Log in

entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous
REnewables etc
Method to overcome completely all heavy problems of urban traffic
Author: David Judbarovski, systems engineer, pensioner, Israel
judbarovski@gmail.com, http://judbarovski.livejournal.com

Here I can offer a simple and cheap method to overcome completely all heavy problems of urban traffic now suffered by:
(1) traffic jams as a consequence of growing incompatibility of urban roads  and growing quantity of private cars on the roads were built in absolutely another epoch. So average cars velocity is quite slow simultaneously inducing very wasteful fuel consume with more harmful exhaust.
(2) electric cars and hybrid ones use rechargeable battery being in principle very expensive and heavy devices with quite short lifetime;
(3) private cars are used for the traffic during a very small part of their lifetime. The general state of them is a parking at the roads sides decreasing the roads capacity. As a rule, they are a big cars with four or more sits used for one-two persons’ traveling.
(4) Mini- cars now being in more and more quantity on the roads, they have a low velocity in principle for their travelers saving. So in spite of a common point of view, they are lowering the traffic capacity. Analogously it is right for bicycles as human muscles powered ones as the ones equipped by rechargeable battery;
(5) All above-mentioned transportation means are suffered by human mistakes on the road vs. even present level of self-driving cars.
(6) In a case of crashes or breakage of a private car, the car’s owner is faced to be lonely with such problems on the road and afterword or attract nearest service of quality being unknown to him.

Certainly, the UBER Technology Inc. model of private taxi network which allows consumers with smartphones to submit a trip request, it is a first step in right direction for completely overcome of all heavy problems of urban traffic.
Certainly, the said private taxi can be self-driving cars be in a future applications, but it is in our hands to bring the future to be realized in nearest two-three years, because all technologies for it are known, and the said point of view is known and it isn’t my own invention or discovery. Such system can automatically optimize the choice of best traffic route for minimizing the time and the cost of the route and the taxi waiting time. What we would be needed, it is to order the start and final point and quantity of passengers and cargo, and  a willing time of delivery and that is all.
But here I can add the offer to use electric car taxi powered by clean and twice more cheap energy than from fossil fuels analogously to trolleybus or so. It can extremely cheapen and lighten the said electric taxi, because it would be not needed in rechargeable batteries. We wouldn’t  need to charge batteries, but can charge our gadgets along the travel and use them by free internet.
Moreover, all private cars can be removed for parking at park stations outside the city binderies and be used for outside city travels only.
Leave a comment
Artificial carbon base fuels can compete with now cheap fossil ones
Author: David Judbarovski, pensioner, Israel
judbarovski@gmauil.com, http://judbarovski.livejournal.com
 {140}-(5)- Sept 18, 2016
The said above-mentioned thesis is based on my inventions of last years and promising the tremendously cheap hydrogen by 10 cents/kg (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/133945.html ), cheap carbon dioxide by about USD 5.0/ton (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/132709.html or much cheaper - see http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/132407.html ), and extremely cheap heat and electricity for production of them (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/133020.html, and http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84244.html ).
CO2 + 3 H2 = CH2 (oil) + 2 H2O + 240 kJ/mol = 680 kWh of high temp cheat per a bbl of the oil as a free by-product. Such oil would be (44 * 5 + 100 * 6)/14 = 58.6 * 0.159 * 0.9 = USD 8.38/bbl + ~20 $ O & M being so cheap because such process is using clean reagents aren’t needed any purification vs. classical processes using coal or natural gas for syngas production. So our artificial oil is cheaper USD 30.0/bbl.
Analogous estimation for Sabatier process of methane production gives 36 $/ 1000 m3, and 38 $/bbloe for methanol. The last can be used for cheap ethanol or dimethyl ether, the both being more suitable fuel for civil applications. Moreover, the methanol is very worthy for different chemistry.     
Leave a comment
About bad economics of industrial cellulose photosynthesis by artificial light
Author: David Judbarovski, pensioner, Israel
judbarovski@gmail.com, http://judbarovski.livejournal.com

After news in our media to prohibit large retail chains to supply free plastic bags for their buyers from 1.04.2016, any change wasn’t in our Israel.
It is well known that such bags from PP and PE thrown provide big problem for ecology, while paper bags and other ones made of cellulose based materials that well destroyed naturally, but produced from plants, so it is badly accompanied by deforestation and destruction of soils on global scale.
Technologies for industrial production of cellulose are known, but use organic raw material like sugar and so on, but they are the plants derivatives too.

