Researcher Sucks Carbon From The Air, Makes Stuff From It

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Some guy came up with a method of taking carbon dioxide from the air and, once removed, it can then be turned around and made into other stuff.

A new method for taking carbon dioxide directly from the air and converting it to oxygen and nanoscale fibers made of carbon could lead to an inexpensive way to make a valuable building material—and may even serve as a weapon against climate change.
 
He points out that if the process is powered by renewable energy, the result is a net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Meanwhile if you use non-renewables (i.e. easier, cheaper, faster) then it is not net removal of carbon dioxide :D
 
" . . . if the process is powered by renewable energy, the result is a net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In a recent demonstration, his group used a unique concentrated solar power system, which makes use of infrared sunlight as well as visible light to generate the large amount of heat needed to run the desired reaction."

That's what I was looking for. It requires a ton of energy, so we need to find a way to make lots and lots of renewable energy to create the heat needed to make this happen.

If we had a really cheap way to make lots and lots of renewable energy we wouldn't be resorting to pressing goo out of sand and shale to get more fossil fuels. We'd be using renewable energy.
 
now all we need is some large company buying it and shelving it. Never coming to fruition is also a part of the process.
 
Setup plants running 24/7 near the biggest hydroelectric dams.
 
Researcher Sucks Carbon From The Air, Makes Stuff From It

The mental picture that sentence creates...
 
Some guy came up with a method of taking carbon dioxide from the air and, once removed, it can then be turned around and made into other stuff.

A new method for taking carbon dioxide directly from the air and converting it to oxygen and nanoscale fibers made of carbon could lead to an inexpensive way to make a valuable building material—and may even serve as a weapon against climate change.

I have learned over the years, all articles like this translate as, "We did some cool stuff. It has flaws we don't disclose, but send us more money and we might be able to figure it out."

In this case the flaw is the electricity needed to perform the electrolysis. And last I checked solar cells aren't exactly cheap or made of material (Indium, Gallium-Arsenide, Cadnium, Titanium Dioxide, Tellurium) that are semi precious in nature.

These same materials are used in LCD screens. And I'm not sure there's enough left to cover a small desert.
 
That's what I was looking for. It requires a ton of energy, so we need to find a way to make lots and lots of renewable energy to create the heat needed to make this happen.

If we had a really cheap way to make lots and lots of renewable energy we wouldn't be resorting to pressing goo out of sand and shale to get more fossil fuels. We'd be using renewable energy.

Moar nuclear power?
 
I have learned over the years, all articles like this translate as, "We did some cool stuff. It has flaws we don't disclose, but send us more money and we might be able to figure it out."

In this case the flaw is the electricity needed to perform the electrolysis. And last I checked solar cells aren't exactly cheap or made of material (Indium, Gallium-Arsenide, Cadnium, Titanium Dioxide, Tellurium) that are semi precious in nature.

These same materials are used in LCD screens. And I'm not sure there's enough left to cover a small desert.
If even 5% of the claims over the years of technological breakthroughs panned out, we'd be living in a perfect post-scarcity Utopia by now.
 
Some guy came up with a method of taking carbon dioxide from the air and, once removed, it can then be turned around and made into other stuff.

A new method for taking carbon dioxide directly from the air and converting it to oxygen and nanoscale fibers made of carbon could lead to an inexpensive way to make a valuable building material—and may even serve as a weapon against plant food.

Brilliant.
 
I have learned over the years, all articles like this translate as, "We did some cool stuff. It has flaws we don't disclose, but send us more money and we might be able to figure it out."

In this case the flaw is the electricity needed to perform the electrolysis. And last I checked solar cells aren't exactly cheap or made of material (Indium, Gallium-Arsenide, Cadnium, Titanium Dioxide, Tellurium) that are semi precious in nature.

These same materials are used in LCD screens. And I'm not sure there's enough left to cover a small desert.
If you insist on using PV solar, sure. If you use Concentrated Solar on the other hand you're looking at things like steel, mylar and water. Not quite so rare. Or wind turbines which need stuff like steel and wait for it...carbon fiber.

Since we don't yet seem to have a good way to store renewable energy we might as well use the excess as a carbon sink when it's available.
 
Plants already do this.

They take in carbon dioxide, output oxygen, and make food.

Wow.. what do ya know, this is just somebody trying to reinvent the wheel.

Anybody have a real idea on how to prevent "climate change"?

I have a perfect one for this imagined, forced down our throats "crisis".

Stop using blacktop. Make all roads and parking lots be made of cement.

That one thing right there would drop road and parking lot temps by a good 40-60f in hot climates. Maybe even more. Ever been to a place where the blacktop gets so hot that it starts melting?

Another one would be to force everybody to paint absolutely everything that is not clear white.

Where do you think all that absorbed heat goes? It radiates all over the place.

Of course that would be bad for colder climates where extra heat is welcomed... but since this is the climate we are talking about we have to force the same rules on everybody.
 
