It may sound too good to be true, but TU Delft PhD student Ming Ma has found a way to produce alcohol out of thin air. Or to be more precise, he has found how to effectively and precisely control the process of electroreduction of CO2 to produce a wide range of useful products, including alcohol. Being able to use CO2 as such a resource may be pivotal in tackling climate change. His PhD defence will take place on September 14th.[...] For mitigating atmospheric CO2 concentration, carbon capture and utilization (CCU) could be a feasible alternative strategy to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). The electrochemical reduction of CO2 to fuels and value-added chemicals has attracted considerable attention as a promising solution. In this process, the captured CO2 is used as a resource and converted into carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), ethylene (C2H4), and even liquid products such as formic acid (HCOOH), methanol (CH3OH) and ethanol (C2H5OH).The high energy density hydrocarbons can be directly and conveniently utilized as fuels within the current energy infrastructure. In addition, the production of CO is very interesting since it can be used as feedstock in the Fischer–Tropsch process, a well-developed technology that has been widely used in industry to convert syngas (CO and hydrogen (H2)) into valuable chemicals such as methanol and synthetic fuels (such as diesel fuel). The figure attached describes these three processes and the way electroreduction of CO2 could potentially close the carbon cycle.
It may sound too good to be true, but TU Delft PhD student Ming Ma has found a way to produce alcohol out of thin air. Or to be more precise, he has found how to effectively and precisely control the process of electroreduction of CO2 to produce a wide range of useful products, including alcohol. Being able to use CO2 as such a resource may be pivotal in tackling climate change. His PhD defence will take place on September 14th.
[...] For mitigating atmospheric CO2 concentration, carbon capture and utilization (CCU) could be a feasible alternative strategy to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). The electrochemical reduction of CO2 to fuels and value-added chemicals has attracted considerable attention as a promising solution. In this process, the captured CO2 is used as a resource and converted into carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), ethylene (C2H4), and even liquid products such as formic acid (HCOOH), methanol (CH3OH) and ethanol (C2H5OH).
The high energy density hydrocarbons can be directly and conveniently utilized as fuels within the current energy infrastructure. In addition, the production of CO is very interesting since it can be used as feedstock in the Fischer–Tropsch process, a well-developed technology that has been widely used in industry to convert syngas (CO and hydrogen (H2)) into valuable chemicals such as methanol and synthetic fuels (such as diesel fuel). The figure attached describes these three processes and the way electroreduction of CO2 could potentially close the carbon cycle.
Beer, from air. Others use barley as an intermediary.
Publication: Aula TU Delft, PhD defence Ming Ma, Selective Electrocatalytic CO2 Conversion on Metal Surfaces.
It's really an either/or question, it can't be both, they are actually mutually exclusive.
Oh?!? Based on what?
You can't pollute air by adding air. That's just nonsense.
It's not "adding air to air" - it's adding CO2 in excess that becomes pollution.
"Making ... from air" (the thing that irked you on the straw-man trail) does not necessarily mean all the components of the air are used in the making. If you extract CO2 from air and make things, you still made the things "from air".Of course, if you make the things from a liquefied CO2 bottle, it may be you are making things from... mmm... "thick liquid" instead; and if you just release the CO2 in the air of a room, you may die of CO2 poisoning - you may try it (not on yourself, I suggest find a non-human enemy instead) if you want a demonstration why too much CO2 in air is a pollutant.
Oh, come on, Arik! Really now. You find nothing funnier to post than some bickering over definitions?
Look, I am one of the guys that say "AGW is happening due to the increased CO2 concentration in air".You call it pollutant or non-pollutant, CO2 doesn't care about your definitions: it will continue to trap more heat for longer than the other major components of the Earth atmosphere (and, given a chance, it will poison you if its partial pressure is high enough).
Pollution is a clearly defined term, with a clearly defined meaning
Apparently not so, for you have not been able to point us to any definition that is remotely clear in the sense you would like it to be.