A possibility of cellulose made  industrially from inorganic matter was investigated by me in http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/125502.html
A possibility of carbohydrates production, and cellulose one in particular using artificial lighting instead of natural light is well known, but till now is limited by special applications, because being very expensive, and wasn’t able to compete with natural product by its cost, but by shortening production land area only, and it is common point of view.
The properties of bacterial cellulose are quite different from those of plant celluloses, The especial concerns the ultrafine architecture, high hydrophilicity, and mouldability during formation, high mechanical strength in wet state, enormous waterretention values, low roughness of the inner surface demonstrate the high potential of the artificial cellulose for many applications (“Progress in Polymer Science”, Vol. 26, Issue 9, November 2001, Pages 1561-1603, Elsevier Science Ltd.).
Enthalpy of formation of carbohydrates is 1258 kJ for mole so ideal energy for the carbohydrate production by 6 CO2 + 6 H2O = C6H12O6 is 15.64 kJ/gram = 4340 kWh/ton
Supposing high energy efficiency of the said photosynthesis by high productive selected bacteria, or aquatic plants in particular, to be 15%-20%, so it would be about 25,000 kWh per a ton. Such electricity can be USD 0.0012/kWh or less for sunny regions if using my tremendously cheap solar system (see its disclosure in a body of http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/133296.html ).
So if 10% transforming of the said electricity in the light by gas lamps, the energy consume would be about 250,000 kWh/ton, or USD 300.0/ton. The gas lamps cost can by USD 2.0/20W = 0.1 per Watt by retail price, or some times cheaper, if a big order. Let be USD 40/kW with 10,000 hours lifetime, so it adds 0.4 cents * 250,000 = USD 1000.0/ton.
Totally it is USD 1300/ton of raw absolute dry biomass being about 20 times more expensive than wood logs equivalent.    
Leave a comment
Breakthrough cheap and simple water splitting, if using micro-waves generator
Author: David Judbarovski, pensioner, Israel
judbarovski@gmail.com , http://judbarovski.livejournal.com
As an idea it goes me back to 2014

Conventional vacuum micro-waves generators are characterized by very high energy efficiency of industrial quality electricity transforming into electromagnetic field at normal operational conditions (up to 80% for industrial quality samples) and can produce EM-energy up to many Megawatt in pulse of tens or hundreds kW average.
It allows to use the EM energy concentrator being a simple optical mirror for focusing the said energy, can be the resonance for the water frequency, on a small spot under  the water surface, to reach about 2500 Centigrade being enough to split the water on hydrogen and oxygen, the both are instantly cooled down to normal temperature by surrounded water, so we can use the water of any purity, e.g. seawater, or any dirty water etc, and any water vessel can be a cheap plastic. The concentrating mirror can by quite cheap too and be able to be cooled by traditional means.
Input electricity can be USD 0.001-0.002/kWh or even cheaper, and the electricity can be  renewable electricity of any supply schedule up to round-the-clock and all-year-round ( see the said issues disclosure in http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/133296.html ). So the water splitting in 1 kg of hydrogen and 8 kg of oxygen consumes about 40 /0.8 = 50 kWh electricity by USD 0.05-0.1. The said EM energy generators usually are quite simple and cheap devices by its mechanics point of view, can be about USD 40/kW or so.
So that only sufficient part of total capital cost adds (USD 40 /(8766 hour * 5 years of payback) * 50 kWh = USD 0.046. and in sum USD 0.096 – 0.146 for 1 kg hydrogen production with 8 kg oxygen free.         
Leave a comment
Chemical cycles to bond cheaply atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia - Updated
judbarovski@gmail.com, http://judbarovski.livejornal.com
Idea goes back to 2012
Ammonia world production is very important and rapidly growing (198 millions tons in 2012, 146 million tons in 2006 (+35%)).
83% of it (2004) was used for fertilization. It is very important too for military industry, in chemistry, food and pharmaceutical industries. It is now the general industrial way to bond natural nitrogen. A very promising and growing applications of it are microbiological industry, and as fuels, and other use as a precursor of nitrogenous compounds and/or hydrogen, and many others very different applications.
Moreover, cheap ammonia production in quantity of milliards ton annually can be used as renewable energy storage medium, so to solve a problem of renewable energy usage round-the clock and all-year-round for any designed energy supply schedule.
I intend to offer here an original industrial way (Lithium-cycle) to produce breakthrough cheap ammonia at quite mild industrial conditions and by not sophisticated aids, run at normal atmospheric pressure.
3 Li + 1.5 H2 = (~ 750 C) = 3 LiH + 3 * 90.7 kJ/mol.
3 LiH + N2 = (400-500 C) = Li3N + NH3 - 71 kJ/mol.
Li3N = (400 C) = 3 Li* + ½ N2 – 155 kJ/mol.
Overall reaction: 1.5 H2 + 0.5 N2 = NH3 + 46.19 kJ/mol
You can see that its all heat needs can be covered by excess heat of the first process, and still have 46.19 kJ/(mol of NH3) at about 450 C for electricity production, can be added for the end step of the said technology:
A stoichiometric production cost of such ammonia is
(14 * 1 + 3 * 10) / 17 = 2.59 cents/kg = USD 26.0/ton ammonia, while O & M is minimal. (see the reagents cost estimation in http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/133296.html and http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/133945.html ).
I can offer another variant is running more simply and cheaply:
3 Li +0.5 N2 = (200 C) = Li3N - 155 kJ
Li3N + 3 H2 = (300 C) = 3 LiH + NH3 - 163 kJ
3 LiH = (750 C) = 3 Li + 1.5 H2 - 90.65 * 3 kJ,
and many other analogous cycles can be more or less competitive to above-mentioned ones, and based on more common and cheap metals with hydrogen/nitrogen, e.g. iron, zinc, sodium, potassium, strontium, magnesium, calcium, can be running at more or less mild conditions.
Leave a comment
More economical ship design
Author: David Judbarovski, pensioner, Israel
judbarovski@gmail.com, http://judbarovski.livejournal.com

