4 ms·

The actual title is "UC reactor makes Martian fuel" and the subtitle is "A gas station on Mars? Engineers envision the possibilities." But the submission title

The actual title is "UC reactor makes Martian fuel" and the subtitle is "A gas station on Mars? Engineers envision the possibilities." But the submission title is "UC reactor converts carbon dioxide to fuel to address climate change"? While it does talk about applications with respect to carbon capture, if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? > “In the future we’ll develop other catalysts that can produce more products,” said Zhang, a doctoral student in chemical engineering. So I guess if we produce products which sequester carbon then maybe that would be useful, but this is purely speculative.

riboflavin123 5y ago
The URL matches the submission title, at least. Perhaps the content changed?
- DiabloD3 5y ago
  I concur, looks like the title changed, slug remained the same.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    That's amusing. The change must've occurred in the ~8 minute window between the submission and my comment, which seems odd considering the article is 2 days old. Not casting doubt, but remarking on coincidence.
    - temp0826 5y ago
      A/B test caught in action possibly?
    - btilly 5y ago
      Most likely the fact that it appeared here caused someone to look at it, realize that the title didn't match the contents, and hurry to change it. The old title really was egregiously bad. @dang, can we get it fixed?
sfink 5y ago
> if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? If it replaces some amount of fossil fuel, it could still be useful. I'm guessing the efficiency isn't great, though.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jl6 5y ago
> if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? The process would still be great news if true, as it could be a carbon-neutral source of hydrocarbon fuel for applications that are hard to electrify, like aviation.
- wibagusto 5y ago
  I just imagine the scramble to get carbon neutral allowing huge carbon-processing factories and then we enter some kind of carbon deficit, back in the same situation we are in—a teetering balance between overconsumption and moderation.
  - chrisBob 5y ago
    If, some day in the future the oil companies all start pushing hard for carbon capture, then we will know this is a real possibility.
  - jl6 5y ago
    To be clear, the solution to climate change is first to stop burning fossil fuels, and then to start removing carbon from the atmosphere. This technology won’t help long term removal of carbon if we just burn the resulting fuel, but it might help displace fossils as a source for some applications that would otherwise be at the very end of the fossil ramp-down.
    - markkanof 5y ago
      With this technology, assuming it can capture large amounts of carbon, couldn't some of it be converted to fuel for current use and some of it sequestered. It would certainly take longer to significantly reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but should still do the job. Instead of introducing new CO2 into the atmosphere by burning newly extracted oil, we would be sequestering some and "recycling" some.
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      There still must be some input of energy. From what I understand, the Sabatier reaction is really only viable from an environmental perspective if it is powered by some other non-carbon energy, such as solar or wind.
dang 5y ago
There's more than one actual title. The submitter used the HTML doc title, which is a legit choice, and they probably picked it on the grounds that it was more substantive/less baity. Since the climate change mention has turned out to be baity in its own right, I took that bit out above.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Huh, makes sense. I didn't realize there could be more than one title. Thanks for the clarification.
300bps 5y ago
if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? It's necessary to compare the two things: 1 - we drill out more fossil fuels and burn it 2 - we convert atmospheric CO2 to fuels and burn it #2 is theoretically infinite and CO2 levels never increase. #1 is very finite and the longer we do it the higher CO2 levels increase.
fozzyfozfoz 5y ago
Yea that CO2 is not as easy to pump as sticking a drill in some oil plump wet dirt and pumping away.

riboflavin123 5y ago

The URL matches the submission title, at least. Perhaps the content changed?

DiabloD3 5y ago
I concur, looks like the title changed, slug remained the same.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  That's amusing. The change must've occurred in the ~8 minute window between the submission and my comment, which seems odd considering the article is 2 days old. Not casting doubt, but remarking on coincidence.
  - temp0826 5y ago
    A/B test caught in action possibly?
  - btilly 5y ago
    Most likely the fact that it appeared here caused someone to look at it, realize that the title didn't match the contents, and hurry to change it. The old title really was egregiously bad. @dang, can we get it fixed?

sfink 5y ago

> if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? If it replaces some amount of fossil fuel, it could still be useful. I'm guessing the efficiency isn't great, though.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jl6 5y ago

> if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? The process would still be great news if true, as it could be a carbon-neutral source of hydrocarbon fuel for applications that are hard to electrify, like aviation.

wibagusto 5y ago
I just imagine the scramble to get carbon neutral allowing huge carbon-processing factories and then we enter some kind of carbon deficit, back in the same situation we are in—a teetering balance between overconsumption and moderation.
- chrisBob 5y ago
  If, some day in the future the oil companies all start pushing hard for carbon capture, then we will know this is a real possibility.
- jl6 5y ago
  To be clear, the solution to climate change is first to stop burning fossil fuels, and then to start removing carbon from the atmosphere. This technology won’t help long term removal of carbon if we just burn the resulting fuel, but it might help displace fossils as a source for some applications that would otherwise be at the very end of the fossil ramp-down.
  - markkanof 5y ago
    With this technology, assuming it can capture large amounts of carbon, couldn't some of it be converted to fuel for current use and some of it sequestered. It would certainly take longer to significantly reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but should still do the job. Instead of introducing new CO2 into the atmosphere by burning newly extracted oil, we would be sequestering some and "recycling" some.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    There still must be some input of energy. From what I understand, the Sabatier reaction is really only viable from an environmental perspective if it is powered by some other non-carbon energy, such as solar or wind.

dang 5y ago

There's more than one actual title. The submitter used the HTML doc title, which is a legit choice, and they probably picked it on the grounds that it was more substantive/less baity. Since the climate change mention has turned out to be baity in its own right, I took that bit out above.

throwaway894345 5y ago
Huh, makes sense. I didn't realize there could be more than one title. Thanks for the clarification.

300bps 5y ago

if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? It's necessary to compare the two things: 1 - we drill out more fossil fuels and burn it 2 - we convert atmospheric CO2 to fuels and burn it #2 is theoretically infinite and CO2 levels never increase. #1 is very finite and the longer we do it the higher CO2 levels increase.

fozzyfozfoz 5y ago

Yea that CO2 is not as easy to pump as sticking a drill in some oil plump wet dirt and pumping away.