major asteroid strike–per year–and I have it on good authority that neither of these events have happened in thousands of years, let alone every single year for the past few decades.

      Once again, and this isn’t too much to ask, if you have any–and I mean ANY–evidence to the contrary, I’d like to hear it. But as the science writer for this website, I’ve been through what little contrary evidence there is, and none of it matches the situation.

      The term “climate denier” is not divisive, but rather a contraction of the otherwise rather succinct description “climate change denier”, a holdover from when a certain segment of the population was denying that the climate was changing. As a label, it (somewhat improperly) wound up transferring over to anthropogenic climate change deniers; it’s no longer a proper description, but the meaning is pretty much universally understood.

      Yes, humans have survived regional climate shifts before. This is borne out in the historical record, and no-one is disputing that. But typically the civilizations involved collapse, unable to withstand the stresses of prolonged drought, flooding, or whatever the shoft may entail. But this time the change is global, and the last time our species faced a climate shift of this magnitude was nearly 12,000 years ago, and we know how well civilizations around the globe fared through that. Toxic pollution is a major concern, but if global warming isn’t addressed, that concern becomes most succinctly moot.

    2. And whitely doesn’t water vapor have 10 times the heat carrying capacity of CO2….speaking of which it is known that the Chinese planted over a billion trees along their western desert which brought down the temperature and increased humidity…and sucks up a lot of CO2…..but don’t hold your breath that Trump will hold a press conference in the rose garden and show Americans how to plant a fruit tree…meanwhile whitely isn’t the sun the biggest factor affecting earth climate? It is not hard science when government can hold back Grant’s on research that undermines the party’s doctrine….global warming/climate change is politics and religion mixed together… because if it was real, there would be a drive to being the Rossi cold fusion ecat generators onto the American scene (now exclusively available only to US Navy and US military)….not to mention bringing three Navy patents allowing public access to anti-gravity, inertial dampening, and room temperature super conductivity…not to mention also voiding the national security act of 1947 which allows suppression of 5000 plus inventions, most of which are energy related….but because nothing of all this is even whisowred in the papers or on Fox or CNN…I can only conclude that this whole debate about climate change is about mind control….which uses poster boys like Elon Musk to get the public thinking/going down the RIGHT path…… leon

      1. While water vapor is indeed a prominent greenhouse gas, humanity isn’t adding vast amounts of it into the atmosphere, like we are CO2, N2OCF4, etc.; since we’re not emitting it, we can’t directly control the H2O in the atmosphere. The only reason that atmospheric H2O is out of balance is because the CO2-based warming allows the atmosphere to absorb more water. If we fix the carbon problem, the water issue follows suit.

        The Sun is a factor in Earth’s climate in that it is pretty much the only source of energy driving our climate. However, if anything, is probably the only thing keeping our atmosphere as cool as it is. Solar output reached a peak in the mid-1950s and has steadily declined since, putting us at a 105-year low in output–basically, as solar output has gone down, Earth’s surface temperatures have gone up, meaning the Sun is most definitely not causing global warming.

        In fact, the Sun is forecast to enter a grand solar minimum soon, a period that could last for a half-century, but will likely only drop global average temperatures by about a half-degree Fahrenheit (0.3°C):

        Do you have any links regarding the US military’s exclusivity to these E-cat devices? I did some digging on them after you brought them up in a previous post, but I can only find one instance where the US military was involved, a 2011 demonstration for the Navy’s NRL and a former DARPA head. The NRL apparently passed on E-cat “because Rossi would not consent to extensive testing or reveal how the e-cat works. Note: this might because Rossi does not know how it works,” according to New Energy Times:

  4. Very good comments; but no one considered the population bomb. How much CO2 does an increasing population of seven to eight billion people expel in a yr. Climate change is a given…it will happen. How much is man made…that is where there seems to be just opionated rhetoric.

    1. I used to tell people that we’re responsible for roughly more than 9/10ths of the current warming that we’re seeing, based on the idea that the planet had warmed about 1°C over the past 10,000 years, and that that that warming trend had continued into the industrial age.

      That is, until I started looking through the numbers and I realized that the planet had actually been going through a *cooling* trend after temperatures leveled off after the Younger Dryas, and didn’t plateau until about 2,000 years ago–there was absolutely no long-term warming trend until human civilization started industrializing.

      Basically, we’re responsible for the whole kit-n-caboodle. Or Jesus did it, but I’m not as sure about that idea…

  5. now they can train the coal miners who are out of a job to manufacture and install these for the big carbon producers.

    should there also be a small version that goes on everyone’s car? Drop off your full carbon canister and get paid for it?

    just those two things alone would capture a pretty good chunk of carbon, and take care of a bunch of people who lost their job due to progress, and increase the amount of income tax collected (from these new jobs).

    my $0.02, and I may be totally wrong.


  6. I suspect this will not be used to clean up our atmosphere! More likely to be used in space ark atmosphere scrubbing or long duration space missions!

Leave a Reply