Move over wind farms. Step aside acres of solar panels. There’s a new renewable energy source coming down the pike, and it has the potential to put the others out of business. And, ironically, it’s the climate alarmists’ biggest demon. It’s carbon dioxide.
Carbon sequestration, as the process is called, removes CO2 from the atmosphere and turns it into a solid form, namely coal, in order to be able to store it safely back in the ground where it came from.
A research team led by RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, has discovered a new method of taking carbon dioxide in its gas form and converting it into solid coal. The discovery has the potential to completely change the way people regard the carbon dioxide that humans release into the atmosphere. The paper detailing how the feat was accomplished was published on February 26 in Nature Communications.
“While we can’t literally turn back time, turning carbon dioxide back into coal and burying it back in the ground is a bit like rewinding the emissions clock,” said Dr. Torben Daeneke, a research scientist at RMIT University.
A schematic illustration showing how liquid metal is used as a catalyst for converting carbon dioxide into solid coal. Credit: RMIT University
Methods of carbon sequestration already exist, but those methods are technically and economically challenging. Major oil companies and energy concerns such as Shell are currently spending a fortune on projects aimed at removing atmospheric CO2 from the air, but those processes involve turning CO2 into a liquid form and injecting it back into rock formations. The process is so expensive that even major companies can’t afford it without government subsidies.
While this is not the first time that scientists have been able to turn CO2 into coal, previous methods required extremely high temperatures and were not viable outside a laboratory setting. The new method can be accomplished at room temperature.
“To date, CO2 has only been converted into a solid at extremely high temperatures, making it industrially unviable,” Daeneke said.
But the researchers found a way around the extreme temperature problem. “By using liquid metals as a catalyst, we’ve shown it’s possible to turn the gas back into carbon at room temperature, in a process that’s efficient and scaleable,” Daeneke said.
The liquid metal catalyst was developed by the researchers with specific surface properties, making it extremely efficient at conducting electricity, while chemically activating the surface.
According to the press release: “The carbon dioxide is dissolved in a beaker with an electrolyte liquid and a small amount of the liquid metal, which is then charged with an electric current. The CO2 slowly converts into solid flakes of carbon, which are naturally detached from the liquid metal surface, allowing the continuous production of carbonaceous solid.”
And, yes, the process has the potential to yield a future energy source. The carbon produced may be able to be used as an electrode.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow, based on this process, next we’ll be able to make aluminium out of bauxite.
All it requires is a little electricity.
Oh wait . . . .
I love you Anthony, but this idea is nuts. It’s got to be 10% energy efficient on top of the 33%ish energy efficiency of the electricity from coal or nuclear on the front end, and again on the back end if you want to burn the produced coal again. That’s 1% efficient tops. And where is the lithium used as a catalyst going to come from in an industrial scale?
In addition to the electric current as a reducing force, the liquid metal (whatever that is) most certainly is undergoing a form change to increase its oxidation state, thereby supplying more electrons to reduce the CO2 to carbon and freeing the oxygen to oxidize the metal.
And note the key kinetics word in the above CO2 conversion description is “slowly.”
Maybe liquid metal electrolyte like a chromic acid solution? Chrome can supply a lot of electrons to the oxidation process, which is why it is loved by car afficonados to chrome-plate steel.
The article here doesn’t say much on the catalyst metal or metal electrolyte details, but I have no inclination chase that useless rabbit down the hole of reference searches.
Would your chromic acid solution be hexavalent chrome? Cr (VI)? The most lethal substance known to man after Plutonium and Carbon?
The most lethal substance known to man after Plutonium and Carbon. –>
The most lethal substance known to man after hydrochloric acid, Plutonium and Carbon.
“The most lethal substance known to man after MAN, hydrochloric acid, Plutonium and Carbon”
FTFY – no charge.
The idea that Plutonium is highly lethal is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity
Chemically, it has toxicity similar to other heavy metals such as Lead or Mercury. You want to avoid exposure if you can do so easily.
