FLASH: China Makes Breakthrough in CO2-to-Energy Research

[Ace-Garageguy]

New material converts CO2 into clean fuel with unprecedented efficiency

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-material-converts-co2-into-clean-fuel-with-unprecedented-efficiency?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1

 

[Harry P.]

As the article states, this is years down the road... assuming it actually will work at all.

But hey... possible good news is better than bad news.

[Snake45]

Oh great. A few years down the road the politicians will be telling us that the CO2 deficiency is killing the planet, and we need big "carbon replenishment" taxes and restrictions on our liberties or we'll all die. Anyone who disagrees will be called a "carbon denier" and/or a paid tool of "Big Carbon."

Same song, different verse....

[Ace-Garageguy]

As the article states, this is years down the road... assuming it actually will work at all.

Yes, years down the road for commercialization, or large-scale implementation...like in scrubbing coal-fired generating plant effluent.

However, it IS working reliably in the lab.

"As Herkewitz explains, when an electric current is applied to the cobalt nanomaterial, it causes the molecules inside the material to interact with the CO2 molecules that are running freely through it. This causes hydrogen atoms to attach to carbon atoms from the CO2, prompting an extra electron to be propelled into one of its oxygen atoms. "With that, the CO2 becomes CHOO-, or formate," he says.

Lab tests with the material confirmed that it can maintain "stable current densities of about 10 milliamperes [of formate] per square centimetre over 40 hours, with approximately 90 percent formate selectivity at an overpotential of only 0.24 volts".

This "overpotential" is the amount of energy lost due to the slowness of electrochemical reactions sustained by electrodes such as this one. The smaller the overpotential, the better, but in order to make something efficient, it has to maintain that small overpotential while also keeping the rate of fuel production up. This is where many attempts at CO2 electroreduction have fallen short in the past."

Think about how fast 3D printing technology has developed over the past relatively few years, and the quantum leaps consumer-level computer-power has made just in the past decade. Once the first-generation of any new tech is understood by its inventors and roughly debugged, it generally develops quite quickly.

 

Edited January 10, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

Oh great. A few years down the road the politicians will be telling us that the CO2 deficiency is killing the planet, and we need big "carbon replenishment" taxes and restrictions on our liberties or we'll all die. Anyone who disagrees will be called a "carbon denier" and/or a paid tool of "Big Carbon."

As soon as it's turned into a political tool, all is lost...

[Harry P.]

Isn't everything turned into a politcal tool?

[bismarck]

Depends on how the talking heads spin it.

[Crazy Ed]

    Has this been Peer reviewed? I remember the end of Energy Problems because of "Cold Fusion" that was cheered for almost a Year. Being one that isn't worried about "Man Caused" Global Warming. even if this turns out real, it's a solution looking for a problem to me.

[Snake45]

Isn't everything turned into a politcal tool?

You beat me to it.

Like it or not, EVERYTHING is "political" these days, whether you know it or not.

Dark Forces are on the move.

[mike 51]

LOL...

[Ace-Garageguy]

    Has this been Peer reviewed? I remember the end of Energy Problems because of "Cold Fusion" that was cheered for almost a Year. Being one that isn't worried about "Man Caused" Global Warming. even if this turns out real, it's a solution looking for a problem to me.

Two excellent points you've made.

As far as peer-review goes, it's my understanding is that at least two credible US scientists have looked at the work and agree it's performing as-claimed...in the lab.

As far as the "solution looking for a problem" goes, even if you don't agree that CO2 emissions are harming the environment, blowing a lot of CO2 up the stacks of coal-fired plants as waste is just...wasteful...IF it can be readily converted into an energy-source fuel. This tech, again IF it works on a large scale eventually, stands to make coal-burning to produce electricity considerably more efficient, if nothing else.

And we have a LOT of coal.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Crazy Ed]

Two excellent points you've made.

As far as peer-review goes, it's my understanding is that at least two credible US scientists have looked at the work and agree it's performing as-claimed.

As far as the 'solution looking for a problem" goes, even if you don't agree that CO2 emissions are harming the environment, blowing a lot of CO2 up the stacks of coal-fired plants as waste is just...wasteful...IF it can be readily converted into an energy-source fuel. This tech, again IF it works on a large scale eventually, stands to make coal-burning to produce electricity considerably more efficient, if nothing else.

     Bill, I've No Problem if it works and frankly I hope it does. But I also hope it does the Conversion Economically, meaning it won't cause a Giant Government Funded Financial Sucking Sound like Wind and Solar has and can stand on it's own.

[Snake45]

     Bill, I've No Problem if it works and frankly I hope it does. But I also hope it does the Conversion Economically, meaning it won't cause a Giant Government Funded Financial Sucking Sound like Wind and Solar has and can stand on it's own.

Agree completely.