CO2 To Coal, The Climate Change Cure – Yes, Yes, But How Much Does It Cost?

7
2083

An interesting finding here but one that doesn’t in fact solve our problems. Not unless and until we know the answer to that question above.

It is indeed interesting to be able to take atmospheric CO2 and turn it back into coal. OK, carbon at least.

Researchers have used liquid metals to turn carbon dioxide back into solid coal, in a world-first breakthrough that could transform our approach to carbon capture and storage.

Great, so now we’ve solved climate change, right? Stick this on the side of a coal fired plant and we can have carbon capture, thus cheap ‘leccie and also no boiling of Flipper. Great, we’re done then. Except:

The research team led by RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, have developed a new technique that can efficiently convert CO2 from a gas into solid particles of carbon.

It’s the meaning of that word “efficiently” that matters. If it costs less than $80 per tonne CO2 then we’re good to go as that’s the social cost of carbon. If it costs $1 a tonne CO2 then we’re golden. If $500 per tonne then we’ve an interesting technique of no use to anyone at all.

So, which is it? And wouldn’t you know that’s the one thing about the process the news release doesn’t tell us?

7
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
ShadeburstRhoda Klapp1jamessmith1Reader 2Reader Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

So what is the right CO2 proportion? Is it the 270ppm of pre-industrial times, or some other proportion from some other time? What is the ideal temperature of the earth anyway? And why would we buy a load of bollocks about CO2 from anybody who thinks there is a serious problem but can’t prove it to any decent standard?

(CO2 to wood is actually quite easy, to coal though..)

david
Guest
david

Chemical bond energies being what they are (fixed, not adjustable), disconnecting 2 oxygen atoms from one carbon atom will require at as much energy as was released by making the original carbon-oxygen connections plus a bit of activation energy. Whatever clever trick they perform with ‘liquid metals’ it is unlikely that they have discovered perpetual motion: especially because making a metal (other than mercury) go from solid to liquid consumes energy before any carbon-oxygen bond breaking might occur. Thermodynamics can be such a b*tch.

Reader
Guest
Reader

Yep. Any scheme that allows perpetual motion has a flaw in it somewhere.
Realistically, maybe just don’t burn coal in the first place?
Though the new coal would be fantastically clean burning, as coal goes…

1jamessmith1
Guest
1jamessmith1

why not just plant more trees?

Reader 2
Guest
Reader 2

I’m dismayed at how many people i meet who don’t believe climate change is real.. In this age of fake news, claim and counter claim – i can only see the science stacking up. It wont be us trying to survive, but i can only think of my daughter whose 7 and all those generations that will be left behind to fight to survive and find a way to restore some semblance of balance. And what will be lost before then? If the technique above works and it works without major additional carbon footprint what odds the cost? Is securing… Read more »

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

You are deluded. Don’t ask me to take a leap of faith when all the presented solutions rely on collective coercive methods, so conveniently for the left-wingers who push them as if the solution is the same no matter what the question.

Shadeburst
Guest
Shadeburst

Literally pouring money into a hole in the ground. This is what makes us all poorer.