If you insist on using PV solar, sure. If you use Concentrated Solar on the other hand you're looking at things like steel, mylar and water. Not quite so rare. Or wind turbines which need stuff like steel and wait for it...carbon fiber.

Since we don't yet seem to have a good way to store renewable energy we might as well use the excess as a carbon sink when it's available.

These aren't even close to the same levels of efficiency to make them cost eff.
 
Plants already do this.

They take in carbon dioxide, output oxygen, and make food.

Wow.. what do ya know, this is just somebody trying to reinvent the wheel.

Anybody have a real idea on how to prevent "climate change"?

I have a perfect one for this imagined, forced down our throats "crisis".

Stop using blacktop. Make all roads and parking lots be made of cement.

That one thing right there would drop road and parking lot temps by a good 40-60f in hot climates. Maybe even more. Ever been to a place where the blacktop gets so hot that it starts melting?

Another one would be to force everybody to paint absolutely everything that is not clear white.

Where do you think all that absorbed heat goes? It radiates all over the place.

Of course that would be bad for colder climates where extra heat is welcomed... but since this is the climate we are talking about we have to force the same rules on everybody.

Satire, right?
 
The fact parking lots melt is proof enough we have caused the temp to be unaturally high by our tech waste. If you plant in place it will just die like a dust bowl.
 
Satire, right?

Nope not really. His data sound correct from my memory. (Based on city heat island effect data)

But he's not accounting for the energy necessary to create cement, or the fact cement isn't as durable as asphalt, or cement rides harder, or cement is noisier then similarly asphalted roads.
 
Plants already do this.

They take in carbon dioxide, output oxygen, and make food.
Want to know what else plants do? They release that carbon dioxide when they die and microbes/fungus/etc break them down unless they somehow get trapped under ground and eventually turn into tasty oil.
 
Okay, they need to make a charcoal smoker, with something that pulls carbon from the air and makes it into coal, which when burned releases carbon doixide which could be used to make more charcoal.

You would never need to buy another bag of charcoal again. :D
 
Nope not really. His data sound correct from my memory. (Based on city heat island effect data)

But he's not accounting for the energy necessary to create cement, or the fact cement isn't as durable as asphalt, or cement rides harder, or cement is noisier then similarly asphalted roads.

In hot climates cement is exponentially more durable than asphalt.

And in wet climates, it seems to be a lot more durable as well.

Sure it may be "louder" if you are driving on cement roads that have the little lines cut into them, but it is a lot smoother than pretty much anything except freshly laid asphalt.

Cement also doesn't tend to warp squish away from heavy trucks driving over it.

Cement also doesn't tend to get ruts in it that can pull your car wherever the ruts are.

Unless you are in a place where they constantly redo the asphalt instead of patching it till it is worse than a dirt road then it is just a huge mess.

The hot tar in fresh asphalt as well as on roads and parking lots that heat up so much they start melting literally makes me feel ill.

I would seriously take cement roads/highways over the tar based crap that is asphalt any day.
 
Want to know what else plants do? They release that carbon dioxide when they die and microbes/fungus/etc break them down unless they somehow get trapped under ground and eventually turn into tasty oil.

So does everything that dies.

In other words we should just turn this planet into a dead planet and be done with it, correct?

No carbon dioxide, no plants. No plants, no life.
 
Want to know what else plants do? They release that carbon dioxide when they die and microbes/fungus/etc break them down unless they somehow get trapped under ground and eventually turn into tasty oil.

yeah, but for every living plant it removes some co2 and produces some o2. When they die they're just releasing the co2 that was already in the atmosphere before the plant was alive. When plants reproduce and grow the net effect is there is an increase in o2 and decrease in co2.
 
Just to clarify something here... it's not cement. It's concrete. Cement is just the binding agent used in making concrete.

Anyone that thinks concrete is not durable doesn't know anything about construction. Skyscapers are all made of steel-reinforced concrete. So are parking garages. So is the Hoover dam. You won't find a single building made from asphalt or blacktop. It absolutely sucks as a building material. The ONLY thing it's really good for is roads. Even then, blacktopped roads need to be repaved constantly from wear. In warmer states they crack due to thermal expansion. In colder states the plows tear them up, ice pops chunks out, and you get potholes everywhere, not to mention the horrible erosion at the edges of the paving layer. This is why overpass bridges are often made from concrete instead of blacktop - it's no fun to have a bridge deteriorate and it's a lot harder to fix than a normal road. Blacktop is cheaper and easier to put down, easier to tear back up, and does drive a bit smoother - but it's not anywhere near concrete for durability.

Now if you really want some durable concrete, the Romans had it down. Their concrete is still standing after a few centuries. Modern concrete isn't nearly as good as what the Romans made.
 
now all we need is some large company buying it and shelving it. Never coming to fruition is also a part of the process.

Why? The carbon sequestration cycle already accounts for this. Being able to simple sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere will cause more problems than it solves.

