• Home
  • Current News
  • Crazy Climate Scientists Claim Baking Soda ‘Carbon Capture’ Breakthrough

Crazy Climate Scientists Claim Baking Soda ‘Carbon Capture’ Breakthrough

Written by Dr Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Would you have thought of that?  The solution to a non-existing problem resides right on your kitchen shelf! baking soda

As Nature World News reports, “It’s possible the solution to our world’s buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been sitting on our grocery shelves all along. Baking soda of all things may help to capture carbon dioxide, according to a new breakthrough study.” As that new report is authored by no less than 15 scientists it must carry some weight and be based on realistic experiments and knowledge. At least you’d be forgiven for thinking that.

The article notes further that “Scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), in collaboration with researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Harvard University, have developed a new type of carbon capture medium made up of core-shell microcapsules, consisting of a polymer shell that is highly permeable. The shell contains a solution of sodium carbonate, which is the main ingredient of baking soda, and it can absorb carbon dioxide (CO2).”

Let’s begin with some Chemistry

Just for the (very) few Dear Readers unaccustomed to chemical thinking, baking soda also goes by the term “sodium hydrogencarbonate” or, more commonly, “sodium bicarbonate” (SBC), the salt of sodium hydroxide with “hydrogen-carbonic acid.”

From a chemical point of view, SBC is fully “saturated” or “loaded” with carbon dioxide and could not take up any more.

Therefore, the idea that sodium bicarbonate may be able to absorb more carbon dioxide (from whatever source) is simply nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true and that’s the sole reason for using baking soda at all. It decomposes at temperatures above 50 C (120 F) when you are baking in the hot oven to release tiny bubbles of CO2 gas that make the dough rise. These bubbles expand and your baked cake has an airy texture. Of course, by the time it is ready to be eaten the gas in these voids has exchanged its composition with the surrounding air.

What the reporter and apparently also the contact author fail to mention is that the baking soda solution needs first to be treated either with an acid or by way of heating it in order to liberate half of the CO2. Of course, that is ancient chemistry knowledge and has been used in the Benfield Process to remove CO2 from a gas stream. Nothing new here.

What is new is the authors’ claim of having created microcapsules containing a sodium carbonate (not bicarbonate) solution with permeable silicon-based shells that allow easy passage of CO2 gas. They also claim that this kind of process “may enable low-cost and energy-efficient capture of carbon dioxide from flue gas.”

Why use Baking Soda?

Even without knowledge of any chemistry whatsoever, just by logical thought, anyone should wonder about the use of baking soda as a “carbon capture” technology. If that material produces CO2 upon heating, how could it possibly be used to accumulate CO2 from the air? It is already saturated with CO2, the sole reason for its application in baking.

You’ll probably find some baking soda in your kitchen, perhaps a box of 500 g, or one lb. when it was full. Such a box of SBC contains, chemically bound, approximately one half of the weight in carbon dioxide (CO2). Using that baking soda in your baking makes 50% of its bound CO2 escape into the air. So, Dear baking Readers, please note that you could be a source of CO2 to the atmosphere! Perhaps, you may even have to file some government form claiming an exemption of sort, for your contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere that is said to cause “climate change.”

Not that CO2 has any negative effect on your or “the climate’s” well-being; I just want to make sure you aware of that.

You may also be interested in some comparative figures that ought to alleviate any concerns you may harbor about your baking contributing to “climate change.” For that, let’s assume you breathe in and out, 24 hours a day, once every 4 seconds. That is roughly 20,000 breaths a day. At a volume of 0.25 L/breath that comes to 5,000 L of air expelled with 40,000 ppm or 4% CO2. Each liter of that then contains 40 mg (40/1000 g) of CO2. In other words, the 5,000 L/day of exhaled breath that you and every other person on this planet produce contain in the order of 0.2 kg CO2. That’s many times the amount of CO2 released from the commonly used amount of baking soda when baking just one cake. Therefore, there’s no need for you to worry about your cake-baking, regardless of whether you use baking soda or not.

Don’t exhale?

