Scientists turn CO2 into solid carbon in breakthrough experiment

The research team led by RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, developed a new technique using a liquid metal electrolysis method which efficiently converts CO2 from a gas into solid particles of carbon.

“By using liquid metals as a catalyst, we've shown it's possible to turn the gas back into carbon at room temperature, in a process that's efficient and scalable.

Scientists turn CO2 ‘back into coal’ in breakthrough carbon capture experiment

If climate change really is caused by CO2 these are the kind of solutions that are needed. Not taxes or banning cars and cows.

Electricity and liquid metal are used to turn the gas into a solid, I can see problems there. Not a lot of details so not sure if it is usable in the real world or just hype.

It produces a synthetic fuel that I would hope burns clean. The carbon can be used for capacitors and even filters I would think.

There is nothing cheap or efficient about electrolysis.

Good op choice.

Great discovery but I just planted a tree to basically do the same .

a reply to: MyToxicTash

Good job

I don't want to discourage tree planting because I love trees, they are great!

But...

It varies from tree to tree but a single tree can absorb as much as 48 lbs (21.77 kgs) of Co2 per year.

The average American produces about 19.78 metric tonnes (21.8 tons) of CO2 emissions each year. This means it would take 909 trees to absorb the CO2 your average american produces each year.

Clearly planting trees alone would not solve our climate crisis.

How Much CO2 Does A Tree Absorb Each Year

I know your not a yank, but it's gonna take more than one

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Only messing I hope this discovery does help us reduce the Co2 in the atmosphere.

a reply to: MyToxicTash

We don't want to reduce it too much or all the trees will die

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Nothing cheap or efficient about a catalytic electrolysis process?

Solar is the most sustainable form of power that we have access to. Luckily it can be used to generate electricity.

I like how you know everything about costs and efficiency of technologies which utilize it, for the next 200 years or so.

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Nothing cheap or efficient about a catalytic electrolysis process?

Solar is the most sustainable form of power that we have access to. Luckily it can be used to generate electricity.

I like how you know everything about costs and efficiency of technologies which utilize it, for the next 200 years or so.

I like solar panels. I do not see many real world applications for this tech. I thought it was cool when i first heard about it but we already have smoke eaters being used more and more and i am thinking co2 is not as bad as folks let on about as long as we do not cut down all them trees.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Good post and very interesting (s&f). Imagine if we could "solve" climate change. But alas, what would the climate change zealots do? I'm willing to bet climate scientists will do everything they can to debunk this.

Coal scrubbers helped take the sulfur dioxide out of the air in the fight against acid rain. It also produced gypsum as a result of the process. Now 25% of all drywall is made from recycled gypsum from coal fire plants .

If this process does turn CO2 back into coal . The cycle could be the next step up the ladder and mutually beneficial while eliminating CO2 from the air.

it’s either a win-win or a win-win win-win depending on how you look at it .

How is co2 bad for the environment?

IMO think dirty co2 is bad but clean co2 is good.

Ionization tech exist that turn exhaust fumes into a cleaner version of them selves.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

It varies from tree to tree but a single tree can absorb as much as 48 lbs (21.77 kgs) of Co2 per year. 

The average American produces about 19.78 metric tonnes (21.8 tons) of CO2 emissions each year. This means it would take 909 trees to absorb the CO2 your average american produces each year. 

Clearly planting trees alone would not solve our climate crisis.

Lol. Pretty dishonest math there.

Trees outlive humans and the answer is not "909 trees" with massive amounts of variation in the leaf surface areas.

Not to mention breathing rates, how much you drive, etc...

It's bs made up math.

Math doesn't lie, but that guy does.

a reply to: Mandroid7

You are right, I am sure that number was pulled out of thin air. My point is trees help, but I don't think the problem can be solved by planting trees.

Trees may live longer, but it takes a good while for a tree to grow to size. It all depends on what kind of tree, the location of the tree, etc. If there is a forest fire or you use the tree for fuel thats a problem.

I am not sure that a number of trees can really be calculated with any accuracy with all the factors that have to be taken into account.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
How is co2 bad for the environment?

IMO think dirty co2 is bad but clean co2 is good.

Ionization tech exist that turn exhaust fumes into a cleaner version of them selves.

I think CO2 is just CO2, it can't be clean or dirty. The air the CO2 is in can be clean or dirty.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Coal scrubbers helped take the sulfur dioxide out of the air in the fight against acid rain. It also produced gypsum as a result of the process. Now 25% of all drywall is made from recycled gypsum from coal fire plants .

If this process does turn CO2 back into coal . The cycle could be the next step up the ladder and mutually beneficial while eliminating CO2 from the air.

it’s either a win-win or a win-win win-win depending on how you look at it .

It's not really turning it into coal. That's why I didn't use that in my title. Carbon and coal are not the same.

Your points are all still valid, it's a win, win

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Good post and very interesting (s&f). Imagine if we could "solve" climate change. But alas, what would the climate change zealots do? I'm willing to bet climate scientists will do everything they can to debunk this.

Thanks

I am sure CO2 can be reduced if a real effort is made. Just not sure that is what is causing the climate to change.

historical data suggest that increased C02 levels lead to a greening of the earth therefor reducing carbon levels in the atmosphere leading to cooler temp's

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: MyToxicTash

We don't want to reduce it too much or all the trees will die

And that is what scares me about the thought of people wanting to reduce CO2 levels artificially. If it's done in excess, plankton die, and the oceans die, and life kinda...resets.

Canadians arnt far behind we are at about 15.7tons per person per year. We also use lots of water about 329litres per person per day. assuming i cunsume at the same rate from birth and that my use is of the nation average I’ve ised about 3.3millon litres of water personally.

The numbers check out and too after reading an acticle on water consumption I used the the daily treated water flow from the water plant I work at and the local population we service.the number I got was 389litres per person per day.
Kind of off topic I know but it serves to highlight just how much we require to live our day to day lives.

Using my local average my life time water use is about 4millon litres after 28 years.
1.66 Olympic swimming pools.

I’d imagine our CO2 emmisons are also higher then average being so far north. High heating costs and lots of idle time for vehicles. Have to let the truck run 20minutes every single time I use it.



a reply to: LookingAtMars

That is pretty cool!

Now we just need awesome sciency methods of removing all the other toxins and waste from land air and water.

It's scary what we have done with our pollution. Bio-accumulation is going to be a huge issue, I think, nano plastics, chemicals, etc going up the food chain.

The other day I read about nano plastic being found in sea salt.