Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday July 20 2017, @12:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the cue-the-fart-jokes dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

The carbon dioxide we're currently dumping into the atmosphere started out as atmospheric carbon dioxide hundreds of millions of years ago. It took lots of plants and millions of years of geological activity to convert it to fossil fuels. One obvious way of dealing with our atmospheric carbon is to shorten that cycle, finding a way to quickly convert carbon dioxide into a usable fuel.

Unfortunately, carbon dioxide is a very stable molecule, so it takes a lot of energy to split it. Most reactions that do so end up producing carbon monoxide, which is more reactive and a useful starting material, but it's far from a fuel. Now, though, researchers have discovered a catalyst that, with a little help from light, can take CO2 and make methane, the primary fuel in natural gas. While the reaction is slow and inefficient, there are a number of ways it could be optimized.

The work started out with a catalyst that converts carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide when supplied with a source of electrons. The catalyst is a complex ring of carbon-based molecules that latch on to an iron atom at the center. The iron interacts with carbon dioxide, allowing hydrogen atoms from water to break one of the carbon-oxygen bonds, liberating water. The iron loses some electrons in the process, and these have to be re-supplied for the cycle to start again. Typically, that supply comes in the form of a separate chemical that readily gives up some electrons.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/cheap-catalyst-takes-sunlight-and-carbon-dioxide-makes-methane/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday July 21 2017, @11:21AM (2 children)

    by Wootery (2341) on Friday July 21 2017, @11:21AM (#542301)

    So you're pretty much right back where you started.

    Not really - you've done useful work in the process, and that fuel might otherwise have come from oil in the ground.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday July 22 2017, @02:32AM (1 child)

    by Arik (4543) on Saturday July 22 2017, @02:32AM (#542699) Journal
    "Not really - you've done useful work in the process,"

    You have, but that's saying very little. You invested a lot of work too. What's the net? Is it better than alternatives? Is it even positive at all?

    "and that fuel might otherwise have come from oil in the ground."

    Or straight out of a heifers tailpipe. You want methane? There's tons of it already being released into the atmosphere, available for the cost of recovery, already. You think you're going to convert CO2 into methane for less input than it would cost to simply collect it where it's already bubbling out into the atmosphere? As the old magic 8 ball put it, signs point to no. Likely the only profit in this process will be the grant money it eats.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday July 28 2017, @09:19AM

      by Wootery (2341) on Friday July 28 2017, @09:19AM (#545684)

      that's saying very little. You invested a lot of work too. What's the net? Is it better than alternatives? Is it even positive at all?

      Ah, I wasn't clear. I meant the fuel has done useful work. It's a bit like saying If you drive for a living, you've burnt fuel you've ended up back where you started anyway which might be true, but that fuel was burnt 'for a reason' as it were.

      Likely the only profit in this process will be the grant money it eats.

      I'm no expert, but this seems a valid concern.