Here I intend to show my design of much more economical ship.
It consists of a shell with the air inside it and being sank in the water and opened in the bottom, and the upper side of it is a shell for payload being above the water surface and can equipped by openwork pedestal construction as possibly. The shell for payload can be with much thinner walls than conventional ships. Such ship offered by me can be considered as a variant of a cushioncraft, but with much bigger drug power. Nevertheless, for open sea application my design has evidently big advantages. Let us name my ship as JCS = Judbarovski cushioncraft ship. It needs a small air compressor to compensate the air leakage from the underwater shell.
Here I take USA modern destroyer of Arleight Burke type for economical comparison.
The said destroyer is 155 meter length, 6 meters draft, 20 m beam, about 9000 ton displacement if fully loaded, and 81,000 kW movers, and 56 km/h = 15.5 m/s speed in excess.
Its side + bottom underwater area is about 2 * 20 * 150 + 6 * 150 = 6900 m2 and frontal resistant is 20 * 6 = 120 m2 having 6900/120 = 57.5 bigger hydrodynamic resistant factor (hrf).
The drag power = 81000 kW = c * 120 m2 * (15.5^3) * 0.5, so c = 0.36, while frontal hrf = 0.18 and side & bottom hrf  = 0.18/57.5 = 0.003.
Let my JCS has the same underwater draft and beam and L meter length, but now side & bottom resistance area is only side resistance.
If  the same 81000 kW = (V^3) * 0.5 * (2 * 6 * (L = 155 m) * 0.003 + 20 * 6 * 0.18), so V= 18 m/s = 65km/s, or 65/56 = 18% quicker.
If the same 56 km/h = 15.5 m/s, and 81,000 kW, the L = 608 m. so payload would be 600 m/155 m = 3.9 times bigger, up to 35,000 ton vs. 9000 ton. Certainly we have to fasten our underwater shell, but it will consume negligible materials, time and money vs. the ship ones.
It is very cheap travel is 35,000 ton * 1 km/ 56 km/h = 81,000/56 kWh * USD 0.06/kWh = USD 86 /35,000 ton-km = USD 0.0025/ton*km  
Leave a comment

