Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the were-they-in-Denver? dept.

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.


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This discussion has been archived.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 FatPhil on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:49AM (6 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:49AM (#566597) Homepage
    Remind me - is Nembutal for medicating people or killing people?

    And did you never hear the case of the bloke who died after drinking 10 litres of water in a day? So is water lethal, or necessary?

    The world isn't binary.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:59AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:59AM (#566602)

    The world isn't binary.

    There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who use monospaced fonts and those who don't.

  • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12 2017, @08:04AM (4 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @08:04AM (#566604) Journal
    Well that makes two of you that appear to believe anything harmful is pollution. That's just mindblowing to me.

    You might scroll down for my other answer, but I'll add, water is lethal, water can be necessary, but neither of those propositions has any direct bearing on the question of whether or not it's pollution! You can't pollute water by adding water, that's nonsense. You can make beneficial water into harmful water by increasing the dose - in any number of scenarios - but none of that has jack shit to do with it being pollution.

    Hypothetically, you could go into some extraterrestrial environment where life had evolved in the absolute absence of water, and introduce water there, and probably destroy the place, well in that context then yeah, I guess water could be pollution.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12 2017, @08:08AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday September 12 2017, @08:08AM (#566606) Homepage
      > Well that makes two of you that appear to believe anything harmful is pollution. That's just mindblowing to me.

      I suspect your mind was blown before you read my comment, as noone with a correctly-connected brain could have interpreted it that way. Polluting your brain with too much THC or LSD, are we?
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @08:19AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @08:19AM (#566612)

      You can pollute your body with too much water, then you die.

      • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12 2017, @08:40AM (1 child)

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @08:40AM (#566624) Journal
        "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.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by martyb on Tuesday September 12 2017, @12:01PM

          by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12 2017, @12:01PM (#566697) Journal

          "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].

          --
          Wit is intellect, dancing.