Let us hope it goes into commercial production.



Closing the loop: Engineers want to convert carbon dioxide into industrial products
Charlotte Barkla by Charlotte Barkla  June 21, 2020

https://www.createdigital.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/carbon-dioxide-research-feature-750x515.jpg
Closing the loop: Engineers want to convert carbon dioxide into industrial products

New technology that can convert carbon dioxide into chemical building blocks could see harmful emissions turned into industrial products.

Developed by Dr Rahman Daiyan and Dr Emma Lovell from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) School of Chemical Engineering, the process involves the production of zinc oxide nanoparticles through flame spray pyrolysis (FSP).

These nanoparticles then act as the catalyst for turning carbon dioxide into ‘syngas’: a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide used in the manufacture of products such as fuel and plastics.

“Syngas is often considered the chemical equivalent of Lego because the two building blocks — hydrogen and carbon monoxide — can be used in different ratios to make things like synthetic diesel, methanol, alcohol or plastics, which are very important industrial precursors,” Lovell said.

“So essentially what we’re doing is converting CO2 into these precursors that can be used to make all these vital industrial chemicals.”

A new solution
While past attempts have used materials such as palladium, in their recent research the team used zinc oxide as a catalyst.

“This is the first instance where a very cheap and abundant material, mined locally in Australia, has been successfully applied to the problem of waste carbon dioxide conversion,” Daiyan said.

The use of the FSP flame system also means the new method is more easily scaled to the requirements of heavy industry.

“THIS IS THE FIRST INSTANCE WHERE A CHEAP MATERIAL, MINED LOCALLY IN AUSTRALIA, HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY APPLIED TO THE PROBLEM OF WASTE CARBON DIOXIDE CONVERSION.”
Dr Rahman Daiyan

“We don’t need to worry about complicated synthesis techniques that use really expensive metals and precursors,” Lovell said.

“We can burn it and in 10 minutes have these particles ready to go. And by controlling how we burn it, we can control those ratios of desired syngas building blocks.”

Closing the carbon loop
In the future, the technology could be scaled up for use in converting waste carbon dioxide emitted by a power plant, helping to close the carbon loop.

“The idea is that we can take a point source of CO2, such as a coal fired power plant, a gas power plant, or even a natural gas mine where you liberate a huge amount of pure CO2, and we can essentially retrofit this technology at the back end of these plants,” Lovell said.

“Then you could capture that produced CO2 and convert it into something that is hugely valuable to industry.”

https://www.createdigital.org.au/engineers-convert-carbon-dioxide-into-industrial-products/?utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EDM-20200625

So first they need to convert CO² to CO. No mention of the cost of conversion. But apparently it is scaleable unlike wind and solar generation. Then they need to manufacture Hydrogen which is not a part of CO², so another cost. Then they have syngas which presumably will be burned, creating CO² as a by-product.

And of course no mention of an efficiency factor.

BTW- The smoke? out of the stack is not CO² as that is colourless. It looks like water vapour.

Of course the Socialist knockers are out and about. They HATE any new ideas and are determined to "show" it won't work.

An Australian Brewery has stumbled on using Algae to filter C02 into Oxygen in good amounts.
I expect this to 'slowly' become a bigger thing in the future.
;)

juliar wrote on Jun 26^th, 2020 at 1:08pm:

Of course the Socialist knockers are out and about. They HATE any new ideas and are determined to "show" it won't work.

You think lee is a socialist?

Haha...

Good one.  You're so instantly triggered the moment anyone comments in reply and aren't 100% in support, even lee who is posting the real challenges about the idea but hoping it works.

We've been there before too, I support the idea of hydrogen as a fuel source (and because you're anti-solar so did you) but I brought up the challenges that are facing that technology and emerging industry and the hopes of them being overcome and you trolled me for a year until I started to ignore you...

You're worse than the snowflakes you claim to hate so much.

SadKangaroo wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2020 at 9:03am:

juliar wrote on Jun 26th, 2020 at 1:08pm: Of course the Socialist knockers are out and about. They HATE any new ideas and are determined to "show" it won't work. You think lee is a socialist? Haha... Good one.  You're so instantly triggered the moment anyone comments in reply and aren't 100% in support, even lee who is posting the real challenges about the idea but hoping it works. We've been there before too, I support the idea of hydrogen as a fuel source (and because you're anti-solar so did you) but I brought up the challenges that are facing that technology and emerging industry and the hopes of them being overcome and you trolled me for a year until I started to ignore you... You're worse than the snowflakes you claim to hate so much.

That post of his was pretty funny.

Boing Boing Boing!!!!!   The Greeny Kangyroo hops by. Hope he/she keeps going.

