Turning Airborn CO2 into Fuel? Maybe.

This is a very cool emergent technology that could potentially help mitigate the debate surrounding Climate Change, Air Pollution, and who knows what else. . .We do have a lot to fight about these days, don't we?

Researchers Turn Airborne CO2 into Fuel.

The researchers are working on porous materials that absorb CO2 and turn it into chemicals that can make either car fuel or plastics. Details are sketchy, but Dr. David Fermin from the University of Bristol explains, “By combining clever material design with heterogeneous catalysis, electrocatalysis and biocatalysis, we aim at developing an effective carbon neutral technology.”

Cool, fuel AND plastics? I hope it works out. I personally believe that the 'cradle to grave' design of the majority of our goods is a major problem and is doing massive harm to the planet. The notion of taking WASTE from our production and rather than simply pumping it into sludge pits, landfill, the air, and waters using it to CREATE is in some ways revolutionary if not downright evolutionary.

Such a technology would also put to rest, at least to a degree, the current ongoing conflict over the validity of climate change. After all if the main cause sited by those who believe in CC is harnessed and used as a productive byproduct of production the first time around we have essentially solved a problem for them (us). On the other side of the issue why would anyone who disbelieves in CC argue against such an advance in technology and the human ability to produce more goods?

All in all I give this technology an A+.

Enjoy.

reply to post by Animal


Hairbrained- Only about 0.3% or so of air is carbon dioxide and we need that little bit. The catalyst materials are bound to be non-renewable. Hasn't GW been discredited enough?

reply to post by sjorges2002


funny logic. i see no issue with using waste by-products to produce goods. i also see only good in reducing the levels of chemicals we release into our atmosphere as well. further more any action that ameliorates the conflict between those who believe in CC and those who do not is also a boon to society. refusing to budge beyond ideological perspectives is dangerous and is without a doubt of no relation to denying ignorance.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Animal]

It's not very farfetched, since we can make plastics and fuels from plants, which get most of the carbon they're made of from atmospheric CO2

This would just skip the plants.

Originally posted by sjorges2002
reply to post by Animal

 

Hairbrained- Only about 0.3% or so of air is carbon dioxide and we need that little bit. The catalyst materials are bound to be non-renewable. Hasn't GW been discredited enough?

Catalysts are renewable BY DEFINITION because they aren't consumed in the reactions they facilitate.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by mdiinican]

reply to post by mdiinican


But they're effectiveness decreases over time and no manufacturing or refurbishment is 100% efficient- they will get consumed.

reply to post by sjorges2002


i can never understand why people get so caught up in their stances that they choose to bash progress.

obviously the root of your problem is the relation of this tech to climate change - as seen in your first post in this thread.

take a second to look beyond your apparently dogmatic view on the matter and look at the technology alone - is there ANYTHING wrong with it by today's standards?

i would say no - in fact i would say and have said it is a step int he right direction.

if you would like to critique it perhaps you should put more effort into doing so to prevent your argument form coming across as in the range of a centimeter in depth.

reply to post by Animal


I agree with the general jist of your your post, but there is room for skepticism. The laws of thermodynamics are not necessarily violated if a catalyst converts Carbon dioxide into a hydrocarbon or some other molecule that can be used to make fuel or polymers. Plants have been converting carbon dioxide into sugars for millions of years.

However, this does not necessarily mean that this particular scientist has accomplished what he claims to have accomplished. The link does not state his findings have been subjected to the rigors of peer review. Furthermore, even if this scientist's findings are valid, we may be decades away from his findings being practically applied.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Animal

 

However, this does not necessarily mean that this particular scientist has accomplished what he claims to have accomplished.

This is beyond the bounds of what the scientist and the article claims and is irrelevant.

as the article states:

Recently researchers at the University of the West of England revealed another promising solution — they’re developing a process that transforms CO2 emissions into fuel.

link

The link does not state his findings have been subjected to the rigors of peer review.

The research would need to be complete for it to be subjected to peer-review.

Furthermore, even if this scientist's findings are valid, we may be decades away from his findings being practically applied.

Very possible.

The other thing is, CO2 is pretty non-energetic, which is why you use it to put out fires. That means his process for making it into fuel will be endothermic, and you'll have to supply the energy that's going into the fuel formation from an external source, like a plant does.

Thus the term 'electrocatalysis'. It's not going to be something where the factory sucks in atmospheric CO2 and gasoline falls out the other end. You'll have to feed it power.

reply to post by Animal


Well there you go. The scientist more or less has a hypothesis as opposed to a process that is ready to be commercially exploited on a massive scale. I wish the fellow luck, but there are many scientists who have had promising leads that never materialized.