Energy and production have to be and are ready to be green & cheap & abundant & inexhaustible, while all materials and parts of equipments for that purpose can be recyclable.
Here below I intend to show it.
It is based on
(1) solar energy concentrator especially invented for producing of breakthrough cheap heat energy up to about 600 Centigrade and down to USD 0.001/kWh or less (see:
http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/89510.html and was updated in http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/133020.html );
(2) new type of electrochemical generators (ECG = Judbarovski Fuel Cell) invented for producing of breakthrough cheap electricity down to USD 0.0012/kWh using the above-mentioned extremely cheap heat energy for the said ECG recycling, can be without any interruption of the said ECG work (see:
http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84244.html );
(3) method to produce very cheap high temperature energy down to USD 0.0015/kWh by using the said extremely cheap electricity (see:
http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84535.html );
(4) technology to extract carbon dioxide from the air by breakthrough about USD 5.0/ton CO2 by using the said extremely cheap high temperature energy, and even from cars exhaust (see: (
http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/132407.html and http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/132709.html );
(5) KNO2/KNO3 cycle to produce breakthrough cheap hydrogen by USD 0.14/kg using above-mentioned breakthrough cheap heat and electricity (see
http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/120527.html )
(6) Chem cycles to bond atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia by USD 26.0/ton + a little for O & M (see http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/133835.html )

(7) potassium cycle process invented to produce extremely cheap hydrocarbons down to USD 9.0 /bbl o.e. (barrel of oil equivalent) using the said cheap heat energy and the said extremely cheap carbon dioxide, and water (see: http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/85188.html );
(8) universal water purification/desalination technology as incredibly cheap as USD 0.05/m3 for green & cheap & abundant & inexhaustible fresh clean water supply can be delivered to any point of Earth cheaply by extremely cheap energy (see:
http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/86261.html );
(9) plants’ farming using the said cheap concentrated carbon dioxide for the plants feeding that can sufficiently increase and cheapen the plants yield (see:
http://judbarovski.liveurnal.com/85523.html );
(10) microbiological technology using the said extremely cheap artificial hydrocarbons, e.g. methane, as raw material to produce industrially green & cheap & abundant & inexhaustible meat products down to USD 0.02/kg from air, water and sunshine (see:
http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/85815.html );
All cost estimations were made by world market prices of 2013 yr. of materials and if used own mass industrial production of all equipments used for mass end product by them. The said equipments are especially designed to be not sophisticated, even very simple ones for all above-mentioned technologies disclosed here below.
In any case all that can be considered as “a roadmap” for sceptics.

Leave a comment
Solar energy can be extremely cheap and all the year round
Author: David Judbarovski, pensioner, Israel
judbarovski@gmail.com , http://judbarovski.livejournal.com

(1) The smaller dimensions, the thinner in a cube of dimensions can be solar beams concentrator (SC), so it is cheaper. Now mirrors of some meters height are used and their thickness is 6-8 mm, and a special intricate construction used for the mirror's backside supporting and made of iron bars of different length and jointed each to others by welding.
(2) Each SC of mine is a system of two small mirrors about 1 m2 and 0.4 mm thickness each. The first one is planar of 1.2 m * 1.2 m and redirects solar beams on to a motionless dish concentrator of 1 m2 diameter, so a focal spot and tubes for heat carrier are motionless too, so the SC is very reliable vs. conventional ones.
(3) My SC system consists of a thin iron sheet made by one step pressing and covered by a transparent plastic foil and with a reflecting thin film inside the said sandwich.
If the said plastic film is propylene (PPP), and all materials are bought by prices of big order, the said SC system is 8 kg Fe * USD 0.6/kg + negligible for PPP film and Al reflector + two pedestals of 1 cm diameter with walls 1.0 mm by USD 2.0 in sum = ~ USD 7.0 totally
Such SC can bear a wind load of 40 m/s and can work reliably at less 20 m/s
(4) A sensor for the system of solar beams redirecting control can be well known tiny construction consists of two perpendicularly crossed baffles plates with four tiny semiconductor photo sensors inside them. Being mass produced the cost of the sensor can be negligible.
(5) A 2-exis rotation for the said planar mirror can be made by two tiny electric motors. Such control system being mass produced can be USD 2.0-3.0.
(6) Being summarizes such system is less than USD 10.0/m2 solar flux + 10% =~ USD 11.0 and can provide the concentration up to 100:1 or even more.
(7) All materials and parts are well recyclable and it sufficiently will be cheapening the said system in middle- and long exploiting.
(8) For sunny regions with DNI (direct normal irradiation) being 2000-4000 kWh/m2/year and for 5 years of payback, the said solar energy would be USD 11.0/ (5 years * 2000 kWh) = USD 0.0011/kWh of high temperature heat or cheaper, and the said heat can be transformed in electricity.
(8) We can use two kinds of the heat carriers serially, e.g. the first one is from under zero and up to 350 Centigrade, e.g. oil, and the second one up to 600-750 C. e.g. melted anhydrous sodium hydroxide, and the last is non-aggressive for iron walls and needs the concentration near 100:1. Each of the said two loops of the heat carriers are provided by separate heat storage system can be for some hours’ storage. It has a little influence on a cost for total economics of solar energy production.  
(9) For regions with frosty winters with unpredictable snow falls and snow melting we can exploit the said system out of the winters, and it will be very little influent for total economics of the solar energy production. Really, for northern regions the lion share of annual solar irradiation is out the winters, and for moderate climate, the lion share of days in a year are without any snow falls.
(10) For northern or moderate climate regions our solar heat production can be as cheap as USD 0.002/kWh of high temperature heat can be transformed in electricity either by conventional turbine-generator.  .
(11)  We can produce some surplus heat and electricity as energy for thermochemical and electrochemical converting the said energy into chemical energy of chemicals with energy efficiency up to near 100% and can be stored and transported much more cheaply and compactly and without losses vs. a case of p. 10. It allows solar energy to be supplied all the year round with any designed schedule. The said chemicals can be ammonia being liquid at 20 bars pressure, and hydrogen can be released from the said ammonia by simple heating at any designed place of consume and used for other energetic chemicals production, e.g. in artificial fuels, can be carbohydrates and etc., or used for direct electricity production with a help of fuel cells.  
Leave a comment