Even among radioactive materials it is inter-mediate to low since most isotopes are primarily alpha emitters, and most of the material produced in reactors is Pu-239, with a 24,100 year half life. Longer half life means it is a less strong source for longer. Co-60, for example, produces two hard gammas and has a half life of 5.27 years, so it’s blazing hot and highly damaging, but lasts a much shorter time.
Why do they get paid to work on these insane attempts to “revers time”?
You can NOT reverse entropy change. If you burnt coal to get energy and CO2 is will take far MORE energy to convert that CO2 back into “coal”.
All the clever chemistry is totally pointless to even contemplate when you would need far more than all the energy we have ever generated to “put it back in the ground”.
These guys are not uneducated , they know it’s pointless attempt to go against the laws of thermodynamics but they are cynically wasting the research grants they are being given.
It isn’t about whether or not they are educated, it is about political dogma driving science. As long as science research is dependent on government funding, and government funding is driving by the idiotic ideology of AGW, educated (or should that be credentialed) people will waste government money on useless research because, useless research is the only kind of research the government will fund.
The problem is the government funding of science. Government funded art results in junk art; government funded science (as long as it isn’t defense related) results in junk science.
The same result can be achieved by growing trees and burying them in the same hole the coal came from.
It would take a lot less electricity and create jobs for a very low cost. They could sell some of the wood to pay salaries and thus render the whole scheme sustainable.
Yes, most sensible chemists would wade through the BS surrounding the article and then ask “Why would anyone be interested in developing catalysts to enhance the electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide to solid carbon species?” A new way to do something there is no sense in doing is a waste of time and money.
In what world would it make sense to have a grant to do this research? The closest situation I can imagine is one that has been discussed here once that I can recall. It is the potential situation on a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier where there is a large over-supply of effectively free electrical energy, but a shortage of jet fuel. The electrochemical reduction of CO2 to hydrocarbons for use as jet fuel, using carbon dioxide from the air or seawater, might then appear attractive.
Reading between the lines, I suspect that the authors were hoping to achieve reduction to useful liquid hydrocarbons but ended up with solid carbonaceous products instead. They then tried to positively spin the results along the lines of “Hey, we could then bury these useless products in the ground as if they were coal.” Very expensive lame carbon sequestration.
It’s all very silly, but much entertainment can be had trying to guess what researchers were originally hoping for in reports of a failed project. They got the grant, spent the money, had a party, and now have to tell a story with the less-than-stellar results.
Turn the trees into cardboard boxes, ship stuff in the boxes, bury the boxes – ta da!
“Malcolm Carter”
I have long advocated that. Mine coal, burn it, release CO2 into the atmosphere. Grow trees, make paper, turn the paper into slurry and pack it at high pressure back into old coal mines much like “rammed earth”. The paper slurry, pound for pound, would have more carbon than the coal that came out of the mine and the best thing of all is, in an emergency, that packed carbon could be used again. Packing that paper in at high pressure would also reduce surface subsidence that often happens above old mines. It could be packed with hydraulic rams to nearly the density of the coal that came out. A few centuries sitting in that shaft under pressure from the rock above might also help transform it into something even more useful than just the compressed paper slurry. Might turn into coal again.
The difficult part of sequestering CO2 has always been extracting it economically from the factory flue or the wider atmosphere.
How many metals are liquid at room temperature?
It’s not coal they get, it’s carbon. If you want coal you can burn it needs to contain masses of hydrocarbon.
They have the process going in a beaker – scaling up and getting past the inefficiencies is probably impossible.
Whimsical tyro lab play!
Ed
Not lithium, cerium and gallium.
Yeah, but you could disconnect all the unreliable wind and solar power from the grid, and use it to create coal that you then burn in reliable power stations.
Sure it would be inefficient, but no-one who cares about efficiency would use solar or wind power in the first place.
