5 ms·
>This process has several advantages when compared to other methods of converting CO2 into fuel. The reaction uses common materials like copper and carbon, and
by harshreality 10y ago
>This process has several advantages when compared to other methods of converting CO2 into fuel. The reaction uses common materials like copper and carbon, and it converts the CO2 into ethanol, which is already widely used as a fuel.
>Perhaps most importantly, it works at room temperature, which means that it can be started and stopped easily and with little energy cost. This means that this conversion process could be used as temporary energy storage during a lull in renewable energy generation, smoothing out fluctuations in a renewable energy grid.
Is it too much to ask that a science journal report on science in, like, quantitative terms to support a headline? Specifically: What's the efficiency (or how much energy is required per mole)? Estimated overall costs compared to batteries or grain ethanol? Other available chemical processes for capturing CO2, and their efficiency? Not reported. I have no idea what their arbitrary cut-off for "efficient" is, but if they say they want to make it more efficient, it obviously isn't efficient enough. Actual numbers might help to judge.
- karmajunkie 10y agoIn Popular Mechanics? Yeah, I think you might be asking for a bit much there.
- seren 10y agoThe abstract of the article includes : >Herein we report a common element, nanostructured catalyst for the direct electrochemical conversion of CO2 to ethanol with high Faradaic efficiency (63 % at −1.2 V vs RHE) and high selectivity (84 %) that operates in water and at ambient temperature and pressure. I am not exactly sure how to understand the 63% efficiency but I assume that this is the rate of conversion from electrical to chemical energy. However the conclusion of the article mentions that : >The overpotential (which might be lowered with the proper electrolyte, and by separating the hydrogen production to another catalyst) probably precludes economic viability for this catalyst, but the high selectivity for a 12-electron reaction suggests that nanostructured surfaces with multiple reactive sites in close proximity can yield novel reaction mechanisms. Which sounds much less optimistic that the article's headline.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- benwikler 10y agoSo basically: this is nice, but there's no reason yet to think that this could be the way we slurp carbon out of the atmosphere and avert climate catastrophe. Right? Drat.
- gravypod 10y agoWell we already have a solution for that. We just need to create massive farms on unused land. Plant enough stuff to feed the world populations of humans with large excess and you're going to also plant enough things to scrub co2 out of the atmosphere.
- bryondowd 10y agoJust curious, but my understanding is that plants are generally carbon neutral. Any CO2 that is taken in by a plant is eventually broken back down and released after the plant dies and is consumed or allowed to decay. Unless you take a significant amount of that plant matter and contain it so that the carbon can't be re-released, at best you get a static reduction of CO2 directly proportional to the increase in live plant volume. So, no carbon scrubbing while feeding the world, but you could maybe scrub carbon by taking massive amounts of excess crops and burying/sealing them away. Not sure what the cost/efficiency of that would be.
- adwn 10y agoYou are correct: To get a net reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide, you need to increase total plant mass or prevent plants from decomposing/being eaten. As far as I know, the majority of net oxygen production happens through algae, because they die and sink to the bottom of the ocean, permanently removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
- eximius 10y agoWell, this would at least be a way to recoup the costs of not releasing the carbon emmissions in the first place.
- Retric 10y agoEfficiency can't be very good because you need to burn ethanol limiting things to ~20-40%. Ethanol is great because it's stable and portable. So, it's just a question of cost.
- T-hawk 10y agoPopular Mechanics isn't a science journal. It's the dead-tree version of clickbait.
- british_india 10y agoExactly. It's a bullshit mag
- LeifCarrotson 10y agoIt isn't anymore, at least. It used to have much more informative content. And Popular Science may have been a lightweight science journal at one time, but they've both since lost their way.
- phycodurus 10y agoFrom the last paragraph (of the paper): "The overpotential ... probably precludes economic viability for this catalyst..." There's a reason this is published where it is (and not Science or Nature or JACS). Popular Mechanics turned this reasonable research into click bait.