3 ms·

We already have all the ingredients to turn CO2+H2 into Methanol without an intermediate step turning it into Methane. There are already a few production plants

by hannob 4y ago

We already have all the ingredients to turn CO2+H2 into Methanol without an intermediate step turning it into Methane. There are already a few production plants, e.g. one by Carbon Recycling International. It's not super efficient, but I am pretty sure you're not going to improve that by introducing an intermediate step.

ascar 4y ago
> It's not super efficient, but I am pretty sure you're not going to improve that by introducing an intermediate step. What's the foundation of that argument? An intermediate step that's achieved more efficiently and allows for a more efficient follow-up certainly can improve the efficiency of the overall process compared to one with less steps?
- ABCLAW 4y ago
  Most chemical synthesis steps produce side products. More steps means more %yield loss. If it's possible you go from A->B at 80% efficiency. If we compare this with A->C then C->B need to be nearly twice as efficient to provide a better yield. Remember these steps include losses due to non chemical reasons. You might have issues with your reactors or transferring the solution to a new reaction chamber might incur losses, etc. In most complex organic synth situations, the full synthesis will be 8-20 steps or so, so we're talking about yields of %efficiency^x. Lowering X helps a ton. In short, the alternate route needs to be really good to justify additional steps.
criddell 4y ago
> I am pretty sure you're not going to improve that by introducing an intermediate step Isn’t that the entire reasons catalysts are so valuable?
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> It's not super efficient, but I am pretty sure you're not going to improve that by introducing an intermediate step. Perhaps we could so with a llittle self-awareness? To come here and simply state that all these PHDs develop a new process while you here rest in certainty that it is doomed to failure. Without demonstrating any understanding of catalysts or anything beyong highschool chemistry. Without presenting any evidence or agument except 'extra step is bad'
- jeltz 4y ago
  I agree with your main point. But there are plenty of PHDs out there working on projects doomed for failure. That is actually one of the main reasons why my brother left organic chemistry research to become a software engineer (the cutthroat abuse of peer review was another). He was tired of all the people getting grants for projects doomed to fail. Sure some of them might accidentally stumbling onto something useful but he became tired of all research in this field into known dead ends.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    God help anyone still getting grants for molecular electronics.

by hannob 4y ago

ascar 4y ago

> It's not super efficient, but I am pretty sure you're not going to improve that by introducing an intermediate step. What's the foundation of that argument? An intermediate step that's achieved more efficiently and allows for a more efficient follow-up certainly can improve the efficiency of the overall process compared to one with less steps?

ABCLAW 4y ago
Most chemical synthesis steps produce side products. More steps means more %yield loss. If it's possible you go from A->B at 80% efficiency. If we compare this with A->C then C->B need to be nearly twice as efficient to provide a better yield. Remember these steps include losses due to non chemical reasons. You might have issues with your reactors or transferring the solution to a new reaction chamber might incur losses, etc. In most complex organic synth situations, the full synthesis will be 8-20 steps or so, so we're talking about yields of %efficiency^x. Lowering X helps a ton. In short, the alternate route needs to be really good to justify additional steps.

criddell 4y ago

> I am pretty sure you're not going to improve that by introducing an intermediate step Isn’t that the entire reasons catalysts are so valuable?

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> It's not super efficient, but I am pretty sure you're not going to improve that by introducing an intermediate step. Perhaps we could so with a llittle self-awareness? To come here and simply state that all these PHDs develop a new process while you here rest in certainty that it is doomed to failure. Without demonstrating any understanding of catalysts or anything beyong highschool chemistry. Without presenting any evidence or agument except 'extra step is bad'

jeltz 4y ago
I agree with your main point. But there are plenty of PHDs out there working on projects doomed for failure. That is actually one of the main reasons why my brother left organic chemistry research to become a software engineer (the cutthroat abuse of peer review was another). He was tired of all the people getting grants for projects doomed to fail. Sure some of them might accidentally stumbling onto something useful but he became tired of all research in this field into known dead ends.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  God help anyone still getting grants for molecular electronics.