That would certainly be a way around the intermittency problem of renewables. If you must have renewables, keep them away from the grid. The grid could be made efficient again.
SR
This comes up again and again in various form, and it won’t work. Process industries can’t be run on intermittent power. Stopping and starting takes time and wastes energy.
Intermittent energy can be regularized, in presence of hydro power, with reasonable efficiency. I guess 60% is easy to reach, 70% might be near maximum. The internet gives as high number as 87%, but that is surely in jest.
Pumped hydro is the most efficient way to large scale power regularization, but is limited to places where hydro is available. Environmental organizations might work hard against this scheme though Denmark and Norway could possibly use this to reach local grid stability in conjunction with wind power use. Cheap solar, once it comes available, could also be used to pump water. Which is apparently never.
Norway has plenty of Hydro and Sweden has quite a lot too. Without Norway and Sweden to help the Danish Grid would have collapsed long ago.
Pumped hydro is the fastest way to waste money. What you’re suggesting is a renewables generating capacity to produce electricity for consumers, a second renewables generating capacity to pump the water up to the reservoir, and a third (hydro) full generating capacity to produce electricity for consumers when the renewables are down.
Better and cheaper by far, to use just one fossil fuel generating capacity.
Who cares if it is efficient or not. It removes co2 from the atmosphere! Greenies will make you pay for it, so don’t worry about the cost. Every Greenie can have their store of hard coal at home, gloating at it: “Evil carbon, I have captured you!”
OMG! Now that would be a scam I could get into. Market coal to greenies.
Don’t buy carbon credits. Buy Coal!
Keep that evil coal from ever being burned.
Store it in your basement!
Store it in your garage!
Rent a storage locker to store even more coal!
You can save the planet by making sure that coal never gets burned!
Call BR-549 for more information on how you can Save The Planet by storing coal!
Act NOW! Call today! Operators are standing by.
But WAIT! There’s more! If you buy one lump of coal today, we’ll give you a second lump for free! That’s two lumps of coal for the SAME low price! But if you call within the next 30 minutes, you’ll also receive this amazing set of steak knives! …
—
Well, any way, it’s not coal, it’s just precipitated carbon.
WXcycles, don’t forget the, “ just pay shipping and handling ing charges,” tag line at the end. That’s where the profit hides.
Better yet, make the greenies TAKE THE SOLID CARBON and “sequester” it themselves…
For roughly every 10,000 miles driven they need to accept and store THEIR TON OF CARBON (assuming it can make 100% carbon and not real coal which is roughly 50% carbon, otherwise TWO TONS).
Then they might get the idea that its better left in the atmosphere where plants can grow better by it. Or send it over to the nearest coal plant for recycling.
I’m thinking this new process doesn’t work by direct sunlight, so what a colossal waste of energy.
Tesla batteries?
What’s nuts is to keep giving any credence to the idea that CO2 is bad/dangerous.
hahah. In one.
I mean if the Left hadn’t systematically undermined any attempt to tech maths and science to people they would never get away with this nonsense.
Sometimes the obvious is staring one in the face.
Nature has solved carbon sequestration, it is called trees.
A very efficient design and one involving minimal cost.
Why we are wasting time and money on this issue, god only knows.
Point Set Match
No, no, no, that’s my idea for a renewable building construction material based on sequestration of atmospheric CO2.
It has to have a scientific sounding name, such as lignonite. I’ll sell it by the millimeter and include a system for fastening pieces together. I shall call these fasteners, “nails.” But not like the nails at the end of AOC’s hands, these could actually hold things together. But the system will use one of the tools that she is so fond of.
Cut down mature trees, replant saplings. Backfill played-out coal mines with the felled trees (convert them to chips or sawdust, if need be). Then you have a ‘green’ coal mine using the same principles as the Drax power station.
The objective is “clean coal” and this could be marketed as the cleanest coal around. Think of all the jobs that can be created.