When comparing the amounts of CO2 coming out of your cake with that from your lungs, you might just get the idea to stop breathing altogether. Be assured there is no need for that either, notwithstanding the President’s claim in his recent State of the Union address that “There’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate.” That “changing climate” is attributed by many to your exhaled CO2 (and other sources from mankind), also known as anthropogenic carbon dioxide. If you really want to know where most CO2 in the air comes from, look no further than the next volcano, for example Kilauea on Hawaii that spits out 9,000,000 kg of CO2 every day – and that’s just one of thousands of volcanos and sea-vents on the globe.

Of course, the whole “climate change” or “global warming” claims attributed to CO2 are nothing but a ruse to make you buy into the “agenda,” i.e. the U.N Agenda-21. As Dr. I. Johnson Paugh just wrote in her column on Agenda 21, Cooked Science Data, and Property Rights, “U.N.‘s Agenda 21 is so insidious that people do not connect the dots between global warmists, the climate change industry, extreme environmentalists, property rights battles with NGOs around the country, main stream media, publishers of textbooks and other publications…”.

This scientific publication by 15 scientists from several previously renowned institutions is just another example of the current preoccupation of science with solving a problem that does not exist. As quoted by Nature World News’ regular columnist Jenna Iacurci, “Our method is a huge improvement in terms of environmental impacts because we are able to use simple baking soda – present in every kitchen – as the active chemical,” Roger Aines, one of the LLNL team members, said in a statement.”

If quoted correctly, this statement is nonsense par excellence, not just chemically but, more importantly, the new technology (if it works at all) would not provide any beneficial impact on the environment. At best it may keep some CO2 capturers employed for a while longer.

********

Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts convenientmyths.com

 Dr. Kaiser can be reached at:mail@convenientmyths.com

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    deonleroux

    |

    I suspect the “acid mine water” campaign is in the same category. The water in the Grootvlei GM shaft (South Africa)has a pH of about 7, yet activist, Mariette Lieferink, claims it is as acid as vinegar. The treatment of “acid mine water” actually causes contamination.

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    The pro-global warming industry never ceases to amaze!

    I wonder how much these guys were paid to come up with their ‘baking soda crap’?

  • Avatar

    Oliver K. Manuel

    |

    There are no limits to the absurdity of policy-driven science. How will history describe the time period when scientists hid evidence of the pulsar 1AU away and claimed CO2 caused Earth’s climate to change!

    Climategate helped me grasp and finally accept that the deceit I had observed earlier in nuclear and space physics were part of the same worldwide deception that engulfed the entire globe after WWII.

    I.e., the AGW scare has nothing to do with climate, but everything to do with a 1945 decision to:

    1. Take total control of society [1]
    2. Hide the “Higher Power” [2]

    Although many of the UN’s goals have merit, those noble goals do NOT justify totalitarian rule by Orwellian deception.

    References:

    1. “UN’s Agenda 21″

    http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/index.htm

    2. “Solar Energy”

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf

    Reference #2 is open for on-line review. Criticisms, corrections or comments sent to my email will be answered and will improve the paper.

  • Avatar

    Hans Schreuder

    |

    Just like wind turbines and solar PV panels, how they came to be and the energy required to build and ship them does not count with the true believer in man’s evil influence upon the climate – nil as it so happens to be, but that doesn’t bother them. Like a true believer in any religion, actual proof of veracity or in this case energy efficiency is not required, only the beautiful vision of a wondrous world in the future, either on earth or elsewhere. Our problem is that we are now well and truly surrounded by warmist zealots who have our gutless politicians eating out of their hands. Through knowledge our world has become cleaner, healthier, more efficient; through deliberate distortion of knowledge we are now heading back into deprivation. Yet, who is there to tell the President or the Pope?

  • Avatar

    FauxScienceSlayer

    |

    Sodium is not just lying about, waiting to be used for Carbon capture, but must be mined, refined and extracted from existing compounds, an energy intensive process in itself. All to ‘remove’ the harmless CO2 bubbles that you welcome in your soda pot, beer and champaign. Weird.

Comments are closed