The Socialist knockers and mockers are always ready to try and rubbish and ridicule any new idea that they did not think of.

The simple truth is that they are JEALOUS.

Now wait for the indignant response.

Now what the Socialist knockers and mockers HATE - more technical discussion which is all GREEK to them.  It is all those BIG words.



Capturing Carbon's Potential: These Companies Are Turning CO2 into Profits
BY RENEE CHO      |MAY 29, 2019

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Apollo_Beach_power_plant_01432-637x478.jpg
CO2 captured from power plants can be put to good use. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

On May 11, carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere reached 415.26 parts per million for the first time in human history.

The last time CO2 levels were this high was probably 2.5 to 5 million years ago, when temperatures were 2 to 3˚C higher than today.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that we need to limit global warming to 1.5˚C to avert the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

This cannot be achieved, however, without removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Besides capturing carbon from fossil fuel plants directly, there are a variety of ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

The problem is that many of these strategies are still relatively expensive. Finding new commercial uses for the captured CO2 is key to lowering the costs of these technologies and scaling them up.

Captured CO2 has long been injected into depleted oil fields to enhance oil recovery. It has also been pumped into greenhouses to boost plant growth.

But today, many companies and researchers are developing new uses and products for captured CO2, such as varieties of concrete, chemicals and fuels.

McKinsey & Company estimates that by 2030, CO2-based products could be worth between $800 billion and $1 trillion, and the use of CO2 for producing fuel, enriching concrete and generating power alone could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a billion metric tons yearly.

The Global Carbon Initiative projects that, with the proper incentives, by 2030 the overall CO2 based product industry could utilize seven billion metric tons of CO2 each year—about 15 percent of our current global emissions.

“I think it [the CO2-based product sector] has very high potential and could be an important part of the climate mitigation tool kit,” said David Sandalow, a fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, an affiliate of the Earth Institute and co-author of a report on CO2 utilization.

“If we had genuinely marketable products using CO2, that could be transformational with respect to carbon capture technology. There are challenges, but I think with enough investment and enough commitment, many of those can be overcome.”

Now the technically literate NON Socialists can read on

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/05/29/co2-utilization-profits/

juliar wrote on Jul 5^th, 2020 at 3:26pm:

On May 11, carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere reached 415.26 parts per million for the first time in human history.

All that DESPITE the big slowdown due to covid 19. How strange is that? Perhaps the estimates of natural emissions are low. ;)

lee wrote on Jul 5^th, 2020 at 4:55pm:

juliar wrote on Jul 5th, 2020 at 3:26pm: On May 11, carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere reached 415.26 parts per million for the first time in human history. All that DESPITE the big slowdown due to covid 19. How strange is that?

Not strange at all. Humans are still emitting ADDITIONAL CO₂. just less of it

You always have struggled to understand the Carbon cycle  ;)

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 5^th, 2020 at 6:19pm:

Not strange at all. Humans are still emitting ADDITIONAL CO2. just less of it

Yes petal. A lot less. ;D ;D ;D ;D


The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 5^th, 2020 at 6:19pm:

You always have struggled to understand the Carbon cycle

nope. The largest CO2 emitter is the ocean. But you don't understand that. ;)

Quote:

Convert CO2 into industrial products

Yes turn it into industrial cleaning products and use it to treat corona-virus ?

lee wrote on Jul 5^th, 2020 at 6:40pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 5th, 2020 at 6:19pm: Not strange at all. Humans are still emitting ADDITIONAL CO2. just less of it Yes petal. A lot less. ;D ;D ;D ;D The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 5th, 2020 at 6:19pm: You always have struggled to understand the Carbon cycle nope. The largest CO2 emitter is the ocean. But you don't understand that. ;)

Damn General you got me before I even said it.

I was about to say that this time you may know what you re talking about but them you just proved me wrong before I got to even say it.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 5^th, 2020 at 9:20pm:

I was about to say that this time you may know what you re talking about but them you just proved me wrong before I got to even say it.

It just goes to show you don't know schist. ;D ;D ;D ;D

"Human sources of carbon dioxide are much smaller than natural emissions but they upset the balance in the carbon cycle that existed before the Industrial Revolution. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by natural sources is completely offset by natural carbon sinks and has been for thousands of years. Before the influence of humans, carbon dioxide levels were quite steady because of this natural balance.4 ( that is only if you believe nature has balance. Varying Ice Ages would seem to disagree with this statement.)

