Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen • Hacker News Board

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#71

Post by seventhtiger » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 3:25 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #23

andi999 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So reducing petrol demand (let's say by switching to electric cars) might reduce the economic incentives of carbon capture significantly, interesting thought.

The economics of a natural carbon market will never work out. There is simply too much carbon available for too low of a price. The carbon capture market NEEDS to have public funding/intervention to make it profitable. Now, carbon capture will be important if we want to have a chance of undoing atmospheric CO2, but IMO, while now it the time to invest in research it's not the time to deploy. More public/government fu…

Urine capture would work great if it's attached to every person.

Even with renewable energy and electric transportation, if we could keep using oil but not produce CO2, then we should. Cheap energy is lifting humanity out of poverty.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#72

Post by ineedasername » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 3:26 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #11

So let's do some math. Let's consider natural gas. According to the US government [1], natural gas produced 1.358x10^12 kWh of power and 5.6x10^8 metric tons of CO2 so 1 metric ton of CO2 equates to ~2400 kWh of produced power. This post suggests the energy cost is ~230kWh/ton. This is an important sanity check because it means that (capital costs aside) and if it scales you could technically remain carbon neutral fo…

don't believe altruism will solve greenhouse gas emissions and global warming: it'll only be solved when it becomes economic to do so.

You've listed altruism and economics, but may have discounted self-interest-- not financial, but survival. Young adults especially are both at an age where they can expect to feel some especially nasty impacts of climate change, and at a point in their career where they can begin making decisions accordingly.

The generations above that have family, children, etc, and that too is at least a mix of self interest and , I supposed, a form of altruism directed towards your family.

It's not easy for us to think in such timelines and abstract outcomes, but we're making progress in that direction.

I'm not saying self-interest in terms of self preservation will be the key factor here either, just that it not just about a sort of mechanical economic optimization point. At some tipping point, economic w/ technological advances will converge with self preservation. I guess the question is whether or not that will happen soon enough to really matter. Economics may be the dominant factor now, but the worse things get, the less that economics will matter in making decisions, the more that self preservation will become dominant.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#73

Post by jtms » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 3:27 PM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #56

dr_dshiv wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'll repeat here--that I don't believe altruism will solve greenhouse gas emissions and global warming: it'll only be solved when it becomes economic to do so. Completely agree. We need governments to ensure externalities (both positive and negative) are reflected in market pricing so that economic forces can operate efficiently. Implication: there must be a debt to pay for past and present GHG output. It should not…

Who would pay that debt for past emissions, and what price should they pay?

Nothing, forward is the only direction to move if we want to have any hope of survival. If we mire ourselves in economic finger pointing we will end up doing nothing about the actual problem

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#74

Post by mah4k4l » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 3:28 PM UTC

So you can separate it to oxygen and carbon at a 92% efficiency for €30 max or something? If you could now burn the newly donned carbon again and maybe enhance the burning with the harvested oxygen then how much is that worth as energy produced monetarily? Maybe not the eternal mover but just saying this might just be how this will play out in real life in the end (once again).

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#75

Post by smitty1e » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 3:30 PM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #56

dr_dshiv wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'll repeat here--that I don't believe altruism will solve greenhouse gas emissions and global warming: it'll only be solved when it becomes economic to do so. Completely agree. We need governments to ensure externalities (both positive and negative) are reflected in market pricing so that economic forces can operate efficiently. Implication: there must be a debt to pay for past and present GHG output. It should not…

Who would pay that debt for past emissions, and what price should they pay?

I'm not sure, but there is little more terrifying short of a nuclear accident than the idea of faceless people in an office somewhere deciding who gets a pass and who gets crushed for sins uncommitted by them.