, which has been increasingly misused just as we've seen repeatedly in this thread, as a slur word with no particular definition other than 'something bad.'
The "something bad" is actually a core part of the term from early on. E.g. wiktionary says
The meaning "that which makes physically foul" is from 1540s.
Which is also pretty much the only part that is still left, today, of the early recorded uses of the word.
I absolutely concede that adding CO2 to air is not something I would refer to as a prototypical example when explaining pollution. I would also concede that it makes more sense to say that the atmosphere is polluted, here, not the air, since CO2 in the given levels is not a problem for breathing, etc.
Further, I will even concede that the use of the term pollution has undergone significant changes. This however is very simply a side-effect of awareness of / debate on environmental issues at large. A new topic was starting to be discussed, using existing terms, and so those terms took on new connotations. There is absolutely nothing specific to climate change, in this respect, however. Light pollution and noise pollution are equally non-prototypical uses that emerged in the late 1960s, early 1970s, long before "carbon pollution" came into use (which I believe to be a term of the late 1990s, early 2000s, although I have not found a definite source; let's see if you can point us to earlier uses).
Look, I can see your distress with labelling CO2 as a pollutant. But that's not because you are worried about the English language. That's because you simply do not think man made CO2-emissions have the negative effects on climate that "the AGW people" ascribe to them. Do us all a favour, and try to bring how that point, instead of simply sabotaging any debate with silly word games.
I pointed to not one but three definitions and showed how each and every one of them necessarily implied exactly the definition of the word that I used. You can't have missed the post, just up the tree.
And you can't have missed my post(s) where I detailed that these definitions definitely do not mean what you would like them to mean. You tried to counter that using the funny argument that air and CO2 are logically "the same", and thus cannot be "mixed".
I'll stop trying to talk you out of that, but please stop pretending that made anything close to a coherent argument WRT the definition of pollution.
Increasing the amounts of any constituent gas implicitly requires decreasing the amount of one or more other gases.
Only if the total amount remains unchanged.There no indication that the weight of the entire Earth atmosphere was...mmmm.... conserved.
You can kill with argon, you know, but it's the lack of oxygen that actually does the deed.
Wrong, if your are given 95% oxygen and 5% carbon dioxide, you are likely to pass out - increased blood pressure and hyperventilation are the immediate effects. At 10% CO2, you'll be unconscious in minutes and dead in under one hour [cdc.gov], even if the rest of 90% is oxygen.
The respiratory reflexes [wikipedia.org] aren't governed by the low concentration of oxygen but by the increased concentration of CO2 [wikipedia.org] in the blood - this is why asphyxiation with inert gases is mostly used in euthanasia [wikipedia.org]
Actually, at those levels, the oxygen itself would likely kill you:
And I tell you completely serious, no joke, the first step to solving a problem is to define the problem.
And I'm telling you that "pollution" attached to "AGW" is a false problem. You can define the "pollution" term to God and one bus-stop beyond that and it won't get you any closer to solving, mellowing or adapting to GW.Your grandfather would tell you "Sidetracked much? That's not funny"
Whole subject depresses me man. If for no other reason than that I love the English language.
I'm not a native English speaker, It doesn't stop me solving problems (and creating others, otherwise where's the fun in living?)I can empathise with you in some respects (like "hacker" and "begging the question") but only in contexts the meaning really matter.
Yes, I agree that
People unironically and unashamedly talk about 'the good guys' and 'the bad guys' in situations where it's utterly childish and unrealistic
but this happens mainly in US, a lot of the other countries know the difference between politics, science, fiction and Marvel-trash. As an example (not a proof), see TF-current-A.
So to play along with your dictionary game:
"contact or admixture" - dictionary.com"contact or association""admixture"
How do these three out of your five defining terms of "contamination" contradict everybody else's notion that a pollutant is not necessarily something all new to the mix?
b) For the two "introduce", let's look up what that actually means. E.g. merriam webster: "3. :a putting in :insertion", dictionary.com: " 5. an act or instance of inserting." wiktionary: "3. To add (something) to a system, a mixture, or a container."
