I'm not a chemist, so I'm failing to see the implications.
Has this got any chance of reducing our CO2 footprint?
yathern•8mo ago
Electrolysis is one of the most promising paths to CO2 utilization - not just collecting and burying CO2, but using it.
With a feed of CO2 plus electricity, you can make a number of chemicals. Some companies look to make fuels - but there's plenty of other chemicals that can be made this way. Fuels are attractive, but also borderline thermodynamically impossible to make profitable vs petrochemical fuels, unless energy is free. Even still, SAFs (sustainable aviation fuels) and other green-washed products can be profitable here. There's also a few use cases for being able to generate fuel in remote places (space, at sea, military applications, national security in case of pipeline blockade)
emittens•8mo ago
We could choose to redefine profitable -- taxing authority exists in much of the world. Make synthetic fuels that demonstrably generate themselves via solar or wind tax free. Impose taxes on fuels that come from the ground.
We're producing an unbelievable amount of solar energy right now, and that amount is skyrocketing. Especially in China, who seems at the front of a shift toward renewables.
jmward01•8mo ago
China is pushing so much power production via renewables that the idea of 'free' power is becoming more and more of a reality. I don't think using this for fuel makes a lot of sense but we use oil for a lot of things other than fuels. With enough investment in renewables to create huge amounts of excess power we can potentially use this to replace a lot of the non fuel uses of oil. Factories in the desert that produce their own raw materials from the air using the solar and wind right next to them is the dream here.
SiempreViernes•8mo ago
They are talking about turning CO2 into burnable fuel, so it's hard to see how this on its own would reduce emissions if you burn that fuel outside closed containers.
yathern•8mo ago
If 100% of the fuel we use comes from this technique - where it is imbued with carbon that was atmosphere-bound (flue gas) then we have decreased emissions significantly, since the alternative was that we release the flue gas CO2 AND the burning fuel CO2.
jmward01•8mo ago
so long as it is a closed cycle it is neutral. That is the key. carbon from the air that goes back into the air is fine. Carbon from the ground that goes into the air is unsustainable.
funnym0nk3y•8mo ago
Indirectly yes. Instead of releasing additional carbon first into chemical products and then after they are waste into the atmosphere, the carbon is pulled out of the atmosphere first.
alex_duf•8mo ago
Has this got any chance of reducing our CO2 footprint?
yathern•8mo ago
With a feed of CO2 plus electricity, you can make a number of chemicals. Some companies look to make fuels - but there's plenty of other chemicals that can be made this way. Fuels are attractive, but also borderline thermodynamically impossible to make profitable vs petrochemical fuels, unless energy is free. Even still, SAFs (sustainable aviation fuels) and other green-washed products can be profitable here. There's also a few use cases for being able to generate fuel in remote places (space, at sea, military applications, national security in case of pipeline blockade)
emittens•8mo ago
We're producing an unbelievable amount of solar energy right now, and that amount is skyrocketing. Especially in China, who seems at the front of a shift toward renewables.
jmward01•8mo ago
SiempreViernes•8mo ago
yathern•8mo ago
jmward01•8mo ago
funnym0nk3y•8mo ago