SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Finding a technology to shift carbon dioxide (CO2), the most abundant anthropogenic greenhouse gas, from a climate change problem to a valuable commodity has long been a dream of many scientists and government officials. Now, a team of chemists says they have developed a technology to economically convert atmospheric CO2 directly into highly valued carbon nanofibers for industrial and consumer products.
...
Because of its efficiency, this low-energy process can be run using only a few volts of electricity, sunlight and a whole lot of carbon dioxide. At its root, the system uses electrolytic syntheses to make the nanofibers. CO2 is broken down in a high-temperature electrolytic bath of molten carbonates at 1,380 degrees F (750 degrees C). Atmospheric air is added to an electrolytic cell. Once there, the CO2 dissolves when subjected to the heat and direct current through electrodes of nickel and steel. The carbon nanofibers build up on the steel electrode, where they can be removed, Licht says.To power the syntheses, heat and electricity are produced through a hybrid and extremely efficient concentrating solar-energy system. The system focuses the sun's rays on a photovoltaic solar cell to generate electricity and on a second system to generate heat and thermal energy, which raises the temperature of the electrolytic cell.
If it bears out, this is an incredibly important result, as it solves a number of challenges like atmospheric carbon and the demand for carbon nanotubes at once.
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday August 21 2015, @06:29AM
how many gigatons of carbon nanotubes would this process, scaled up to industrial level of course, be able to output in one year?
I mean we only dump 9.9 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year so it would only have to match that to flat line the current increase in CO2. Everything over that would actually be a reduction.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday August 21 2015, @06:40AM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday August 21 2015, @08:54AM
Your probably right. I was just being a little snarky because the summary/article made it sound like the tech was being touted as a solution to the atmospheric CO2 issue and I hadn't RTFAd at the time I wrote that. Only the first paragraph, that the summary cut/pasted, talks about it in the AGW context. The rest of the article is an interesting read.
On a side note; I've heard that carbon nanotubes are currently considered the best chance at being usable to build a space elevator. I wonder if this process might, with its high volume/low cost production might someday further that project along.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Friday August 21 2015, @06:52AM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2015, @08:13AM
Googling around? Basic school knowledge should be enough to make a good estimate.
The most common isotope of carbon has atomic weight 12, the most common oxygen isotope has atomic weight 16. Since only the relation is important, let's cancel the common factor to make more manageable numbers. So carbon is 3 mass units, oxygen 4.
CO2 has 1 part carbon, 2 parts oxygen. That's 3+2×4 = 11 mass units. In other words, 3 mass units of carbon correspond to 11 mass units of CO2.
Rounded to 3 significant digits, 11/3 = 2.67, therefore 1 ton of carbon gives 2.67 tons of CO2
Given that this is exactly the number you quoted, I suspect you didn't really find the actual correspondence (which would have to account for isotope distributions), but also got to an estimate based on the most common isotopes. Since you didn't give your source, I can't check, of course.
(Score: 4, Touché) by jimshatt on Friday August 21 2015, @08:24AM
BTW, this was my source: http://grist.org/article/the-biggest-source-of-mistakes-carbon-vs-carbon-dioxide/ [grist.org]
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday August 21 2015, @09:02PM
No offense taken. :)
My initial reaction to your post was actually along the lines of "Crap! They're right! Argh! how did I miss that?"
I am quite sincere in my thanks.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday August 21 2015, @08:42AM
Very true, I forgot to take into account that the carbon, with only an atomic weight of 12.01 against oxygen's 16.00 (x2), in CO2 is only ~27% of the total molecular weight.
Thank you for pointing that out. I'll try and be more careful next time :)
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 21 2015, @02:42PM
Given the many fantastic properties of carbon nanotubes and the many, many applications of the material, it's not too hard to see demand for it scaling to a level where it could put a dent in atmospheric carbon. Think of all the cotton fields alone that we wouldn't have to have anymore if we could weave textiles out of the stuff. We could largely elide steel, with all the mining effort that takes.
Washington DC delenda est.