Wouldn’t it be easier just to introduce C02 to Hydrogen on a blind date!
Oh wait…
And it won’t be long before leftists are turning grandma into CO2.
Into green cakes.
As I stated in another post, have these people heard of thermodynamics?
Entropy doesn’t vanish when you catalyze a reaction. It goes just goes faster and always, always used more energy than the forward reaction produced. C+O2 =>CO2 + energy. CO2 +energy+more energy -> C
The old adage applies:
You can’t win.
You can’t even break even.
You can’t get out of the game.
Had this working at scale at least three years ago. Theory in 2007. Not new. CO2 is a non-polar solvent. You don’t need a metal to make this happen. There is one ingredient in the mix RMIT have not recognised. The metal attracts it.
Dude. the point is to take old aluminum cans and turn them into bauxite…not the other way round…
Coal to CO2 to Coal is like…wow…perpetual motion…all it takes is power.
I still cannot understand why CO2 is still being demonised. All that money chasing rainbows when it could be spent on worthwhile projects to clean up the mess mankind has dumped on the planet.
Greytide, I can. If you demonize a process that is indispensable to life, like breathing or keeping warm, or having light and heat in harsh climates, you can make them feel bad.
You can then direct that bad feeling into “doing something” to alleviate the problem. Now you’re controlling people. Perhaps that’s the goal?
The goal is to throw sand in the eyes of great unwashed masses. Preoccupying the coming generations with a pointless, feel good, “crusade” while those behind the power remove our access to autonomous transport, free movement and democracy.
Because there’s money to be made from selling wind turbines. Otherwise, why does every climate alarmist site have one as its banner pic?
Not that they are being very successful in replacing other energy sources, mind you.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/investment-in-renewable-energy-by-technology
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-vs-low-carbon-primary-energy
Kymm,
I strongly suspect Warren Buffet knows a whole lot more about where “there is money to be made” than you.
Warren Buffet “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
bit.ly/2zOQR5x
It is easy to understand why co2 is demonised; it pays. Demonising the sun does not pay, so this is not done.
Don’t talk about cleaning up the environment, then you’d have to talk about pollution from production of EV batteries and such unpleasant, far-away stuff. We don’t want that! We just want to make our money while feeling good about it, and co2 makes this possible. Heavens, there are plenty of ways of making money that makes one feel bad, so let us embrace the money-demon co2 with hearts and purses.
Effectively, carbon capture is an attempt to terra form Earth .. which is already the most life-friendly planet in our solar system, and is likely among the very most life-friendly planets out of the trillions of planets yet undiscovered in the universe.
“Climate science” masquerading as climate engineering is literally human hubris taken to the infinite power.
“We know next to nothing about how any of the climate system actually works today, let alone how it worked over the hundreds of millions of years that Earth has had an atmosphere .. but hey, don’t let that stop us from reengineering everything. We call this the “Precautionary principle!”
Irony abounds.
Developing the engineering and technology to extinguish coal seam fires would eliminate as much co2 as all transportation in North America emits including aircraft.
Liquid metal catalyst? At room temperature? What, pray tell, is this miraculous substance? AFAIK, the only metal liquid at 20C is mercury, but it would be much too simple to actually give us poor peasants some idea of what the current snake oil actually is.
They use nanoparticles imprenated with metallic Cerium. The chemistry question is where does the released oxygen go in this contraption?
If the oxygen is released as gas above the liquid, this contraption could have usefulness as a regenerating CO2 scrubber on submarines and spaceships where electrical generation is not a huge problem during low demand periods like when the crew is sleeping. And Just toss the graphite carbon out with the trash.
Might very advantageous for submarines. Alkali based CO2 scrubbers produce CO2 gas which is harder to store or dispose of.
As for metals that are liquid at 20 C: There is only one metallic element that is liquid at 20 degrees C, but there are also some alloys that don’t include it that are liquid at 20 degrees C. Although there is still the matter of a source of energy to reverse the process of coal combustion.