42.84 percent of all naturally produced carbon dioxide emissions come from ocean-atmosphere exchange. Other important natural sources include plant and animal respiration (28.56%) as well as soil respiration and decomposition (28.56%).4 16 A minor amount is also created by volcanic eruptions (0.03%).17 18"

https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions

Of course if you can present an alternative view, backed up by peer review, have at it. ;)

juliar wrote on Jul 5^th, 2020 at 3:26pm:

Now what the Socialist knockers and mockers HATE - more technical discussion which is all GREEK to them.  It is all those BIG words.

This, after you were engaged in a technical discussion by someone who is far from a socialist, yet it still triggered you because it was discussing the technical challenges facing the idea you brought up and you then try to shut down the debate with personal attacks as if you're trying to create some sort of safe space?

Well done.

lee wrote on Jul 5^th, 2020 at 6:40pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 5th, 2020 at 6:19pm: Not strange at all. Humans are still emitting ADDITIONAL CO2. just less of it Yes petal. A lot less. ;D ;D ;D ;D The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 5th, 2020 at 6:19pm: You always have struggled to understand the Carbon cycle nope. The largest CO2 emitter is the ocean. But you don't understand that. ;)

The ocean is also the largest CO₂ absorber

That pesky carbon cycle that you pretend to know nothing about  ;)

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 6^th, 2020 at 3:09pm:

That pesky carbon cycle that you pretend to know nothing about

You mean the one you pretend to know something about? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The ones that REALLY don't understand the carbon cycle are the illiterate Greenies who are so technically obtuse and generally ignorant of just about everything. Boing Boing Boing...


https://live.staticflickr.com/8494/8263952221_918aea8ef1_b.jpg
The ocean is a massive CO2 sink and source far greater than anything else.

So why all the interest in CO₂ ? 

It has nothing to do with the Greenies Climate Change SCAM but it has everything to do with MONEY from products synthesized from CO₂.

https://i.postimg.cc/NjprScQS/possible-chemical-products-from-co2-conversion.png
Look at all the valuable products synthesized from CO₂

This CO₂ conversion stuff is big business as even NASA wants a solution.



NASA seeks CO2 conversion solutions for future Mars outpost
By John Hogan October 9, 2019

https://www.greenbiz.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/featured/mars_0.jpg
This artist's concept depicts astronauts and human habitats on Mars. NASA's Mars 2020 rover will carry a number of technologies that could make Mars safer and easier to explore for humans. Credit: NASA

In space, every molecule potentially plays a role in human exploration — even the carbon dioxide prevalent in the atmosphere of Mars. In the future, with help from citizen scientists, those carbon dioxide molecules could help deliver a wealth of products essential for living and working on Mars.

As NASA readies for Artemis missions to the Moon, the agency and its partners are also paving the way for long-term exploration of the Red Planet by seeking innovative solutions for converting the carbon dioxide from Mars’ atmosphere to sugars using non-biological technologies. These sugars then can be used to "feed" sophisticated microbial bioreactors to biomanufacture a wide array of mission-essential products such as foods, nutrients, medicine, polymers and fuels.

It’s a natural solution, given the prevalence of the major necessary atoms — carbon, oxygen and hydrogen — in the atmosphere and potential surface water of Mars.

Now, NASA’s CO2 Conversion Challenge, part of the agency’s Centennial Challenges, is inviting independent researchers and teams from academia, industry and the public to develop new technologies for rapidly converting CO2 into useful sugar molecules such as glucose.


NASA is seeking innovative solutions for converting the carbon dioxide from Mars’ atmosphere to sugars using non-biological technologies.

Those glucose molecules — the preferred feedstock for microorganisms typically used in commercial biomanufacturing systems — are commonly derived from Earth-based plants, including sugar cane. Such an approach for long-term spaceflights and extended stays on the moon and Mars would require large, dedicated agricultural units and associated processing systems to manage the air, water and power needed to cultivate the plants and extract the feedstock.
Developing an efficient CO2 conversion system for implementation on Mars and other worlds rapidly and cost-effectively could produce sugars for in-situ biomanufacturing —helping humans to live, work and survive across the solar system, self-reliant, without the need to haul heavy, costly supplies from Earth.

Such a breakthrough could even revolutionize sustainable manufacturing here at home, supporting the production of life-sustaining materials and products from industrial emissions and even the CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Companies interested in such technologies are already consulting with challenge participants to learn more.

The competition
During Phase 1 of the CO2 Conversion Challenge, roughly 60 teams nationwide submitted system designs; detailed their proposed conversion process and explained how the system would be fabricated, tested and operated in space. In May, NASA awarded five teams a total of $250,000 for their designs.

Now, Phase 2, the demonstration phase of the competition, will award up to three teams from a prize purse of $750,000. Participation in Phase 1 is not required for participation in Phase 2.

