6 ms·

Thank you for this very much, I didn't manage to find it. I stand by the fact that an academic press office isn't linking to the original paper is absurd. Afte

Thank you for this very much, I didn't manage to find it. I stand by the fact that an academic press office isn't linking to the original paper is absurd. After a brief skim of the paper... the press release is (as typical) pretty out of touch with the research. Chemistry is nothing short of impressive! And I hope methodologies like these push towards viable carbon capture, mostly so we don't get idiots continuing to experiment with riskier techniques like iron fertilization etc. However, the paper leaves me with so many questions. Methane is shown to be an output of the chemical reaction leading to methanol, they claim the methane output is reduced by their modifications to the method but they make no attempt to quantify the amount of methane released in the reaction or how that compares to the CO2 capture. Also also. I'm not a chemist, but it's pretty weird to be measuring energy in eV is it not? If this were truly climate-centric, they could very easily put the Wattage required per kg of carbon capture. Which, although probably extremely high given they haven't had time to optimize it, would give a very clear idea of the efficiency of the capture. It looks like some of this might be quantified in the patent but I can only read French, not German :(

R0b0t1 4y ago
It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Ultimately it does turn into enthalpy. Process takes place at 21 bar and 300-500C. I do not see this being efficient unless powered by nukes. This is fine though, and more accessible than the gasoline production methods that use similar high pressure high temperature reactors.
- earthscienceman 4y ago
  It is the most precise measurement of the energy input required chemically. It says nothing of the efficiency of the process. The energy required to get to 21 bar and 300-500C and maintain it while that energy input is being provided for that specific chemical reaction. I'll reiterate, I have no issue that it's inefficient, that's to be expected. It's not hard at all to give a net energy input for the entire process. In fact that would be the easiest part of the paper. If you're giving your research to your press office to make a statement about "climate protection" I damn well expect that number to be provided. Powered by nuclear as you propose is wonderful, btw. I personally would take nuclear waste over atmospheric CO2 every day of the week.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    Let's make a giant offshore nuclear-powered CO2->petrol production facility and become techno oil barons. Maybe bond villains too. You have to do something with the money, right? I want to see this movie.
- jabl 4y ago
  > It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Er, no. Just no. eV is just a unit, that doesn't make it more or less precise. eV had its origins in early accelerator physics work where it was a convenient unit to use, and it's use spread from there to other subfields of physics, including ones where the connection to the original processes measured in the early accelerator work is tenuous at best.
  - R0b0t1 4y ago
    You're right. Precision really isn't the right word. I meant something more like most useful. In the field that produced this paper, eV is going to be the most convenient way to specify it, because it relates to the movement of electrons and not just e.g. exploratory particle physics.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  "Unless powered by nukes" means "not". Power from nukes is the most expensive source. But surplus solar is by far the cheapest. It does not seem like operating this process intermittently, i.e. only when power is cheapest, would be impractical. If the equipment was very expensive, it would need to be operated at near 100% to earn back its cost. But molybdenum disulfide is not expensive. Usually it is only when you need gold or platinum catalysts that capital cost dominates.
PaulHoule 4y ago
Who's experimenting with Iron Fertilization? I was thinking of doing a Kickstarter and renting out a boat but I got told in no uncertain words not to do it by some scientists who contribute to those IPCC reports. These days the research is more in this direction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel) but the short path to that is to spend about $1B developing a new airplane to inject SO2 into the stratosphere because no off-the-shelf airplane flies high enough. That's a little out of reach for a Kickstarter.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Isn't SO2 a nastier dehydrated form of sulfuric acid? How does that not turn into acid rain?
  - nick238 4y ago
    SO3 can react to form H2SO4. If you dissolve SO2 into water you get 'sulfurous acid', which is not a strong acid. The Wikipedia article on 'acid rain' mentions the chemistry to convert SO2 is as follows: SO2 + OH· → HOSO2· HOSO2· + O2 → HO2· + SO3 SO3 (g) + H2O (l) → H2SO4 (aq)
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    It does turn to acid rain. Back in the 1970s and 1980s the effect of global warming was attenuated by SO2 emissions in the troposphere, one of the many reason deniers were able to deny as long as they did. SO2 particles last a few days in the troposphere but last a few years in the stratosphere. So the cooling effect you get is hundreds or thousands of times more per unit mass so the amount of acid rain you get for the amount of cooling you get is much more favorable than in the bad old days.
- samstave 4y ago
- _whiteCaps_ 4y ago
  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/haida-gwaii-ocean-fertalizing-chile-1.3550783 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/haida-gwaii-...
impendia 4y ago
> I stand by the fact that an academic press office isn't linking to the original paper is absurd. Academic here. I agree with you that there should be a link to the original paper, but I can kinda sorta explain this. For one, unfortunately (very unfortunately), the papers are often behind paywalls or otherwise inaccessible. This one isn't, but it might explain the bad habit. Also, and again unfortunately, scientists are often not in the habit of presenting their results to the general public. It's not really part of our training, or something we're expected to do. My own interactions with my university's communication staff have been a little bit tense; faculty often have utilitarian web pages aimed mostly at students and colleagues in the discipline, whereas communication staff seem to mostly want to drive publicity for the university as a whole. It can be worse. Here is a 2018 USC press release in my discipline: https://news.usc.edu/144995/visiting-professor-solves-math-mystery-lindelof-hypothesis/ https://news.usc.edu/144995/visiting-professor-solves-math-m... The Lindelof Hypothesis was not proved, the paper was not peer reviewed, nobody prominent in the field ever endorsed the result, and the claim was later retracted. The press release remains up.
- worik 4y ago
  > scientists are often not in the habit of presenting their results to the general public That is true. Here in Ōtepoti there is a university department of "Scientific Communication" trying to address that. Good luck to them, and hopefully this is changing.
- jefurii 4y ago
  > Also, and again unfortunately, scientists are often not in the habit of presenting their results to the general public. It's not really part of our training, or something we're expected to do. In my opinion, a professional who can't explain the work they do to a normal human is not really a professional. I've heard so many scientists complain about the quality of science reporting but they might be partly to blame. I know not every scientist can be a Carl Sagan of course.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    Outreach has an unlimited ability to soak time away from doing actual science. Sometimes it's a net benefit, but sometimes not. See: scientists beefing with flat earthers, who will never be convinced of anything.
kaiusbrantlee 4y ago
philipkglass 4y ago
I'm not a chemist, but it's pretty weird to be measuring energy in eV is it not? An electron-volt is a very small unit of energy. Since atoms and molecules are also very small, the eV is a common unit of measurement for chemical phenomena described at this scale. See for example this table of molecular bond dissociation energies, where eV is one of the units offered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond-dissociation_energy#Representative_bond_energies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond-dissociation_energy#Repre...
OkayPhysicist 4y ago
eV's are very commonly used in Chemistry and Physics. They're very convenient for talking about the energies involved in chemical (or nuclear) reactions. Assuming you're looking for energy in kilowatt-hours, just divide by 2.25*10^25