Lets see – we burn Carbon containing stuff to release the chemical energy in the form of heat which we then use to make electricity or make stuff go or other useful things which we can sell.
Now, the proposal is that we figure out a way to take the Oxygen out of the CO2 [we have to put BACK the energy we just took away and used for good stuff!] leaving us with the Carbon.
I was always taught that perpetual motion didn’t work in this Universe. Did I miss something?
Its just another perpetual motion Ponzi scheme to con funds from the scientifically challenged.
Political Parties, Academicians and Industries are all onto this band wagon for the booty !
Of course at the cost of all Taxpayers.
Yep. Simple stuff here. Burning carbon releases energy, create carbon from CO2 consumes energy. Conservation of mass (=energy) per Einstein.
The best they could claim is an efficient sequester process, but one with a net energy cost. And to be effective at scale it probably needs to be nuclear powered.
Wind power (according to the CBC).
With a bit more heat and pressure, CO2 could be turned into something even more inert than coal – – diamonds. Also, (my chemistry is a bit rusty) the only metal I know of that is liquid at room temperature is mercury (Hg). What could go wrong?
Neil , interesting that you mention diamond. Some years ago , whilst working on a research project involving carbon layers for electro-optical devices, one team member noticed a paper that claimed that
electrolysis of acetic acid (CH3.CO2H) yielded diamond films . You can get acetic acid from reacting CO2 with methyl sodium (Finar- Organic Chemistry) and then acidification . All things are possible in the wonderful world of organic chemistry , whether they are worth doing is another matter. BTW gallium melts at 30C .
Please remember that “cold pressed” oilive oil is produced at 40 deg C. ( according to EU regulation of the marketing label “cold pressed” ).
And 30 is the new 20 in the world of Climate Change ™
So fair enough, “room temperature”
“Would You Pay $32,709 for a Lab-Grown Diamond?: Serious designers are making lab-grown gems—produced without the human and environmental tolls of traditional mined diamonds—desirable”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/would-you-pay-32-709-for-a-lab-grown-diamond-11551464478
Unless they have violated the Laws of Thermodynamics and made a Perpetual Motion Machine, the process will require energy. Energy to process and handle the input and output stream, energy to mine, smelt, and purify the metal catalyst, and energy to ‘un-mine’ the coal. What that means is that the net energy from fossil fuels could well end up being negative — which is maybe what they hope! In any even, I don’t see anything about cost estimates.
Now that I have skimmed the Nature article, I see that this is an electrochemical reduction process. That means, in addition to the other energy requirements I mentioned initially, there is a requirement of a continuous, low-voltage electricity source, which adds to the energy requirements! I doubt that this will ever see the commercial applications imagined, unless they can produce something of high unit value like carbon fullerenes.
Don’t tell anyone about the cost. All the warmistas need to know is that we have found a way to make coal a “renewable” energy resource. So there is no need to get rid of it. We can burn coal and then capture the CO2 and turn it back into coal again. Just don’t bring up the cost. Of course, they don’t seem to care about the cost when it comes to wind turbines and solar, so why would they care about the cost of renewable coal, as long as it doesn’t add CO2 to the atmosphere.
I guess the proposed process could only be potentially cost-effective when compared to other extreme policies to reduce or tax CO2 production. In that context it might have a plus (as it produces something on top of reduction).
So they put a tax on carbon and use the tax to make carbon.
Another totally useless exercise when there are people starving.
You have got to hand it to the Aussies, they have a real sense of humour.
Maybe, they have plans to sell the coal production to China?
It would get round the Green lobby who are demanding Australia stops exporting mined coal.
You have laugh, the next thing they will tell us is Global Warming causes Global Cooling!
Hey buy Aussie coal and get free carbon credits! Never be fooled by that Aussie reputation of good-hearted matehood.
Does this process exists naturally on Venus? Temperatures high enough to melt some metals and plenty of CO₂ and lots of pressure.