Teams competing in Phase 2 must build a physiochemical system that uses carbon dioxide as the sole carbon source, and demonstrate non-biological production of one or more of these target molecules: D-glucose or other 6-carbon sugars (hexoses); 5-carbon sugars (pentoses); 4-carbon sugars (tetroses); 3-carbon sugars (trioses); or glycerol.

Centennial Challenges is an element of the Prizes and Challenges program within NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate that offers incentive prizes to generate revolutionary research and technology solutions to problems of interest to NASA and the nation. Centennial Challenges is managed at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/nasa-seeks-co2-conversion-solutions-future-mars-outpost

8-) 8-)

I have an uneasy feeling that something nauseating and obsequious is about to appear...








https://i.postimg.cc/mkh9BPVm/kangaroo-1.gif
Boing! Boing! Boing!

juliar wrote on Jul 17^th, 2020 at 7:58pm:

Anyone with a basic primary education knows that humans and all other animals produce CO2 and Trees and plants absorb CO2 and produce oxygen for us to breathe—the natural cycle of life. It’s therefore amazing that we are trying to disrupt that cycle with Australia’s efforts to reduce CO2 emissions which are in line with other countries.

Do you think we're disrupting the natural cycle by pumping so much CO2 into the air with our emissions?

Or does this only work the way you want it to?

I know I know I know, hop along blah blah

Everyone now knows that the Greenies' Global Warming HOAX is all bulldust.


CO2 reductions endangers you
AMM 17.07.20.

https://morningmail.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/oxygen-co2-269x300.gif

Anyone with a basic primary education knows that humans and all other animals produce CO2 and Trees and plants absorb CO2 and produce oxygen for us to breathe—the natural cycle of life.

It’s therefore amazing that we are trying to disrupt that cycle with Australia’s efforts to reduce CO2 emissions which are in line with other countries.

Australia is responsible for around 1.3 percent of global emissions and the Government says our target is a fair contribution from Australia.

When expressed against a common base year of 2005, Australia’s target is similar to those announced by the United States, the European Union, Canada, New Zealand, and Japan.

Aren’t we good? Our reductions, thankfully, will have absolutely no effect on the natural cycle of plants and animals but will hurt us, humans, this is demonstrated in David Legates Townhall article:Most people are unaware of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding” or what it means to them.

The “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act”, as it is formally known, was issued in 2009.

It specifically requires the EPA to apply the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” from vehicles, power plants, and other industries.

The Clean Air Act, enacted in 1963, was designed to limit air pollution within the United States and it has worked well. Since then, air pollution has been reduced dramatically. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases, and specifically carbon dioxide, are air pollutants and, thus, the EPA is obligated to limit their emissions to protect the public health and welfare.

While reducing pollution is a laudable goal, is carbon dioxide really a pollutant?

In elementary school, students are taught that plants use carbon dioxide as it is essential for photosynthesis. Indeed, commercial greenhouses often enrich carbon dioxide up to four times the natural concentration. This is because plants will grow faster, become more water efficient, and improve their overall quality under increased carbon dioxide concentrations.

Even Ms. Janine Benyus, a Rachel Carson Environmental Ethics Award Winner, explains, “After all, only humans see carbon dioxide as the poison of our era. The rest of nature sees it as a building block.

Plants use carbon to make sugars, starches, and cellulose. Corals use carbon to build reefs, and mollusks use carbon to manufacture their shells.” Indeed, the net effect of elevated carbon dioxide – either in a greenhouse or on Earth – produces both more food and causes a greener planet.

Former President Jimmy Carter once noted, “…an obvious but often overlooked path to peace [is to] raise the standard of living of the millions of rural people who live in poverty by increasing agricultural productivity” and “Thriving agriculture is the engine that fuels broader economic growth and development, thus paving the way for prosperity and peace” [emphasis added].

From 2012 to 2050, the projected benefit of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide will include an added $9.8 trillion (an average of $251 billion per year) of crop production – and that does not include the benefit of added growth to things other than agricultural crops, such as forests and grasslands.

Indeed, by accentuating plant and agriculture growth, carbon dioxide can help feed a growing world in dire need of food resources. So, why should carbon dioxide be labeled as a “pollutant” and its production aggressively reduced?

The science that underpins the “Endangerment Finding” relies primarily on the United States Global Change Research Program’s 2009 National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on the United States.

These results are based largely on climate model simulations of the Earth’s climate as projected from rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

But these models are tuned to yield specific outcomes which have been shown to systematically overestimate the observed warming of the globe and, specifically, the upper tropical troposphere. Future warming is likely to be at the lowest bound of these model results.

Calculating the social cost of carbon – the dollar value of the economic harm resulting from carbon dioxide emissions – is extremely problematic.

