How to power ourselves into the next ice age while using carbon dioxide and plastics as fuel.

e-beach

10 MW
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
3,531
Location
Any Los Angeles area beach I am at. Or Santa Monic
Turns out some clever scientist's are using plastic waste and CO2 to manufacture a simple fuel. If it catches on then we can use all the CO2 in the air to make fuel and cause a well deserved cooling of the planet. :D

Snow shoes anyone?

University of Cambridge Study
Researchers have demonstrated how carbon dioxide can be captured from industrial processes -- or even directly from the air -- and transformed into clean, sustainable fuels using just the energy from the Sun.

The researchers, from the University of Cambridge, developed a solar-powered reactor that converts captured CO2 and plastic waste into sustainable fuels and other valuable chemical products. In tests, CO2 was converted into syngas, a key building block for sustainable liquid fuels, and plastic bottles were converted into glycolic acid, which is widely used in the cosmetics industry.
Unlike earlier tests of their solar fuels technology however, the team took CO2 from real-world sources -- such as industrial exhaust or the air itself. The researchers were able to capture and concentrate the CO2 and convert it into sustainable fuel.
Although improvements are needed before this technology can be used at an industrial scale, the results, reported in the journal Joule, represent another important step toward the production of clean fuels to power the economy, without the need for environmentally destructive oil and gas extraction.
For several years, Professor Erwin Reisner's research group, based in the Yusuf Hamied Department of Chemistry, has been developing sustainable, net-zero carbon fuels inspired by photosynthesis -- the process by which plants convert sunlight into food -- using artificial leaves. These artificial leaves convert CO2 and water into fuels using just the power of the sun.
To date, their solar-driven experiments have used pure, concentrated CO2 from a cylinder, but for the technology to be of practical use, it needs to be able to actively capture CO2 from industrial processes, or directly from the air. However, since CO2 is just one of many types of molecules in the air we breathe, making this technology selective enough to convert highly diluted CO2 is a huge technical challenge.

"We're not just interested in decarbonisation, but de-fossilisation -- we need to completely eliminate fossil fuels in order to create a truly circular economy," said Reisner. "In the medium term, this technology could help reduce carbon emissions by capturing them from industry and turning them into something useful, but ultimately, we need to cut fossil fuels out of the equation entirely and capture CO2 from the air."
The researchers took their inspiration from carbon capture and storage (CCS), where CO2 is captured and then pumped and stored underground.
"CCS is a technology that's popular with the fossil fuel industry as a way to reduce carbon emissions while continuing oil and gas exploration," said Reisner. "But if instead of carbon capture and storage, we had carbon capture and utilisation, we could make something useful from CO2 instead of burying it underground, with unknown long-term consequences, and eliminate the use of fossil fuels."
The researchers adapted their solar-driven technology so that it works with flue gas or directly from the air, converting CO2 and plastics into fuel and chemicals using only the power of the sun.
By bubbling air through the system containing an alkaline solution, the CO2 selectively gets trapped, and the other gases present in air, such as nitrogen and oxygen, harmlessly bubble out. This bubbling process allows the researchers to concentrate the CO2 from air in solution, making it easier to work with.

The integrated system contains a photocathode and an anode. The system has two compartments: on one side is captured CO2 solution that gets converted into syngas, a simple fuel. On the other plastics are converted into useful chemicals using only sunlight.
"The plastic component is an important trick to this system," said co-first author Dr Motiar Rahaman. "Capturing and using CO2 from the air makes the chemistry more difficult. But, if we add plastic waste to the system, the plastic donates electrons to the CO2. The plastic breaks down to glycolic acid, which is widely used in the cosmetics industry, and the CO2 is converted into syngas, which is a simple fuel."
"This solar-powered system takes two harmful waste products -- plastic and carbon emissions -- and converts them into something truly useful," said co-first author Dr Sayan Kar.
"Instead of storing CO2 underground, like in CCS, we can capture it from the air and make clean fuel from it," said Rahaman. "This way, we can cut out the fossil fuel industry from the process of fuel production, which can hopefully help us avoid climate destruction."
"The fact that we can effectively take CO2 from air and make something useful from it is special," said Kar. "It's satisfying to see that we can actually do it using only sunlight."
The scientists are currently working on a bench-top demonstrator device with improved efficiency and practicality to highlight the benefits of coupling direct air capture with CO2 utilisation as a path to a zero-carbon future.
 
Consider the planet before any use of fossil fuels. During any arbitrarily long period we could include additional Carbon or Methane from volcanic activity or other sources, so let's limit the period to the time of agriculture up until the advent of fossil fuels - this could be before coal.

During this time, our biosphere had major energy inputs from our star, tiny inputs from the rest of the cosmos, and arguably noticeable inputs from natural fission, and maybe we could include an input from long term cooling of the earth's core on it's way out of the planet.

For this period, our biosphere was in a dynamic equilibrium we could thrive in. We liked it. The added energy escaped the planet at a rate that kept the temperatures in a range that worked well for us. The delay between in and out left us with a nice biosphere that cleaned the air and water and grew food well.