What temperature “liquid metal”? Is this mercury or some version of “woods metal alloy“?
“solid flakes of carbon”, that allegedly “naturally detached from the liquid metal surface”?
In a closed container, the liquid metal would coat the bottom and eventually choke off the process.
Once again, another claimed solution smacks of fantasyland. Details are sketchy, especially required energy inputs.
Brilliant idea. Now we can destroy all life on Earth by CO2 depletion. Is it right that I despise 97% of all scientists in this enlightened era?
Future generations will laugh at them…if we survive the coming Sciency Dark Ages. Those that defend scientists will say, “Oh but the vast majority of scientists were wonderful caring people.” But that wont be true, will it?
What is need is a great big sciency cull.
Stop it, you’re scaring the children!
It takes 4 electrons to remove the oxygen from the carbon. So where are these electrons coming from? TANSTAAFL.
Easy peasy. From the Smart Meters. These new meters filter out the electrons from non-renewable sources in homes that have paid extra for renewable energy. From time to time the CO2-to-coal folks will make the rounds and dump the filters into electron buckets. Electrons aren’t very big so a bucket can hold quite a few Smart Meters’ dumpings. I absolutely will NOT put a \s on this post.
Virtually everywhere, of course. And because you are a taxpayer, you get to pay for it, as well as paying for those people who don’t believe in work.
Ok let’s ask the onbvious question first: “Why would you want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere”?
If anyone does that, we should immediately launch a law suite againsst the people doing this on the ground of damaging the environment, causing loss of soil and plant, thus agricultural, productivity.
Secondly, first catch your room temperature metallic rabbit.
One sandwich short of a picnic
==========================
Since 1980, scientists have been using satellites to monitor the number of sandwiches in the Arctic region.
Why do scientists monitor the number of sandwiches in the Arctic region, you might ask? The answer is quite simple. What do you think polar bears eat, when they can’t hunt seals, because there is no sea ice.
The number of sandwiches grows and decays with the seasons. There are more sandwiches in winter/spring (while the polar bears are eating seals). And there are fewer sandwiches in summer/fall (when seals are not available).
But scientists are concerned, because over the decades, the number of sandwiches is following a decreasing trend.
The number of sandwiches is obviously getting smaller. Not every year, of course. It does so in fits and starts. But the long term pattern (the trend), is clear. Deny it, and you are a sandwich denier.
A bitter argument has broken out, between the 2 scientists who have been monitoring sandwich numbers.
Dr Anne Alarmist, insists that sandwich numbers are falling rapidly, and may fall to zero within 10 to 20 years.
But her rival, Dr A Skeptic, claims that Dr Anne Alarmist is talking “poppycock”. Dr A Skeptic agrees that there is a decreasing trend, but claims that sandwiches will continue to be available, for at least 100 to 200 years.
Each scientist has plotted a graph of sandwich numbers from 1980 to 2018.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/one-sandwich-short-of-a-picnic
Are you entirely sure they aren’t eating seal sandwiches?
Hey, aren’t you the Griff from Kiwiblog?
Send more bread (the green kind, and I don’t mean moldy).
This is yet another CO2 perpetual motion machine, this time from the land of Oz. The Chinese want the real coal.
“Calling Dr. Clausius, calling Dr. Clausius.
“Claim of free lunch on line one.”
Obviously they have not discovered an unlimited source of energy. Step 1: burn coal. Step 2: Create coal from CO2. Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit.
The only use I see for this is as a sort of energy storage, to make use of the waste energy from renewables…but even then, I’m sure there are more efficient ways to store energy out there.
“That’s 1% efficient tops. And where is the lithium used as a catalyst going to come from in an industrial scale?”
Re-cycled Tesla batteries? with power from wind and solar….
Coal and other fossils fuels are the only true forms of renewable energy in any case. You dig them up, burn them and then they get reabsorbed into the earth and converted back to fossil fuels again. Discarded solar panels and wind turbines will always remain as useless trash.