Estimates depend heavily on the assumptions used to calculate it, and thus politicians usually select scenarios that justify their desire to increase energy prices and enact governmental restrictions. What is usually never included in this calculation are the benefits, both direct (e.g., on plants) and indirect (e.g., through inexpensive energy) that carbon dioxide emissions have on society in general.

But despite that carbon dioxide is plant food and is not a pollutant, why are you endangered by this finding?

Over to Page 2

Continues on Page 2...

If carbon dioxide is treated as a pollutant, everything that emits carbon dioxide can be restricted or taxed. The long-term impact of forgoing fossil fuels – the largest source of human-induced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – will cause energy and all that depends on it to become more expensive.

Costs of growing food, developing clothing, building housing, providing fuel for heating, cooling, and cooking, and transporting the goods (and even people) needed to provide these necessities of life will skyrocket. Do we want the poor to choose between food and heating their homes?

Raising the price of energy will make living more difficult for all but the country’s richest citizens. The so-called “solution” to global warming will have no influence on the Earth’s climate but instead, will adversely impact most Americans.

The irony of the “Endangerment Finding” is that while the EPA’s Clean Air Act was designed to protect the environment, the ruling that carbon dioxide is a pollutant will, in fact, lead to environmental degradation.

Hybrid cars and wind turbines require large quantities of neodymium and dysprosium for their magnets, and indium and tellurium are required to build solar panels.

To mine these minerals, environmentally degrading strip-mining exposes workers to toxic and dangerous conditions. Soil and groundwater become contaminated by wastewater from such mines. “Clean energy” is anything but clean.

Moreover, when the poor lack food, clothing, shelter, or security, how can they be good stewards of their environment?

Inexpensive energy can lift the poor from conditions of poverty. Energy allowed our economy to develop, our citizens to have more free time for innovation and recreation, our public health to increase, and our environment to become cleaner.

Abundant, affordable, and reliable energy – the kind provided by fossil fuels – is necessary for all to be better stewards of our environment.

As Dr. Sylvan H. Wittwer, former director of the Agricultural Experiment Station at Michigan State University concluded, “The rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be the one global natural resource that is progressively increasing food production and total biological output in a world of otherwise diminishing natural resources of land, water, energy, minerals, and fertilizer…The effects know no boundaries and both developing and developed countries are, and will be, sharing equally.”

Isn’t guaranteeing inexpensive energy a better solution to protect our environment and the poorest among us?

https://morningmail.org/co2-reductions-endangers-you/#more-118855



And the COMMENTS suggest people are a lot wiser these days about the Greeny scams.

uk1955 17/07/2020, 8:19 am
“If carbon dioxide is treated as a pollutant, everything that emits carbon dioxide can be restricted or taxed.”

This sentence says everything about the scam. Restriction and taxation is the only reason for CO2 to be a pollutant. This was the scam perpetrated at the 1989 conference in Rio, where the CO2 scam became the object of every government on earth.


Penguinite 17/07/2020, 9:25 am
Does the “Clean Air Act” effectively stop people from planting trees? After all, trees are the main generator of C02. What a dilemma! These clever types pass Laws classing CO2 as a pollutant and, simultaneously insist on the planting trees that produce the self same “gas”.


Big Al 17/07/2020, 1:28 pm
P, perhaps you meant to say ‘that during the trees’ photosynthesis of the CO2, the O2 goes into the atmosphere, and the C goes into the tree’; something along those lines, perhaps.

Unquestionably, CO2 has never, ever, been a pollutant, and its concentration in the atmosphere has varied widely ever since planet earth formed over four billion years ago.


Neville 17/07/2020, 5:59 pm
All true enough, BA.
Of course, it depends entirely on just what one (Lefties? Of course!) define is actually “pollution”. And more importantly, WHY they’re doing that.


Aktosplatz 17/07/2020, 10:24 am
We should be increasing atmospheric CO₂ levels not reducing them. Even lands and continents covered in desert have experienced ‘greening’ due to plant growth during higher CO₂ levels


Lorraine 17/07/2020, 10:52 am
Wuhan flu may have put Climate change, Greta and the C0₂ on the back foot for many years….It costs money to go so green, and we just went broke,,,not able to go woke,,,

Researchers turn carbon dioxide into minerals
By Diana Madson Tuesday, June 23, 2020

At a CarbFix pilot site in Iceland, about 95% of the CO2 injected into basalt formations underground was mineralized in less than two years.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/pics/cc/mc/062320_Iceland_power_plant_974.jpg
The Hellisheidi Geothermal Power Plant in Iceland, the site of CarbFix’s first industrial operation. (Credit: CarbFix / photo by Arni Saeberg)

Many of Iceland’s spectacular landscapes are made of basalt – a volcanic rock formed when lava cools.