CO2 sequestration can be prized after its chemical capturing can be a realistic system, even if being applied for CO2 cars exhaust.



CO2 chemical capture from cars’ exhaust can be quite suitable engineering system by its cheapness and small dimensions. For example, such CO2 containing harmful sulfur based dirties can be extracted by mixing with NaOH solution, forming NaCO3-sediment including solid dirties, can be periodically sold at the NaCO3 collectors for further recycling into NaOH, while recycled CO2 is valuable goods for various chemistry and other industry, including artificial fuel production, closing GHG cycle. In your turn, the NaCO3 sold can be considered as a well profitable prize for all participants, and it is helpful for global environment & human health saving too.

What actions do you propose?

CO2 capture from car’s exhaust can be:

CO2 + 2NaOH = Na2CO3 + H2O + 171 kJ/mol

It runs in a chemical reactor being a simple small vessel for mixing CO2 exhaust containing the water and dirties. The said reactor is equipped by dewatering for surplus water by evaporation using car’s exhaust heat, while Na2CO3 with dirties are solid sediments.

A new and very important factor, it is a possibility of extremely cheap high temp heat (down to USD 0.001/kWh) and electricity produced by the said heat, and it would change a game in economics of the NaOH and CO2 recycling from Na2CO3.

(see solar system in http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/106896.html )

NaOH recycling from Na2CO3 with dirties can be of different chemical technologies the all give the NaOH cycled and CO2. The both can be clean products:

The said CO2 can be used for oil production to close the GHG cycle:

(a) CO2 + 2H2 = CO + H2O

(b) CO + H2 = oil + H2O

It can be clean oil, further is not dirtying the cars exhaust.

If 25,000 km is a car annual running, so 70 km daily, and 7 liter oil for 100 km, or 4 kg oil = 0.3 kmol oil daily = 30 kg NaCO3 for sale daily = 120 kg in 4 days in average = 47 liter reactor must be installed at the car. It can be a cube of 35 cm, can capture 0.3 * 44 *365 = 5 ton CO2 annually. It is quite small device and extremely cheap, not more than some hundred dollars.

For comparison, such “clean” and modern car as electric car Tesla Model X, 400 km range, USD 83,000 is equipped by 85 kWh battery of 540 kg weight, can serve not more than 3-5 years.

Now CO2 market price in EC is 100 euro/ton, and USD 600/ton in Japan, while NaOH and Na2CO3 the both are USD 200/ton.      

Who will take these actions?

The system must by supported by central and local governments legislature and preferences, and aggressive publicity to attract private businesses for the end users:

(a) to create a manufacture of different capacity from small businesses and up to large plants for production of the chemical reactors.

