• Hello ES! We could use some help to get us past the finish line on building the new knowledgebase for the forum.
    Can you donate? Please see our fundraising page. Thank you!

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

e-beach

🏍️ Giga poster
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
3,707
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.
 
You guys might want to consider the Vostok Ice core data.
(Antarctic ice and air bubbles going back a about a million years (IIRC) studied)

There are graphs you might show to someone who's successful on the stock exchange.
Ask them what they would put money on: Up or down... :)
 
It would be very cool if we could turn these waste product info a fuel and give them a second life. That could reduce global pollution massively.


Vostok ice core data tells some interesting stories about the planet's past. Here are some reconstructions of past temperatures that are based on ice cores + sediment cores.

2020-09-11 10_51_18-climate-states-lg-cap.jpg (1281×906) - Brave.jpg

5millionyearsclimate.jpg

It is easy to look up information about sediment/ice cores.

Seeing these things a long time ago gave me a nuanced view on the topic, and reduced my interest in debating people on extreme ends of the spectrum.

To be clear, i do agree that we are geo-engineering the planet, and that's bad. I just think that mother nature is capable of a lot worse than we've dished out and it can, at times, be hard to differentiate what factor is responsible.
 
mother nature is capable of a lot worse than we've dished out

Yes. Mother Nature can kill us. Consider the "Snowball Earth" time(s), when it appears that life was reduced to single-celled organisms clustered around undersea volcanic vents and died in all other biomes.

That there are natural forces that can kill us is not the only criterion IMO. We are on our way to making civilization impossible, as it requires substantial population and that is only possible with reliable crop yields. We cannot move the world's harvests north in a single year - that will provoke wars instead and will not succeed.

As for a criteria that makes physical sense, try the energy provided by the Sun to the Earth. We can live within that.

And as to the use of fossil fuels, we use them to permit fast fashion, new pop stars, different looking automobiles (and automobiles could be mostly dispensed with by designing our towns sensibly). We use fossil fuels to permit thoughtless and careless behaviour.

Because we have automobiles, we don't know our neighbors, can hide in our basements, and get our "news" from algorithmically driven propaganda channels, which exist to gather money or power, or both.

Our use of fossil fuels becomes indefensible as soon as we have used them to set up our renewable economy. There is no defensible rationale after that - it is just pandering to people that don't want to look, find out, and know.

The continued use of fossil fuels is a crime against humanity. Particularly the children who will pay for our lazy, selfish egotism.
 
Yeah. Humanity has a lot of scaling problems right now.

The truth is that modern quality of life rests on the use of fossil fuels still, despite our electric, alternative energy powered dreams that haven't really came to fruition yet.

You can get rid of bigger cars, fast fashion, idling, whatever... but you've still only tackled a few % of a way, way bigger problem.

It's not simple to solve ( unless you want to be an enviro-nazi ) and incremental things like turning CO2/plastic into fuel should be celebrated as at least we're making SOME visible progress towards a less polluted world.
 
CO2 is combustions end point, so if you want to reburn it you need to add energy. The input from what I infer, is solar. We can convert the earth into a machine to capture the energy we need for this, but life will suffer.
 
bird flubut life will suffer

You did not say this, but I'll add - life isn't suffering now?
  • Ukraine
  • Taiwan vs mainland china
  • submerging island nations
  • coral death
  • seabird death
  • out-of-band weather that is already disrupting crop yields and bringing nations the point of war and famine
  • increasing contact with novel zoonotic disease due to people migrating from unsustainable homes
  • increasing contact with novel zoonotic disease due to animal-human spread - read about h5n1 bird flu and how it is embedded in the wild bird population and thus going into the domesticated bird and animal populations now
  • greatly increased economic migration from places that can't sustain their society now due to marginal crop lands
... there's plenty more.

The Dungeon Master didn't roll the die to make the game more interesting - all of these and much more are already happening and they are largely due to our refusal to live our lives consciously. "Freedom" and "license" are not the same.

It's not that we are living beyond our means. It's that we are living beyond our means for the stupidest and basest purpose - to avoid admitting reality, and choosing to live consciously. "Oh, I have an urge to go fast, I have an urge for my children to have privileges others don't, me, me, me - I won't even think about anyone else."

... and yet, we only have these privileges because of being members of a society - no one by themself can make all this.

But, ooooh! I want, so I'll ignore everyone else and just grab for it.
 