Scientists have found that by injecting carbon dioxide deep into basalt formations, they can create new minerals and lock that carbon underground.

Deirdre Clark is with a research collaboration called CarbFix. She says the process starts with capturing carbon pollution from a power plant and dissolving it in water.

“So you’re making a carbonated soda and then injecting it into the ground,” she says.

There, the dissolved CO2 reacts with elements within the basalt to form new minerals.

“So essentially you’re taking the gas and you’re turning it into rock,” Clark says.

Mineralizing CO2 is not a new idea, but Clark says basalt’s composition and high reactivity enable the process to happen faster than expected. In the CarbFix pilot site in Iceland, the team has shown that about 95% of the CO2 was mineralized in less than two years.

“So this is quite quick,” she says.

Basalt is one of the most common types of rock on Earth, so Clark says the CarbFix process could be used around the world. And that would help remove CO2 from the atmosphere for good.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/06/researchers-turn-carbon-dioxide-into-minerals/

Is your Virus face mask suffocating you with trapped CO₂ ?


Health officials respond to claims of carbon dioxide poisoning from face coverings
by KATU News staff and Duane Pohlman, WKRC Friday, June 26th 2020

PORTLAND, Ore. – There have been several claims surfacing online that allege masks and face coverings can cause a buildup of carbon dioxide and a lack of oxygen.

Health officials want people to know the facts.

According to the Oregon Health Authority, people are not at risk of inhaling too much carbon dioxide while wearing a face covering.

Some of the posts online claim that masks can cause carbon dioxide toxicity, but they do not specify what kind of face coverings they are referencing.

https://i.postimg.cc/XqCVPwcW/44-o.png


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) strongly encourages covering your face in public. In its guidelines posted online, CDC states, "Everyone should wear a cloth face cover when they have to go out in public."

It also warns, "Do NOT use a face mask meant for a healthcare worker." That’s important to know because the carbon dioxide issue raised by many of these posts are specifically about those tight-fitting masks worn by health care workers, not the loose-fitting cloth coverings recommended for the general public.

A representative from CDC recently talked about the carbon dioxide (CO2) issues associated with those professional masks, which are technically called respirators, telling Reuters, “CO2 will slowly build up in the mask over time. However, the level of CO2 likely to build up in the mask is mostly tolerable to people exposed to it."

The same representative also said it’s unlikely any of the issues would produce any severe side effects.

"You might get a headache, but you most likely [would] not suffer the symptoms observed at much higher levels of CO2," the CDC representative said.

Keep in mind, these concerns are primarily dealing with the respirators for medical professions, NOT the masks and coverings that you and I are told to wear. And since you are supposed to remove the mask when you’re alone or with your immediate household, experts say the risk of carbon dioxide issues with the general population is very low.

KMTR

Lane County Public Health spokesperson Jason Davis says a surgical mask is designed for proper breathing, effective exhalation without carbon dioxide building up. However, there are problems with improperly made home-made masks.

If the wrong kind of cloth or too many layers of cloth are used in a homemade mask it can cause an individual to become lightheaded because they're breathing in that carbon dioxide,” said Davis.

He says that's not good enough to discourage mask use.

Davis says there are plenty of masks that do not cause hypoxia or carbon dioxide poisoning. He recommends persons with a pre-existing lung condition to speak with their doctor.

The CDC's website contains information on proper homemade masks.

https://katu.com/news/local/health-officials-respond-to-false-claims-of-carbon-dioxide-poisoning-from-masks

Scottish brewery recycles their CO_2.



Tennent's commits to sustainability with new carbon capture facility
By Ema Sabljak  3 hrs ago

https://i.postimg.cc/zG4286hT/Crane-at-installation-site.png
Tennent's commits to sustainability with new carbon capture facility at East End brewery

Tennent's has committed to sustainability with a new carbon capture facility at their brewery in the East End of Glasgow.

Its installation saw a 1000 tonne crane at Wellpark on Saturday and will require two additional cranes which had to work in tandem to lift two 25 tonne CO2 recovery tanks over the famous branded silos.

The tanks will be able to capture an impressive 4200 tonnes of CO2 each year, the equivalent of the emissions from 27,000 flights to London from Glasgow.

The £2.6million project will be fully operational by September and it will be the biggest carbon capture facility in Scotland.

Tennent's will be able to capture and store the carbon dioxide released as a byproduct from the brewing fermentation process, the same CO2 will then be used to carbonate the beloved beer.

It will also save Tennent's from sourcing the CO2 from England, eliminating emissions from 100,000km of journeys each year.