(b) to install such reactor in a car

(c) to place Na2CO3 collectors on the roads

and after that to recycle NaOH and CO2 from Na2CO3

Where will these actions be taken?

The said system can be deployed over the World.

What are the key benefits of these actions?

The CO2 captured at cars is valuable goods for various chemistry and other industry, including artificial fuel production, closing GHG cycle. In your turn, the Na2CO3 sold can be considered as a well profitable prize for all participants, and it is helpful for global environment & human health saving too.

What are the costs associated with the solution?

Now CO2 market price in EC is 100 euro/ton and, and USD 600/ton in Japan, and it would be practically net profit for my system’s participants, while NaOH and Na2CO3 the both are USD 200/ton.       

The said reactor is practically eternal and quite small device of several tens liter and about 100 kg emptied ones in some days, and extremely cheap, not more than some hundred dollars.

For comparison, such “clean” and modern car as electric car Tesla Model X, 400 km range, USD 83,000 is equipped by 85 kWh battery of 540 kg weight, with lifetime not more than 3-5 years, and must be charged daily.

Time line

My reactors offered here is well scalable product for commercialization, but for getting a profit from selling CO2 captured and Na2CO3, it needs a net of Na2CO3 collecting stations, analogously refueling and recharging station, and it can take a time, but not big time if regional application.  It needs several years the NaOH & CO2 recycling plants to be designed and created, but Na2CO3 for them can be stored, isn't waiting when they are would be built in full scale.

Related solutions

Short glance through other your authors suggestions show me that nobody of them offer even a little similar for my solution for your Solve, Fuel: Carbon price.


Being basic engineering system (not science, but design only) it doesn’t need science references and so on. I can note that during years any possibility of economical extraction of CO2 from the car’s exhaust directly at the same car, it was categorical denied.

A new and very important factor, it is a possibility of extremely cheap high temp heat and electricity produced by the said heat, and it would change a game in economics of the NaOH and CO2 recycling from Na2CO3. (see http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/106896.html )

Leave a comment

Solution for Fuel: Negative carbon emissions by Judbarovski

Cost of CO2 chemical capture, if breakthrough cheap energy


CO2 as a valuable goods can be very cheap & abundant, being captured by using a cycled chemistry and breakthrough cheap solar energy for it.



A possibility of breakthrough cheap energy is a key element for breakthrough cheap & abundant capture of gaseous CO2, to produce CO2 greatly concentrated and pure.

Chemical capture of CO2 is known and can be very promising for it, especially if the energy for the said chemistry will be breakthrough cheapened, and I disclose such energy device and system here.

It is solar thermal concentrated energy, designed more skillfully than it is common now. Cost of such high temp heat is down to USD 0.001/kWh, and such CO2 can be as low as several USD-s/ton, being depended on a chemical technology chosen for consideration.

What actions do you propose?

More detailed disclosure

Heat energy can be very cheap, because can be produced by system of cheap small solar concentrators, because the smaller it, the less materials consumed and being in a cube of dimensions. It is made of cheap foils, thin sheets and reflecting films protected, and from cheap mass produced materials and parts bought by lower prices if in large order. Totally it is about 10.0 USD for 1.0 m2 of solar flux, so 2000 kWh heat/m2 (annually for sunny regions) * 5 years of payback, so as cheap as 10.0 USD / (2000 * 5) = USD 0.001/kWh heat (see more detailed in http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/106896.html ). It is greatly recyclable and very reliable, especially because its focal spot is motionless. Such cheap solar heat is about USD 0.001/kWh for sunny regions, and 0.0013-0.0016 for moderate climate regions, can be transformed in electricity as conventionally as by much more energy effective means than Carnot limit allows for a heat machine. It can be a fuel cell can be recycled thermally or by cycled chemistry, can include some electrochemical processes. Their by-products can be fuels or carbon and/or hydrogen and/or nitrogen predecessors for various chemistry and artificial fuels production. It can be thermal antenna-generators are intensively investigated in the world during last ten years. 

It is well known that antenna-generators and a chemistry and electrochemistry, the all those can be heat transformers with energy efficiency near 100%. 

We can accumulate surplus solar energy in the form of artificial fuels, can support the heat and electricity supply to be round the clock and year-round and not depended on seasons, and a day-time and a variable sunshine. It would be not depended on a distance from such solar plant to CO2 production plants in a case of input being a local CO2 exhaust. 

