Very misleading title. This is not an energy efficient process (what we need for energy storage), instead it has a high chemical yield.
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
125 points (91.4% liked)
Technology
58092 readers
3147 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You know what other methods converts carbon dioxide into energy? Planting potatoes!
That, and planting trees and never cutting them down. Although at least with potatoes you can make french fries.. french wood sticks definitely aren't so great in the air fryer
no, you can actually cut down grown biomass and process it to chemically stable biochar for soil improvement! for more potatoes for more fries! and a side of coleslaw.
And alcohol. Which is also a fuel.
It very much fuels my alcoholism!
I know it fuels mine!
What's the catch?
When they say it's efficient, they mean at not letting CO2 go, not in energy cost. Looks like step one is capturing it which is already energy intensive, and step 2 is reacting it with a strong base. So it takes a lot of stuff as input.
And they did this on a lab bench, not at scale in a plant.
This and fusion, neck and neck.
Burning it creates enormous clouds of Trioxin 2-4-5.
Does trioxin perchance give one superpowers?
You have lymphoma.
You'll be able to feel yourself rot.
That it burns the shit back into the atmosphere.
Yes, but if it could provide as an alternative to digging up oil and gass, and get the energy needed to make the transformation from sun, wind or other sustainable sources. It could lower the amount of new CO2 being put into the atmosphere as well as work as a way to store excess energy from wind and sun.
Yeah, it would basically act as a battery except much better energy and power density, and faster 'charging'.
The downside is invariably that round trip energy efficiency (electricity in vs electricity out) is somewhere between 'much worse' and 'terrible'.
Guys, stop trying to break thermodynamics. You can't. You know this.
So we're gonna spend a whole bunch of energy to capture carbon, then use even more to turn it into fuel, and then just burn it again? Yea sorry, I am not convinced.
Edit: Unless if course they propose it for grid balancing, like we talk about doing with hydrogen. In that case, I wanna know exact energy efficiency numbers and equipment cost.
Carbon neutral fuel is a good thing.