The brewery will be able to become almost completely self-sufficient with almost more than 95% of the captured CO2 being reused.

Tennent's has committed to be net carbon zero by 2025, but this project is only one part of a multi-million pound series of initiatives to tackle climate change.

https://i.postimg.cc/VkF9HhRY/Martin-Doogan-Group-Engineering-Manager-at-C-C-Group-plc-at-site.png
Martin Doogan

Martin Doogan, group engineering manager at Tennent's parent company C&C Group plc, believes the step will also improve the local area in the East End of Glasgow.

He said: “The installation of the new facility today marks another milestone in our commitment to challenging climate change and it’s been fantastic seeing the tanks put into place and everything come together and we are eagerly anticipating having everything operational later in the year.

“To be able to support the brewery’s CO2 needs using carbon dioxide that is produced by the fermentation process, improves our local environment in the East End of Glasgow and is a significant step in our goal to be carbon neutral by 2025."

Tennent's has also committed to eradicating single-use plastic by 2022, and has an ongoing commitment to local sourcing and waste management and a new anaerobic digestion plant which opened last year.

Mr Doogan added: “As Scotland’s oldest business, we take our responsibility to look after our beautiful home very seriously which is why we’ve put sustainability at the heart of our entire operations, from our transport fleet, brewing and packaging to our international deliveries.

“We understand that our pledge to sustainability is a journey that will be further developed along the way; as illustrated by the installation of the new carbon capture facility following the launch of our sustainability plans last year. With clear targets in place for the future, we’re committed to tackling climate change now and in the years to come.”

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18592478.tennents-commits-sustainability-new-carbon-capture-facility/

juliar wrote on Jul 19^th, 2020 at 8:39pm:

Is your Virus face mask suffocating you with trapped CO2 ? Health officials respond to claims of carbon dioxide poisoning from face coverings by KATU News staff and Duane Pohlman, WKRC Friday, June 26th 2020 PORTLAND, Ore. – There have been several claims surfacing online that allege masks and face coverings can cause a buildup of carbon dioxide and a lack of oxygen. Health officials want people to know the facts. According to the Oregon Health Authority, people are not at risk of inhaling too much carbon dioxide while wearing a face covering. Some of the posts online claim that masks can cause carbon dioxide toxicity, but they do not specify what kind of face coverings they are referencing. https://i.postimg.cc/XqCVPwcW/44-o.png The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) strongly encourages covering your face in public. In its guidelines posted online, CDC states, "Everyone should wear a cloth face cover when they have to go out in public." It also warns, "Do NOT use a face mask meant for a healthcare worker." That’s important to know because the carbon dioxide issue raised by many of these posts are specifically about those tight-fitting masks worn by health care workers, not the loose-fitting cloth coverings recommended for the general public. A representative from CDC recently talked about the carbon dioxide (CO2) issues associated with those professional masks, which are technically called respirators, telling Reuters, “CO2 will slowly build up in the mask over time. However, the level of CO2 likely to build up in the mask is mostly tolerable to people exposed to it." The same representative also said it’s unlikely any of the issues would produce any severe side effects. "You might get a headache, but you most likely [would] not suffer the symptoms observed at much higher levels of CO2," the CDC representative said. Keep in mind, these concerns are primarily dealing with the respirators for medical professions, NOT the masks and coverings that you and I are told to wear. And since you are supposed to remove the mask when you’re alone or with your immediate household, experts say the risk of carbon dioxide issues with the general population is very low. KMTR Lane County Public Health spokesperson Jason Davis says a surgical mask is designed for proper breathing, effective exhalation without carbon dioxide building up. However, there are problems with improperly made home-made masks. If the wrong kind of cloth or too many layers of cloth are used in a homemade mask it can cause an individual to become lightheaded because they're breathing in that carbon dioxide,” said Davis. He says that's not good enough to discourage mask use. Davis says there are plenty of masks that do not cause hypoxia or carbon dioxide poisoning. He recommends persons with a pre-existing lung condition to speak with their doctor. The CDC's website contains information on proper homemade masks. https://katu.com/news/local/health-officials-respond-to-false-claims-of-carbon-dioxide-poisoning-from-masks

The broken clock was right, one of the two times today.  Good post.

I have an uneasy feeling that something nauseating and obsequious is about to appear...


https://i.postimg.cc/mkh9BPVm/kangaroo-1.gif
Boing! Boing! Boing!

Oh, were you twiggerwed petal?

I have an uneasy feeling that something nauseating and obsequious is about to appear...


https://i.postimg.cc/mkh9BPVm/kangaroo-1.gif
Boing! Boing! Boing!

Yep.

Oh well, sorry petal.