And during this time, there was no mechanism to change the amount of carbon in the biosphere. It was recycled by natural processes, captured by organisms for their life cycle, released when their life cycles ended - but the amount was static, apart from the occasional volcanic eruption during this period. This amount of carbon in the biosphere meant a certain cycle of temperatures, heat input and rate of heat loss to the cosmos, and we were happy with those temperatures, as was most everything else alive during this period.

More carbon - different equilibrium and temperatures.

Since we have begun using fossil fuels, we have been dumping more carbon into the biosphere than there was during the nice period.

That is what decides - how much carbon in the biosphere - not where it comes from.

No matter how we treat the current carbon, it's too much for us to have a happy planet to live on - with the only exception being that we capture it and remove it from the biosphere. By putting it back into the ground where it doesn't have any effect in our biosphere, as it didn't for so many thriving millenia.

Capturing it, and burning it again, means it continues to circulate in the current biosphere, and that means the temperatures will stay too high for us to continue with agriculture, and the eco-system will not purify the water and air sufficiently for us to thrive.

Life will almost certainly go on, and probably humans too - but not civilization. We can't rely on large scale agriculture or other large scale food sources, and the air and water supplies and delivery are in jeapordy too. Civilization is likely screwed, and the few people that live on may tell stories about what we accomplished, and make up stories about why the gods punished us.

But it's just us dumping fossil carbon into the biosphere. There is no solution that does not involve removing the excess carbon completely from the biosphere. Recycling too large an amount of carbon in some "novel manner" will not bring the temperatures down.

We have had these nice temperatures because the fossil carbon wasn't in the biosphere. It is now, and novel ways of cycling it through the biosphere will not alleviate the problems we are having. It must be fossilized again.
 
That is what decides - how much carbon in the biosphere - not where it comes from.

No matter how we treat the current carbon, it's too much for us to have a happy planet to live on - with the only exception being that we capture it and remove it from the biosphere. By putting it back into the ground where it doesn't have any effect in our biosphere, as it didn't for so many thriving millenia
I assume you are aware where the bulk (98%) of CO2 is concentrated on our planet ?…..the Oceans.…
..and how many orders of magnitude the CO2 exchange cycle from the oceans in compared to anything man made ?
you will no doubt understand that the solubility of CO2 in water is directly related to temperature, and consequently if you accept the proposition that the planet is warming, then it should be apparent that the oceans are progressively releasing more CO2 ( and adsorbing less ) than before the warming started.
That increase is far more than any human related additions.
 
Last edited:
Turns out some clever scientist's are using plastic waste and CO2 to manufacture a simple fuel. If it catches on then we can use all the CO2 in the air to make fuel and cause a well deserved cooling of the planet. :D
This has been well known for years now. Via electrolysis, the Sabatier process and the reverse watergas reaction you can make methane from water and CO2. And from methane you can make all sorts of longer chain hydrocarbons. But it's very energy intensive, and in general you are better off using all that energy directly.
 
than before the warming started.
That increase is far more than any human related additions.
The warming that is leading to the release from the oceans is the warming that is caused by humans adding fossil carbon to the biosphere.

That the carbon was in the oceans but not being released shows that there was a 'carbon bomb' that we would have been, and are now and in the future, wise not to trigger - the impact will be far greater than our direct actions. It was better not to start it changing, and better for us to reverse what we have done so that it does not continue.

It seems to me that your position is analogous to the idea that there is a hornet nest by the door, and in response to the suggestion that you act carefully and act to eliminate the problem, you reply "I didn't put them there, the hornets were there already". That doesn't mean it's a good idea to poke them.
 
Last edited:
I assume you are aware where the bulk (98%) of CO2 is concentrated on our planet ?…..the Oceans.…
..and how many orders of magnitude the CO2 exchange cycle from the oceans in compared to anything man made ?
you will no doubt understand that the solubility of CO2 in water is directly related to temperature, and consequently if you accept the proposition that the planet is warming, then it should be apparent that the oceans are progressively releasing more CO2 ( and adsorbing less ) than before the warming started.
That increase is far more than any human related additions.
Nope.

The oceans are currently absorbing CO2 for two reasons. One, since we are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, simple diffusion is driving more CO2 into the ocean. This is a good thing for us (because it keeps the CO2 rates lower than they would otherwise be) but a bad thing for the ocean, since more CO2 increases acidity, and this dissolves structures like coral reefs. As of 2021 we have lost about 14% of the Earth's coral reefs, and this is accelerating as the ocean acidifies.

The second reason is that most of the photosynthesis on the planet happens in the oceans. Thus the ocean absorbs CO2 and releases oxygen normally due to the action of phytoplankton.

The ocean's pH 150 years ago was 8.2; the ocean is naturally alkaline. It is now 8.1 and dropping. Since the pH scale is algorithmic this represents a 30% increase in acidity.

You are correct that as we warm the planet, the ocean's ability to absorb additional excess CO2 will be reduced. Which is a good reason to stop warming the planet via our anthropogenic gas emissions.
 
Add to it also that blue / green algae enjoys a pH of 7-9. The Saudis are doing a lot of desalination and more plants are being built year after year.
 
Back
Top