‘Diamonds from the sky’ approach turns CO2 into valuable products

[OKIsItJustMe]

Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 03:29 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2015/august/co2.html

[font face=Serif]FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | Wed Aug 19 12:44:00 EDT 2015

[font size=5]‘Diamonds from the sky’ approach turns CO₂ into valuable products[/font]

[font size=4]Note to journalists: Please report that this research will be presented at a meeting of the American Chemical Society.

A press conference on this topic will be held Wednesday, Aug. 19, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time in the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center. Reporters may check-in at Room 153B in person, or watch live on YouTube http://bit.ly/ACSLiveBoston . To ask questions online, sign in with a Google account.[/font]

[font size=3]…

Because of its efficiency, this low-energy process can be run using only a few volts of electricity, sunlight and a whole lot of carbon dioxide. At its root, the system uses electrolytic syntheses to make the nanofibers. CO₂ is broken down in a high-temperature electrolytic bath of molten carbonates at 1,380 degrees F (750 degrees C). Atmospheric air is added to an electrolytic cell. Once there, the CO₂ dissolves when subjected to the heat and direct current through electrodes of nickel and steel. The carbon nanofibers build up on the steel electrode, where they can be removed, Licht says.

To power the syntheses, heat and electricity are produced through a hybrid and extremely efficient concentrating solar-energy system. The system focuses the sun’s rays on a photovoltaic solar cell to generate electricity and on a second system to generate heat and thermal energy, which raises the temperature of the electrolytic cell.

Licht estimates electrical energy costs of this “solar thermal electrochemical process” to be around $1,000 per ton of carbon nanofiber product, which means the cost of running the system is hundreds of times less than the value of product output.

“We calculate that with a physical area less than 10 percent the size of the Sahara Desert, our process could remove enough CO₂ to decrease atmospheric levels to those of the pre-industrial revolution within 10 years,” he says.

…[/font][/font]

[ruffburr]

1. What's the hold up? -

If this works it needs to be built and used immediately,Not to mention the jobs created the slowing / stopping extinctions, Next get the plastic out of the Oceans, Finally, Can we get mankind to actually consider their responsibility to each other and the planet.

Sorry, just got into some wishful thinking there

[Politicalboi]

3. My thoughts exactly

What is the hold up. As the planet melts more and more. It's like refusing water as your house burns down. Oh no, we'll be fine.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Researcher Demonstrates How to Suck Carbon from the Air, Make Stuff from It

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Researcher Demonstrates How to Suck Carbon from the Air, Make Stuff from It[/font]

[font size=4]A novel electrochemical process sequesters carbon in the form of a versatile building material.[/font]

By Mike Orcutt on August 19, 2015

[font size=3]A new method for taking carbon dioxide directly from the air and converting it to oxygen and nanoscale fibers made of carbon could lead to an inexpensive way to make a valuable building material—and may even serve as a weapon against climate change.

Carbon fibers are increasingly being used as a structural material by industries like aerospace and automotive, which value its strength and light weight. The useful attributes of carbon fibers, which also include electrical conductivity, are enhanced at the nanoscale, says Stuart Licht, a professor of chemistry at George Washington University. The problem is that it’s very expensive to make carbon fibers, much less nanofibers. Licht says his group’s newly demonstrated technology, which both captures the carbon dioxide from the air and employs an electrochemical process to convert it to carbon nanofibers and oxygen, is more efficient and potentially a lot cheaper than existing methods.

But it’s more than just a simpler, less expensive way of making a high value product. It’s also a “means of storing and sequestering carbon dioxide in a useful manner, a stable manner, and in a compact manner,” says Licht. He points out that if the process is powered by renewable energy, the result is a net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In a recent demonstration, his group used a unique concentrated solar power system, which makes use of infrared sunlight as well as visible light to generate the large amount of heat needed to run the desired reaction.

…

The researchers demonstrated the ability to make a variety of different nanofiber shapes and diameters by adjusting specific growth conditions, such as the amount of current applied at specific points of time, and the composition of the various ingredients used in the process. They also showed they could make very uniform fibers. Licht says the mechanisms underlying the formation of the fibers still need to be better understood, and says he’s confident the group can keep developing a greater degree of control over the nature of the fibers it makes.

…[/font][/font]

[NNadir]

4. I've attended lots of ACS meetings with presentations like this. At the meeting in Indianapolis...

...a few years back we had Princeton Professor Andy Bocarsley give us an "update" on his electrochemical cell for converting carbon dioxide to methanol.

He founded a company, "Liquid Light" with one of his former graduate students. They were, if I have this right, power the whole world with solar energy and methanol.

When that didn't work out, they decided to go into the business of making isotopically labeled compounds, from what I hear anyway.

Does anyone with a breathless reaction to this understand the thermodynamics of heating molten carbonates to 1380C with dilute energy sources?

The grotesque failure of the solar industry for the much simpler task of making electricity (as opposed to heating molten carbonate baths) is a function of how dilute it is.

For the record, there are very few ACS meetings where one does hear of "breakthroughs" of this type. The only problem with the overwhelming majority of them is that they don't scale past the benchtop, although many times they fulfill their real function, which is getting DOE or other grants.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. I’m confident you’d promote this idea as a breakthrough…

if they proposed to drive it with nuclear fission…

[NNadir]

6. Molten carbonates have been widely explored in nuclear settings...

Last edited Thu Aug 20, 2015, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)

...for a variety of purposes.

It wouldn't be characterized as a "breakthrough," though. It's as old as the hills in this setting.

As it happens, I often read papers that nominally involve solar thermal approaches to things like hydrogen cycles, waste processing, process heat, etc.

Many of these are useful only in the sense that they translate quite well to nuclear applications utilizing very high temperature reactors.

As a result of fear and ignorance however, high temp reactors are not being built, eliminating humanity's last best hope, meaning that all these papers are of no practical import.

The reason so many of these papers are written, despite the fact that the solar thermal industry is useless in addressing climate change, is that, given the poor science literacy of the general public, which translates into popular enthusiasm, if not practical focus on reality, for the solar industry, they do generate grants..

Thanks for your comment.

[NickB79]

7. "a physical area less than 10 percent the size of the Sahara Desert" Oh, is that all???

That's "only" 300,000 square miles!

In other words, larger than the state of Texas.......

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. “to decrease atmospheric levels to those of the pre-industrial revolution within 10 years”

So, unless you want to go that far, you may not need 300,000 square miles…

Personally, I think shooting for carbon neutrality would be a heck of a good start. (i.e. suck as much carbon out of the atmosphere each year as we’re putting in.)