Researchers Succeed In Turning CO2 Back Into Coal

[Judi Lynn]

27 February 2019, 5:43 am EST By Diane Samson Tech Times



A team of researchers has proposed a safe and permanent way to store recaptured carbon
dioxide and prevent it from escaping back into the atmosphere. In a study, the team
successfully turned CO2 back to coal. ( Krzysztof Pluta | Pixabay )


Researchers from Australia have successfully turned carbon dioxide back into coal in a bid to prevent further catastrophe caused by global warming.

The team led by RMIT University in Melbourne proposed that converting the greenhouse gas into a solid form addresses the environmental and economic concerns as well as fear of possible leaks from storage of recaptured CO2. They believe that their technique provides a safe and permanent option to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

"While we can't literally turn back time, turning carbon dioxide back into coal and burying it back in the ground is a bit like rewinding the emissions clock," stated Torben Daeneke, a researcher from RMIT University and an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow.

Turning CO2 Back Into Coal
Previous research used solid metal catalysts, which increases the rate of chemical reaction, to convert recaptured CO2 into coal. While effective, the technique comes with a lot of issues.

More:
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/238982/20190227/researchers-succeed-in-turning-co2-back-into-coal.htm

[eppur_se_muova]

1. Of course, you consume a LOT of energy in the process -- it takes more than a catalyst.

Carbon combines with oxygen to release energy; separating them requires at least as much energy.

[Bearware]

2. This might be a good fit for some of the newer Generation IV molten salt reactors designs.

The requirement for a temperature around 600 degrees Celsius is one of the specifications for the temperature for the molten salt. Using the heat from the molten salt directly saves on losses that are part of converting it to electricity first.

Because electrical demand varies greatly in a 24 hour day, this type of reactor would have LOTS of unused heat/power during off hours to convert CO2 to solid form.

Serious investment in more research and rapid development have a much better chance of letting us catch up with the the runaway train of climate change we currently than trying to freeze development on existing technology and simply deploy that now at great expense.

[Victor_c3]

3. With fusion energy, we could certainly do a lot to fix climate change

It wouldn’t matter how much energy it needed when we have a basically limitless supply of fuel for a fusion reactor everywhere

[Bearware]

4. We already have a basically limitless supply of fuel for BOTH nuclear fission and fusion reactors

The problems with fusion reactors is we first need to prove we can build a working reactor, second build a utility scale working reactor and last, mass produce it for a reasonable amounts of money (much less than 10's to 100's of billions of dollars). None of the proceeding are likely anytime soon and getting to mass production may be outside the window of time we have to curb global temperature rise before catastrophic changes occur.

The first industrial scale nuclear fission reactors were built in the 1940's. Various groups are prototyping a 4th Generation of nuclear fission designs which are far safer and much less expensive. The latest molten salt designs can use existing nuclear waste, used reactor fuel and other fuel sources - thus potentially cleaning up stored used reactor fuel and existing nuclear waste without burying it. Thus enough fuel is available for 100's of years without more needing to be mined.

Gen 4 molten salt fission reactors will have zero greenhouse gas emissions, can be built up to gigawatt scale, have the potential to be rapidly mass produced and be installed in almost any relatively small stable location independent of climate or weather. They do not need to be located near large bodies of water for cooling and do not need huge cooling towers.