Carbon Dioxide: The Newest Form of Renewable Energy'

Is this what they call alchemy because if it is then they've finally turned lead into gold by creating the environmental equivalent of the perpetual motion machine.

Okay, so if I've got this straight the claim is that you dig up coal, burn it to make energy, then capture the CO2 and turn it back into coal. If true we now have basically an unending supply of coal.

The Chinese ought to be ecstatic.

I didn’t read the article because all anyone needs to know about the source is:

Fixed for accuracy



-J.

Fixed for accuracy



-J.

Another quality post. Have you been taking debating lessons?

Actually I heard about this process at the scientific journal, Nature - here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08824-8

Seemed interesting so I thought I'd post it here, but then I thought, 'no...gotta find someplace that has it dumbed down so people like Beave can enjoy it too.'

Although, ya know...the magazine might have it sounding a little too much like a perpetual motion machine but I've seen these save the world technologies presented here as news many times before. Could this one be the one that works? Dunno. Worth presenting it for consideration though. Just like all those other ones we've since forgotten about that came before it.

But think about it...it wasn't journalistic integrity that sent Beave rushing to Wikipedia. What was it then, we might ask?

No it's dumbed down so the morons of the alt-right can have some industrial process that imitates fucking trees and sucker them into investing in it.

Sounds like a snake-oil job perfectly suited to the talents of that crooked hot-tub salesman Trump had fill the AG job for a few weeks after Jeff Sessions quit.

Perhaps this is what the article was talking about.

Turning carbon dioxide into rock - forever


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43789527

Hmmm, I wonder what source Groper uses when he calls it "carbon pollution"?

Why can't we just capture excess CO2 and break it back down into useful compounds and elements? The technology exists to do it. And even though it's energy intensive, Quebec and Ontario have a LOT of emissions-free generating capacity.

Similar.

The difference is explained in the article.

Specifically it refers to a discovery discussed in the Science Journal nature.

They lead with this:



Here's the thing though:

"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."

What they were doing in Iceland as described by the BBC was this:

"The fizzy liquid is then piped to the injection site - otherworldly, geometric igloo-shaped structure 2km away. There it is pumped 1,000m (3,200ft) beneath the surface."

So it sounds like they got around the problems by using Iceland's underground volcanic heat.

However, here's what they think they've found at the University of Melbourne:

“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.

“A side benefit of the process is that the carbon can hold electrical charge, becoming a supercapacitor, so it can potentially be used as a component in future vehicles,” said the study’s lead author Dr. Dorna Esrafilzadeh, of RMIT’s School of Engineering, who was responsible for developing the electrochemical technique.

“The process also produces synthetic fuel as a byproduct, which could also have industrial applications,” Esrafilzadeh added.

The research was truly an international effort. The scientists at RMIT were supported by researchers at the University of Munster in Germany, Nanjing University of Aeronautic and Astronautics in China, North Carolina State University in the United States, and other universities in Australia.

But if the 2 sources previously offered have got you doing "See no evil" as far considering what Dr. Dorna Esrafilzadeh, of RMIT's School of Engineering claims to have discovered feel free to try one of the other sources below:

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-climate-r ... oxide.html

http://news.bio-based.eu/climate-rewind ... into-coal/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... first.html

https://interestingengineering.com/in-w ... -into-coal

http://www.tunisiesoir.com/science/rese ... 3537-2019/

https://www.viportal.co/new-process-cou ... e-science/

https://www.technologynetworks.com/appl ... oal-316011

Mmmm, no. As usual, the media dumbs things down so much they hardly express the process properly. The chemical process to turn CO2 back into coal is pretty intense.

It's always been possible to convert CO2 back into C4 and 4*O2, but the energy requirement is quite high. This process required lower temperatures, but a lot of cost in chemicals and it's very slow. So slow that it would take huge lakes of chemicals to manage the emissions of only one plant.

Most research is going into porus membranes that use less energy, capture the CO2, and are reusable.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 125437.htm

It's easier and cheaper to retrofit existing sites with these, and their efficiency is improving all the time. The CO2 can be extracted and captured at less cost.

Plants...

Whhhaaaaaaat? That's crazy talk. Next you are going to say that we shouldn't be clearcutting forests to plant crops to feed to animals.