Where do these definitions refer to something all new?
if both the subject and the object are the same
So you are really trying to argue that "air" and "CO2" are the same? You might want to review set theory, then, or enlighten us on the new meaning of "same".
It denotes introduction of a foreign element
I have completely understood that this is the definition you want to apply, but you have failed to make that point without resorting to unsound reasoning such as saying that "air" and "CO2" are the same.
Introducing more of one of the constituent gases in a compound gas is not 'pollution.'
Really? Even when the introduced constituents become poisonous?Because CO2 at 10% will cause mass extinction to all human (and majority of mammalian) life.Unlike O2 and N2 and argon, CO2 modifies the pH of the body's internal medium [wikipedia.org], and the human metabolism is quite sensitive to that.
This is a stupid semantic argument.
You must be new here..
Sola dosis facit venenum
Better than paracetamol or parafahrenheit.
Global warming will be solved by Ethanol_fueled and the alcohol from CO2 in the air, better than some Nazi nitrogen fixing process that goes BOOM when there is a little flood, or something!
Carbon Oxygen Squared! You got a problem with that? CO16. Rather rare isotope, but not impossible.
A pity is wasn't an US university to discover it.You, with your "teach the controversy" ideas, see what you've done? Put breaks on the science's appeal in US! Now Ethanol_fueled will need to immigrate!!
(and to think that producing ethanol from air may appeal even for people of some religions which frown at fermented liquors! US lost a major trump here and got a minor Orange clown instead.
According to your logic, drinking sea water should be healthy: Salt is something your body needs, and sea water contains a lot of it.
According to your logic, the term "pollution" is independent of context?
So would you rather I enhance your fuel tank with some sugar, or your cereals with some gasoline?
Or, since you seem so hung up about adding something that was already in the mix: You don't think you can pollute a river by adding (large amounts of) salt? You don't think you can pollute flour by adding rodent hair? You don't think you can pollute vegetables by adding mold? You don't think you can pollute your silicon dies by adding to much of the doping elements? You don't think you can pollute your view of the night sky by lighting a strong bulb next to your eye?
You don't think you can pollute a debate by insisting on nonsense definitions nobody else seems to share?
According to your logic, anything that is unhealthy is pollution?
According to my logic, any politician is unhealthy thus pollutant. Care to disagree?
The world isn't binary.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who use monospaced fonts and those who don't.
You can pollute your body with too much water, then you die.
"You can pollute your body with too much water, then you die."Yeah, no, you actually can't.But you can certainly drown. No pollution required, the purest of water will work just fine.
"You can pollute your body with too much water, then you die."
Yeah, no, you actually can't.
But you can certainly drown. No pollution required, the purest of water will work just fine.
Let me introduce you to "water intoxication": WebMD [webmd.com], Medical Daily [medicaldaily.com], and Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Quick question: is Vitamin D beneficial or is it a poison? Without enough vitamin D, you could get rickets or some similar disease. However, if you get far too much Vitamin D, the way Gary Null once did after consuming one of his own supplements [scienceblogs.com], you could develop hypercalcemia and its various complications such as kidney stones and cardiac arrhythmia. The dose makes the poison. In the same way, you can't describe CO2 as only either "air" or a "pollutant". Again, the dose makes the poison. If CO2 levels in the atmosphere fell enough, that could bring about an ice age. Sort of like a vitamin deficiency. If CO2 levels are permitted to continue rising, global temperatures could rise to levels that make agriculture impossible. Sort of like a vitamin overdose. A certain level of CO2 is needed to maintain global temperatures reasonable for human life and human civilisation, just as a certain dose of a vitamin is needed to maintain good health.
if you had a saltwater enviroment with a fish in it and kept adding fresh water would the fish consider you to be polluting its enviroment ?
If CO2 levels in the atmosphere fell enough, that could bring about an ice age.