In short: you hint at tryanny.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#76

Post by photochemsyn » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 3:30 PM UTC

credit_guy wrote: post #50

cletus wrote: post #11

So let's do some math. Let's consider natural gas. According to the US government [1], natural gas produced 1.358x10^12 kWh of power and 5.6x10^8 metric tons of CO2 so 1 metric ton of CO2 equates to ~2400 kWh of produced power. This post suggests the energy cost is ~230kWh/ton. This is an important sanity check because it means that (capital costs aside) and if it scales you could technically remain carbon neutral fo…

> This is an important sanity check You have a bug somewhere, I'm not sure where. Roughly speaking the heat of combustion is proportional to the number of atoms of oxygen in the molecules coming out of the reaction. So CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H20 If you hypothetically split CH4 first, you get CH4 + 2 O2 = (C + 2 H2) + 2 O2 = (C + O2) + (2 H2 + O2) = CO2 + 2H20 The first reaction is endothermic, but it absorbs much less…

These carbon capture and conversion technologies are far more promising as a means of feeding atmospheric carbon dioxide into industrial 'aerochemicals' (to replace petrochemicals) and materials, than as a means of mitigating fossil fuel combustion CO2 emissions.

Obtaining a pure stream of CO2 concentrated from 400 ppm atmospheric sources is the optional approach for industrial chemistry processes (and requires significant upfront energy investment), but from here one can go almost anywhere, to methane or jet fuel or graphite electrodes or carbon fiber building materials or synthetic dyes.

However, it's unlikely these technologies will have much effect on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. They simply eliminate the need for natural gas / petroleum / coal as raw materials for synthesis of necessary products.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#77

Post by IncRnd » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

mcdonje wrote: post #61

dr_dshiv wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'll repeat here--that I don't believe altruism will solve greenhouse gas emissions and global warming: it'll only be solved when it becomes economic to do so. Completely agree. We need governments to ensure externalities (both positive and negative) are reflected in market pricing so that economic forces can operate efficiently. Implication: there must be a debt to pay for past and present GHG output. It should not…

So, a robust carbon tax.

That is economic today for people who rent out the credits that arise by purchasing land then not harvesting the trees. That is economic today for people who claim carbon credits for purchasing new equipment, where the old was at EOL anyway. And so on. The existence of brokers for carbon credit sales should tell you something. For real economic viability that isn't scam-based, something based in reality is needed.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#78

Post by beders » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

If we would charge the fossil fuel industry for the cost of destroying the environment, the millions of lives lost due to pollution, it would become infeasible to pump or mine more stuff out of the ground.

We don't need technological solutions, we need political solutions. Now

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#79

Post by photochemsyn » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

xyzzy21 wrote: post #55

cletus wrote: post #11

So let's do some math. Let's consider natural gas. According to the US government [1], natural gas produced 1.358x10^12 kWh of power and 5.6x10^8 metric tons of CO2 so 1 metric ton of CO2 equates to ~2400 kWh of produced power. This post suggests the energy cost is ~230kWh/ton. This is an important sanity check because it means that (capital costs aside) and if it scales you could technically remain carbon neutral fo…

This also assumes pure CO2 input. That's perhaps possible if you are collecting CO2 fresh off an engine or similar process. However if you are talking about CO2 already in the air, you have a MASSIVE amount of energy required to separate/concentrate the CO2 FIRST.

There's major catalyst poisoning issues with trying to capture coal/oil/gas combustion streams, which can be contaminated with everything from nitrogen oxides and polcyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, to sulfur and arsenic and mercury.

Even though you have to expend energy to preconcentrate CO2, the benefit of having a clean stream (assuming not downwind of Los Angeles) of CO2 is that further industrial chemistry is much easier, catalysts last much longer, etc.

Re: Gallium helps convert CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen

#80

Post by hexane360 » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 3:43 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #11

So let's do some math. Let's consider natural gas. According to the US government [1], natural gas produced 1.358x10^12 kWh of power and 5.6x10^8 metric tons of CO2 so 1 metric ton of CO2 equates to ~2400 kWh of produced power. This post suggests the energy cost is ~230kWh/ton. This is an important sanity check because it means that (capital costs aside) and if it scales you could technically remain carbon neutral fo…

The news reporting on this article has been a little misleading. First, the main goal of this is not to reduce CO2 into carbon, but simply to sequester CO2. The "carbonaceous sheets" that are produced are "graphene oxide", which is less oxidized than CO2 but still highly oxygenated. So the energy required is much less than what would be needed to reduce CO2 completely. But yeah, you won't be able to burn the end product.