R0b0t1 4y ago

It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Ultimately it does turn into enthalpy. Process takes place at 21 bar and 300-500C. I do not see this being efficient unless powered by nukes. This is fine though, and more accessible than the gasoline production methods that use similar high pressure high temperature reactors.

earthscienceman 4y ago
It is the most precise measurement of the energy input required chemically. It says nothing of the efficiency of the process. The energy required to get to 21 bar and 300-500C and maintain it while that energy input is being provided for that specific chemical reaction. I'll reiterate, I have no issue that it's inefficient, that's to be expected. It's not hard at all to give a net energy input for the entire process. In fact that would be the easiest part of the paper. If you're giving your research to your press office to make a statement about "climate protection" I damn well expect that number to be provided. Powered by nuclear as you propose is wonderful, btw. I personally would take nuclear waste over atmospheric CO2 every day of the week.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Let's make a giant offshore nuclear-powered CO2->petrol production facility and become techno oil barons. Maybe bond villains too. You have to do something with the money, right? I want to see this movie.
jabl 4y ago
> It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Er, no. Just no. eV is just a unit, that doesn't make it more or less precise. eV had its origins in early accelerator physics work where it was a convenient unit to use, and it's use spread from there to other subfields of physics, including ones where the connection to the original processes measured in the early accelerator work is tenuous at best.
- R0b0t1 4y ago
  You're right. Precision really isn't the right word. I meant something more like most useful. In the field that produced this paper, eV is going to be the most convenient way to specify it, because it relates to the movement of electrons and not just e.g. exploratory particle physics.
ncmncm 4y ago
"Unless powered by nukes" means "not". Power from nukes is the most expensive source. But surplus solar is by far the cheapest. It does not seem like operating this process intermittently, i.e. only when power is cheapest, would be impractical. If the equipment was very expensive, it would need to be operated at near 100% to earn back its cost. But molybdenum disulfide is not expensive. Usually it is only when you need gold or platinum catalysts that capital cost dominates.