God, I so want to punch the face of the fucker that suggested that CO2 is the enemy of the atmosphere. It isn't.
 
Just to clarify something here... it's not cement. It's concrete. Cement is just the binding agent used in making concrete.

Anyone that thinks concrete is not durable doesn't know anything about construction. Skyscapers are all made of steel-reinforced concrete. So are parking garages. So is the Hoover dam. You won't find a single building made from asphalt or blacktop. It absolutely sucks as a building material. The ONLY thing it's really good for is roads. Even then, blacktopped roads need to be repaved constantly from wear. In warmer states they crack due to thermal expansion. In colder states the plows tear them up, ice pops chunks out, and you get potholes everywhere, not to mention the horrible erosion at the edges of the paving layer. This is why overpass bridges are often made from concrete instead of blacktop - it's no fun to have a bridge deteriorate and it's a lot harder to fix than a normal road. Blacktop is cheaper and easier to put down, easier to tear back up, and does drive a bit smoother - but it's not anywhere near concrete for durability.

Now if you really want some durable concrete, the Romans had it down. Their concrete is still standing after a few centuries. Modern concrete isn't nearly as good as what the Romans made.

Cement or Mortar can be used by itself without other aggregate.
 
yeah, but for every living plant it removes some co2 and produces some o2. When they die they're just releasing the co2 that was already in the atmosphere before the plant was alive. When plants reproduce and grow the net effect is there is an increase in o2 and decrease in co2.
And for every oxygen consuming animal they take in O2 and release CO2. The net amounts of O2 or CO2 are not being changed by plant life, in an ideal world it would simply be held in check which is a good thing, except us hairless (some of us) monkey's found out away to grab CO2 that was locked away by plants millions of years ago, and release that by burning it, that also doesn't take into account deforestation efforts we've done too but that's another aspect.


So does everything that dies.
EXACTLY! So here's a process that makes something from the CO2 that DOESN'T DIE and we actually have something that truly sequesters CO2.
 
Why? The carbon sequestration cycle already accounts for this. Being able to simple sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere will cause more problems than it solves.

God, I so want to punch the face of the fucker that suggested that CO2 is the enemy of the atmosphere. It isn't.

CO2 isn't the enemy of the atmosphere, it's the enemy of climate stability. Thanks to our now 200-year-old campaign to pump as much carbon from the depths of the earth's crust into the atmosphere, CO2 levels have risen from about 275 ppm to 401 ppm, a 45% increase.

Climate instability is the enemy of mankind and biological diversity.
 
CO2 isn't the enemy of the atmosphere, it's the enemy of climate stability. Thanks to our now 200-year-old campaign to pump as much carbon from the depths of the earth's crust into the atmosphere, CO2 levels have risen from about 275 ppm to 401 ppm, a 45% increase.

Climate instability is the enemy of mankind and biological diversity.
Oh nozer. Tell me more...

What were the CO2 levels 65 million years ago when the largest animals on earth lived? I'll wait for you to Google that.
 
Oh nozer. Tell me more...

What were the CO2 levels 65 million years ago when the largest animals on earth lived? I'll wait for you to Google that.

And what was the climate 65 million years ago?

The problem isn't the CO2 level. It's the *change* that's the issue. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing faster than it appears ever to have changed ever in the history of the planet.

If suddenly the climate on earth today matched the climate from 65 million years ago, there would be a mass extinction to make the Permian-Triassic extinction event look like a typical Tuesday afternoon.

The problem is that the climate is changing, rapidly, primarily as a result of anthropogenic CO2 production. We're removing carbon from the earth's crust and pumping it into the atmosphere at mind-blowing rates, and have been doing so for a century or more. This is causing massive changes. It's not that the atmosphere or planet really care. They don't. However, it is driving range contraction, massive biome shifts, huge changes in precipitation patterns, etc. These changes will make life very, very painful in the next century or two as we drive mass extinctions, farmlands dry up, huge forests are engulfed by wildfires, sea levels rise, etc.

And no, I didn't have to Google. This is primarily what I studied in college.
 
The holy grail of all this is a renewable, dense, convenient energy storage mechanism. Solar and wind and geothermal and all that are great, but they don't really help us for locomotion. Batteries just aren't going to cut it for general purpose transportation and they're not going to get us carbon neutral.

The holy grail is really using renewable energy to turn atmospheric carbon dioxide into hydrocarbon fuel. Liquid hydrocarbon, whether in the form of ethanol or gasoline or diesel or whatever, has even pipe-dream battery technology beat hands-down in terms of energy density and convenience.

We can shift a lot of energy consumption to clean renewables without even really noticing on the user end. I don't really care where my residential and commercial electricity comes from. I do care if I can't drive my car across the state without stopping to charge for an hour.

If we can actually use renewable power to extract carbon from the atmosphere and make something useful with it, on a large scale, that's genuinely world-changing technology.
 
Back
Top