For illustration, let very speculative consider one of the possible technologies for CO2 cycled chemical capture, here from the natural atmosphere.

For example,

(1a) CO2 + CaO (H2O) = CaCO3 + 178 kJ
(1b) CaCO3 = at 825 C = CaO + CO2 – 178 kJ

The said chemistry can use electricity for the second reaction, while another lion share of electricity is consumed for contacting the air with CaO solution in the water. If 80% of the CO2 extraction it needs (1.0 / 0.0004) / 0.8 = 3.1 * 10^3 m3 air/m3 CO2 = 2 *10 ^6 m3/ton CO2 = 1.2 * 2 * 10^6 * 10^5 * P (bars) * 10^(-3) / 3600 = 67,000 *  P(bars) kWh/ton CO2 + for chemistry we uses 1100 kWh/ton CO2. P is the air pressure for mixing the air with the CaO solution. If P = 1000 Pa = 0.01 bars, so totally it is about 1770 kWh electricity/ton CO2, and if 0.001 /0.33 = USD 0.003/kWh electricity, so CO2 of high purity would be USD 5.3 /ton CO2. The more energy effective it, the cheaper CO2 can be.

If input CO2 being concentrated exhaust of some technology, the CO2 would be many times cheaper.

Who will take these actions?

The cheap & abundant CO2 sequestration is very important for global environment and human health. When reaching to be big system fully complicated and fed by solar energy can be extremely cheap, it can shock the world markets and regional ones by energy being extremely cheap and abundant, so prices of them must be controlled step-by-step, and it needs support by legislature from central governments’ and regional ones, and by creating special authorities for co-ordination and supervision, while there will be a big potential field for organizations and business activity including startups since its initial stage, because my system is well scalable from very small units, and up to full scale system, can be financed by breeding model, when extra-profit from earlier stage can be redirected for exponential grow wouldn’t be needed in external investments.  

Where will these actions be taken?

The system of CO2 capture offered here can be deployed everywhere, but more preferable if near a solar energy plant can act in sunny- and moderate climate regions of over the World.

What are the key benefits of these actions?

The said system  will help our mankind wealth and health in much more clean and safe environment, while CO2 captured and being very cheap and abundant can be cheap and “green” carbon predecessor for wide spectra of chemical production, including artificial fuels too.

What are the costs associated with the solution?

CO2 can be as low as several USD-s/ton, being depended on a chemical technology chosen for consideration. The more energy effective it, the cheaper CO2 can be.

If input CO2 being concentrated exhaust of some technology, the CO2 would be many times cheaper than CO2 captured from natural atmosphere.

Time line

Being a complex of separate two parts, i.e. solar energy plans and CO2 capture plants, the both are well scalable from very small devices needs from some months for commercialization, if the full scaled, it would be burden by problems of world markets stability, because extremely cheap and abundant energy for our CO2 production and enormous huge demand of materials for full scaling.

All that is a reason that the system introduction and its organizing procedures must be distributed in time up to 10 years and not sufficiently more it, because after initial stages it wouldn’t need to waste a time to collect enormously huge external investing, but they can be taken from extra-profit from earlier stages.

Design works can consume not more than 2-3 years, because being basic engineering and not research & development.   

Related solutions

A short glance through solutions of other your authors  shows me that nobody of them offered even a little similar for my solution for your Solve, Negative carbon emission. Nevertheless, I met among them well understanding of basis idea to apply a more cheap energy for more cheap CO2 capture.


(1) ”Closing the Carbon Cycle: Liquid Fuels from Air, Water and Sunshine”,

Klaus S. Lackner etc., klaus.lackner@columbia.edu

This document was originally written as an application for the U.S. DOE funding opportunity “Energy Innovation Hub – Fuels from Sunlight” (DE-FOA-0000214).

(2) PJ07 “New promising class of electrochemical generators”, David Judbarovski, Battery Conference, RWTU, Aachen, 2013

(3) “Photovoltaic Technologies Beyond the Harizon: Optical REctenna Solar Cell”,

B. B. Berland, ITN Energy Systems, Inc., Litton, Colorado,

Final Report, 1 August 2001-30 September 2002,

February 2003, NREL/SR-520-33263

(4) Era of Renewables-3, 2013, part 1, David Judbarovski, http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/86285.html

Leave a comment