PaulHoule 4y ago

Who's experimenting with Iron Fertilization? I was thinking of doing a Kickstarter and renting out a boat but I got told in no uncertain words not to do it by some scientists who contribute to those IPCC reports. These days the research is more in this direction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel) but the short path to that is to spend about $1B developing a new airplane to inject SO2 into the stratosphere because no off-the-shelf airplane flies high enough. That's a little out of reach for a Kickstarter.

jjoonathan 4y ago
Isn't SO2 a nastier dehydrated form of sulfuric acid? How does that not turn into acid rain?
- nick238 4y ago
  SO3 can react to form H2SO4. If you dissolve SO2 into water you get 'sulfurous acid', which is not a strong acid. The Wikipedia article on 'acid rain' mentions the chemistry to convert SO2 is as follows: SO2 + OH· → HOSO2· HOSO2· + O2 → HO2· + SO3 SO3 (g) + H2O (l) → H2SO4 (aq)
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  It does turn to acid rain. Back in the 1970s and 1980s the effect of global warming was attenuated by SO2 emissions in the troposphere, one of the many reason deniers were able to deny as long as they did. SO2 particles last a few days in the troposphere but last a few years in the stratosphere. So the cooling effect you get is hundreds or thousands of times more per unit mass so the amount of acid rain you get for the amount of cooling you get is much more favorable than in the bad old days.
samstave 4y ago
_whiteCaps_ 4y ago
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/haida-gwaii-ocean-fertalizing-chile-1.3550783 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/haida-gwaii-...

impendia 4y ago

> I stand by the fact that an academic press office isn't linking to the original paper is absurd. Academic here. I agree with you that there should be a link to the original paper, but I can kinda sorta explain this. For one, unfortunately (very unfortunately), the papers are often behind paywalls or otherwise inaccessible. This one isn't, but it might explain the bad habit. Also, and again unfortunately, scientists are often not in the habit of presenting their results to the general public. It's not really part of our training, or something we're expected to do. My own interactions with my university's communication staff have been a little bit tense; faculty often have utilitarian web pages aimed mostly at students and colleagues in the discipline, whereas communication staff seem to mostly want to drive publicity for the university as a whole. It can be worse. Here is a 2018 USC press release in my discipline: https://news.usc.edu/144995/visiting-professor-solves-math-mystery-lindelof-hypothesis/ https://news.usc.edu/144995/visiting-professor-solves-math-m... The Lindelof Hypothesis was not proved, the paper was not peer reviewed, nobody prominent in the field ever endorsed the result, and the claim was later retracted. The press release remains up.

worik 4y ago
> scientists are often not in the habit of presenting their results to the general public That is true. Here in Ōtepoti there is a university department of "Scientific Communication" trying to address that. Good luck to them, and hopefully this is changing.
jefurii 4y ago
> Also, and again unfortunately, scientists are often not in the habit of presenting their results to the general public. It's not really part of our training, or something we're expected to do. In my opinion, a professional who can't explain the work they do to a normal human is not really a professional. I've heard so many scientists complain about the quality of science reporting but they might be partly to blame. I know not every scientist can be a Carl Sagan of course.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Outreach has an unlimited ability to soak time away from doing actual science. Sometimes it's a net benefit, but sometimes not. See: scientists beefing with flat earthers, who will never be convinced of anything.

kaiusbrantlee 4y ago

philipkglass 4y ago

I'm not a chemist, but it's pretty weird to be measuring energy in eV is it not? An electron-volt is a very small unit of energy. Since atoms and molecules are also very small, the eV is a common unit of measurement for chemical phenomena described at this scale. See for example this table of molecular bond dissociation energies, where eV is one of the units offered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond-dissociation_energy#Representative_bond_energies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond-dissociation_energy#Repre...

OkayPhysicist 4y ago

eV's are very commonly used in Chemistry and Physics. They're very convenient for talking about the energies involved in chemical (or nuclear) reactions. Assuming you're looking for energy in kilowatt-hours, just divide by 2.25*10^25