Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Climate Rewind: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Back Into Coal

posted by mrpg on Thursday February 28 2019, @08:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-dig-it-up-again dept.

janrinok writes:

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Researchers have used liquid metals to turn carbon dioxide back into solid coal, in a world-first breakthrough that could transform our approach to carbon capture and storage.

The research team led by RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, have developed a new technique that can efficiently convert CO2 from a gas into solid particles of carbon.

Published in the journal Nature Communications, the research offers an alternative pathway for safely and permanently removing the greenhouse gas from our atmosphere.

Current technologies for carbon capture and storage focus on compressing CO2 into a liquid form, transporting it to a suitable site and injecting it underground.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Climate Rewind: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Back Into Coal | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 51 comments | Search Discussion
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: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:51AM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:51AM (#808051) Journal

    How much energy is required to run these processes?

    More than you can obtain by burning the same amount of carbon the you get out of the process.

    The original FA [nature.com] is free to access and extensively qualitative.
    They went to quite great length to explore the mechanism of catalysis (involves cerium), but there's little quantitative estimation on the efficiency of the reaction. Seems that the carbon (amorphous) they obtained is not absolutely pure, it still contains some oxygen atoms and hydroxyl groups here and there. They also get some carbon monoxide and some hydrogen - this really made estimating the faradaic efficiency a bitch.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:43PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:43PM (#808313) Journal

    Why would anyone think pulling all this crap back out of the atmosphere WOULDN'T require a bunch of energy? (Other than disingenuousness, I guess)

    That's why most of us have been saying we shouldn't emit it in the first place.