At least hopefully you'll practice what you preach and wear your mask too :)

I have an uneasy feeling that something nauseating and obsequious is about to appear...


https://i.postimg.cc/mkh9BPVm/kangaroo-1.gif
Boing! Boing! Boing!

juliar wrote on Jun 26^th, 2020 at 12:04pm:

Let us hope it goes into commercial production. Closing the loop: Engineers want to convert carbon dioxide into industrial products Charlotte Barkla by Charlotte Barkla  June 21, 2020 https://www.createdigital.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/carbon-dioxide-research-feature-750x515.jpg Closing the loop: Engineers want to convert carbon dioxide into industrial products New technology that can convert carbon dioxide into chemical building blocks could see harmful emissions turned into industrial products. Developed by Dr Rahman Daiyan and Dr Emma Lovell from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) School of Chemical Engineering, the process involves the production of zinc oxide nanoparticles through flame spray pyrolysis (FSP). These nanoparticles then act as the catalyst for turning carbon dioxide into ‘syngas’: a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide used in the manufacture of products such as fuel and plastics. “Syngas is often considered the chemical equivalent of Lego because the two building blocks — hydrogen and carbon monoxide — can be used in different ratios to make things like synthetic diesel, methanol, alcohol or plastics, which are very important industrial precursors,” Lovell said. “So essentially what we’re doing is converting CO2 into these precursors that can be used to make all these vital industrial chemicals.” A new solution While past attempts have used materials such as palladium, in their recent research the team used zinc oxide as a catalyst. “This is the first instance where a very cheap and abundant material, mined locally in Australia, has been successfully applied to the problem of waste carbon dioxide conversion,” Daiyan said. The use of the FSP flame system also means the new method is more easily scaled to the requirements of heavy industry. “THIS IS THE FIRST INSTANCE WHERE A CHEAP MATERIAL, MINED LOCALLY IN AUSTRALIA, HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY APPLIED TO THE PROBLEM OF WASTE CARBON DIOXIDE CONVERSION.” Dr Rahman Daiyan “We don’t need to worry about complicated synthesis techniques that use really expensive metals and precursors,” Lovell said. “We can burn it and in 10 minutes have these particles ready to go. And by controlling how we burn it, we can control those ratios of desired syngas building blocks.” Closing the carbon loop In the future, the technology could be scaled up for use in converting waste carbon dioxide emitted by a power plant, helping to close the carbon loop. “The idea is that we can take a point source of CO2, such as a coal fired power plant, a gas power plant, or even a natural gas mine where you liberate a huge amount of pure CO2, and we can essentially retrofit this technology at the back end of these plants,” Lovell said. “Then you could capture that produced CO2 and convert it into something that is hugely valuable to industry.” https://www.createdigital.org.au/engineers-convert-carbon-dioxide-into-industrial-products/?utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EDM-20200625

Still trying to flog snake oil to the masses socko ??? :D LOL

What happened to the never-ever "clean coal technology" :D LOL

Something nauseating and obsequious DID appear!!!!!

Who cares about CO₂ when hydrogen will make it obsolete. The dead end dud Electric Car Fans spewing pollution from the coal power stations will drive on over the cliff to obsolescence.

Won't it be wonderful when all those smelly noisy diesel trucks hauling containers from the wharves are replaced by clean quiet hydrogen powered trucks.




Japan to be 1st country to reach 100 hydrogen filling station milestone
KYODO NEWS KYODO NEWS - Mar 23, 2018 - 19:34

https://i.postimg.cc/905dnSPg/Capture.png

Japan will open eight hydrogen filling stations this spring for use with fuel cell vehicles, taking the total across the country to 100, the industry ministry said Friday.

It will become the first country in the world to set up 100 such stations, while Germany had around 40 and the United States about 30 as of January, according to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

From March to April, the eight stations will open in five prefectures -- Hokkaido, Fukushima, Kanagawa, Gifu, and Okayama -- as the country aims to make hydrogen an energy source that is more widely available, the ministry said.

Fuel cell vehicles, or FCVs, combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity which powers an electric motor. Unlike conventional vehicles running on gasoline or diesel, FCVs emit only water and heat. Toyota and Honda are among automakers to offer models using fuel cell technology.

While the government aims to put around 40,000 FCVs on public roads by 2020, the high cost of establishing hydrogen filling stations, estimated at 400 million to 500 million yen ($3.8 million to 4.8 million) each, has been considered a barrier to the take up of FCVs.

The government plans to have some 160 hydrogen filling stations available for commercial use by fiscal 2020.

Mar 23, 2018 | KYODO NEWS

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2018/03/1e50efc636ca-japan-to-be-1st-country-to-reach-100-hydrogen-filling-station-milestone.html