Because we have automobiles, we don't know our neighbors, can hide in our basements, and get our "news" from algorithmically driven propaganda channels, which exist to gather money or power, or both.
Err ? That is some weird reverse logic ?…..why does a car prevent us talking to our neighbors ?
Improved transportation ( mechanised automobiles, trains, aircraft etc) enabled society to develope and trade much faster than the “Horse & cart” period. Transportation and communication are the basis , and bonus, of modern societies.
Our use of fossil fuels becomes indefensible as soon as we have used them to set up our renewable economy.
…”tell him he is dreamin’”
Renewables, (solar, Wind, Hydro, Geothermal, etc) have yet to show their ability to replace Fossil energy, let alone be able to self sustain and replace themselves .
Without fossil fuels ( inc Nuclear) there is no “renewable economy”
 
There was a renewable economy before we began using fossil fuels.
So this was pre the 18th century ?.. when life expectancy was less tha 30 yrs ?, and streets were ankle deep is horse sh1t !
..do you want to return to that kind of society ?, ….
because without sufficient available cheap energy, civilisation would quickly start to disintegrate again.
And “Renewables” have yet to demonstrate their ability to supply sufficient “cheap energy”
 
Where exactly is this happening ?

It doesn't take much effort to investigate to verify or disprove a position - you could have done this:
Evidence of island nations facing rising sea levels - Google Search

The average life expectancy was about 40 years - heavily weighted by the death of children before 5 years old, before bodies have completed work on their immune systems. Putting sewage outflows downstream from water inflows solved quite a lot of that - we don't need to forget.

We have technology now to live with renewable energy - we happened to have acquired it during our use of fossil fuels, but it isn't somehow a requirement that we forget what we've learned when we cease using fossil fuels, nor that we not use renewable energy to explore further to learn more. That is explicitly an insincere argument, and I think you can see that.

As well, the first engines were steam engines, which do not require fossil fuels, and the diesel cycle was originally conceived and developed for farmers to use vegetable oil.

Obviously 'slamming' an argument like that suggests you aren't really serious about thinking matters through.

But the famines and wars are happening already, and the sea level is rising, even if you prefer not to notice. And not noticing will not save you from the consequences.
 
If you think you know something, you can tell us.

If you know of data, you can post a link to it.

Telling us we should do something is boring and makes me think less of your contribution.
:)
Well! That's a 1st! Usually no-ones interested. This is the 1st time someone has been, but not enough to google it! :D

1st:
An update:

Except for that CO2, I'd put money on down if this was a stock..?
 
5mm per year ..”PREDICTED”……. Doesnt quite sound like “submerging nations” to me.!
the first engines were steam engines, which do not require fossil fuels, and the diesel cycle was originally conceived and developed for farmers to use vegetable oil.
So, are you suggesting burning the forrests, and using veg oil to replace fossil fuels ?
..i dont think you understand the scale of the energy requirement.
And you do reLise that burning wood or veg oil results in more CO2 than the same energy from FFuels ?
But fundamentally the issue is that you are convinced that we humans can control the climate changes by tinkering with or own CO2 output.
Have you considered that CO2 may not be the cause, but just a result of climate variation ?
..or, even if is is the cause, that humans may not be the change factor you believe us to be ?
 
It's a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased with the combustion of coal and petroleum products. Those are undisputed facts. Also, the global temperature and sea level has risen during during this period.
I guess some people just believe in magic.
 
burning wood or veg oil results in more CO2

Fossil fuel carbon ADDS to the carbon in the biosphere. Note that difference - the carbon that was already in the biosphere is in a slow-changing but locally (time-wise locally) stable equilibrium.

Rapidly adding MORE carbon by resurrecting fossil fuels rapidly changes the balance. The biosphere must find a new balance for the new, changed quantity of carbon and this change is occurring very rapidly.

Can't you do the sums? Fossil fuels add carbon to the system that changes the balance. Carbon is not the problem - the rapid imbalance is, and the rapid consequences as the biosphere adjusts. We are seeing that the changes are not in our favor.
 
Sigh, i came here to read about the invention, not see the 23,523th page of the same 2-4 people disagreeing about CO2, hijacking every thread about alternative energy on this forum and rendering it unusable.

Tired of it, guys. You are making this forum less useful for people reading it en masse.
 
Back
Top