Solid carbon does not equal coal. It equals graphite.
Coal is organic in origin, containing hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen in addition to carbon.
Who made the claim this process produced coal?
SR
Coal is mostly graphite. The other chemicals contained in it are not really necessary for burning it as fuel. Pure graphite would be much more desirable, so that is not the problem here. The problem is that the process of splitting CO2 into O2 and C requires more energy than you originally gained from burning the coal in the first place, so utterly pointless.
anorak2
Nonsense! Graphite is a particular crystalline form of carbon, just like diamond is a form. There are also amorphous forms, such as coal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropes_of_carbon
The problem with the process isn’t that you get elementary carbon instead of the mix of chemicals that is natural coal, but that you have to put in more energy than you originally retrieved from burning a fossil fuel. That was my point.
Your quibbling over the naming of different types of carbon misses the point. In my chemistry class at school I learnt that there are two main types of carbon, and that the most prevalent one is graphite, including the one found in coal. Wikipedia doesn’t seem unanimous in this, there are some pages that agree with me and some that don’t. I have no axe to grind about naming conventions anyway because I wanted to talk about something else.
You may consider differentiating between a Ford and a Chevy, or a man and a woman to be “quibbling.” I think that they are important distinctions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite
Note that graphite is not a sedimentary mineral, but is formed in metamorphic rocks with high temperatures and pressures. It will burn, but like diamond, only with difficulty, at high temperatures and preferably with excess oxygen.
Or you could plant a tree. Build a house out of it for sequestration.
Exactly. Its easy to loose sight of the obvious. Fortunately after we humans have messed up and left the trees will plant themselves
MarkB,
“… and left the trees will plant themselves”
Yep, until the CO2 runs out, because we are not here to put it back.
April 1st arrived early this year?
The linked article is dated March 1st. 31 days early.
Let’s not get carried away with this process; it may start a new ice age.
US DOE funds Carbon Capture research ($24M) – 8 projects – announced Feb 28, 2019
http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/news/doe-invests-24-million-to-advance-carbon-capture-technologies/4136.aspx?Category=all
Michigan Tech removes carbon dioxide from flue gas, and is working to convert it to oxalic acid.
http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/news/michigan-tech-team-capture–convert-co2-into-oxalic-acid/4139.aspx?Category=all
Burn C to make CO2, get energy out. That means C has a higher energy potential than CO2. To convert CO2 back to C you MUST input (more than) the same energy you got out. The team at RMIT are either fools or shysters.
Fools or shysters? Hmmm, that’s a difficult one; how about both?
Why anyone wants to remove the minuscule quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is beyond me, but if you want to do it cheaply and usefully just plant trees 🌳 🌲 🌳 . Time to bring back Arbor Day!
Or how? As in how many cubic meters of air need to be passed over the catalyst to get a cubic meter of coal? If you want, for whatever reason, to reduce co2 by 10%, won’t you need to process and remove all of the co2 from 10% of the atmosphere. That’s a lot of air to move over the catalyst, and a lot of time to do It!
Assuming they can get this even remotely efficient, then why the hell would you bury it?
It just represents a viable way of converting excess solar power that can’t be used sensibly during the day to stored energy.
It is entirely renewable and does not add CO2 to the atmosphere while allowing it to be used in the bulk of the existing electricity generators. It’s a carbon battery, which unlike fossil fuels, is able to be charged electrically rather than by millions of years of geology.
Physical chemistry 101
Carbon + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide
Plus energy. Lots of energy.
So, enough pseudo-scientific bullshit about liquid metal catalysts.
You are going to have to put a lot MORE energy than you got out initially, back in, to drive that equation backwards.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is a gold standard, weapons grade charlatan.
Gold is no longer gold. It’s still malleable, very much so, in fact warming can make things cooler, but I digress.
Gold is now brown. And it smells.