‘Diamonds from the sky’ approach turns CO2 into valuable products

Earlier this week I posted this at JPR. After reading LaFeminista's most excellent post here and realizing how much the assholes running this country are wasting time with CT and not fighting climate change, I thought I would re-post this here.

I have of late been getting more and more alarmed at the prospect of a methane hydrate bomb going off within the next decade initiating an extinction event that could include all life on the planet. Earlier today I posted this: http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/massive-permafrost-thaw-documented-in-canada-portends-huge-carbon-release/

A few weeks ago I posted this: Looming Climate Catastrophe: Extinction in Nine Years?

To keep from getting depressed, I have been searching for ways to solve climate change. A few years back I read about STEP. It seems the technology has come along nicely.

BOSTON, Aug. 19, 2015 — Finding a technology to shift carbon dioxide (CO2), the most abundant anthropogenic greenhouse gas, from a climate change problem to a valuable commodity has long been a dream of many scientists and government officials. Now, a team of chemists says they have developed a technology to economically convert atmospheric CO2 directly into highly valued carbon nanofibers for industrial and consumer products.

~snip~

“We have found a way to use atmospheric CO2 to produce high-yield carbon nanofibers,” says Stuart Licht, Ph.D., who leads a research team at George Washington University. “Such nanofibers are used to make strong carbon composites, such as those used in the Boeing Dreamliner, as well as in high-end sports equipment, wind turbine blades and a host of other products.”

Previously, the researchers had made fertilizer and cement without emitting CO2, which they reported. Now, the team, which includes postdoctoral fellow Jiawen Ren, Ph.D., and graduate student Jessica Stuart, says their research could shift CO2 from a global-warming problem to a feed stock for the manufacture of in-demand carbon nanofibers.

~snip~

“We calculate that with a physical area less than 10 percent the size of the Sahara Desert, our process could remove enough CO2 to decrease atmospheric levels to those of the pre-industrial revolution within 10 years,” he says.

~snip~

Bold added. More: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2015/august/co2.html

What I’d like to see is a kickstarter campaign to fund this technology and/or nationalization of the oil companies that knew decades ago that this was coming and put their money into getting this tech up and running on a large scale. I’m sick and tired of hearing that it’s too expensive. How much is a livable planet worth? There is no time to waste.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

CB's picture

He announced the program November 2015 at the Paris Climate Change Conference.

Unfortunately, American sanctions have served to hurt funding for the Russian program.

up
0 users have voted.
CB's picture

Russia has the following nationalized oil companies:

  • Gazprom (Russia's state-run natural gas monopoly; world's biggest gas exploration and production company)
  • Rosneft (State-owned Russian oil and gas exploration company)
  • Transneft (Russia's pipeline monopoly)
  • Bashneft (Russian oil refining company one of the largest producer of oil products in the country)

The profits from Russia's shares go into two sovereign-wealth funds: the Russian National Wealth Fund, which supports the nation’s pension system, and the Reserve Fund, which is a part of the federal budget asset.

up
0 users have voted.

they would be dumping tons of money into climate change technology. The only thing the corps have any loyalty to is money, and there is a ton of money to be made from innovation and new technology. Today I saw on TV a company that has made thin, flexible glass. They cut it into strips 100s of feet long, roll it up, and store it that way. It is the glass of the future. We will have flexible phones and TVs.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

k9disc's picture

@dkmich .

Big Corporate & the Oligarchs don't care about losing money, they care about losing marketshare.

The best way to lose marketshare as an industry leader is to disrupt a mature market. Once that disruption happens the market is thrown into a tizzy and nobody knows where things will shake out.

So if you're sitting #2 or #3 do you risk bringing a disruptive product to market? Do you go whole hog in a new direction and threaten your vaunted position in today's market?

Big Corporate, when it comes to risk, is extremely conservative. Losing money is fine, but don't touch their marketshare -- that shit leaves a mark.

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

without huge tax-funded outlays. I remember reading that Strauss of the old Atomic Energy Commission said nuclear electricity would be "too cheap to meter" but the nation had to spend billions of dollars and change laws to shield companies from liability...nuclear power is a world killer as well as being expensive.

Leave the hydocarbons in the ground - cost free and only political will is needed. Screw the "tech fixes" that have to be funded to enrich a few and maybe be marginally effective.

up
0 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

ZimInSeattle's picture

@duckpin from stopping the methane hydrate release for decades to come. The only thing that can be done is start removing the carbon from the atmosphere as rapidly as possible and quit putting more in there. Obviously this isn't going to happen. I predict we'll all be toast by 2030.

up
0 users have voted.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020

PriceRip's picture

@ZimInSeattle

          We can stop drilling today and that won't do anything

          If this was about completing the task I would agree with your title, but such is not the case. If we stopped drilling today that would be a very great something and everyone should know that to be true.

          The very act of stopping the wholesale extraction of fossil fuels would signal a sea change in so much of our culture it would be earthshaking. So, I respectfully beg to differ.

up
0 users have voted.
ZimInSeattle's picture

@PriceRip I was referring to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, not the implications of such a move would have on our culture as a whole. In that regard, you are correct. It would be a great thing to see. We need to immediately stop extracting fossil fuels AND start removing carbon from the atmosphere as rapidly as possible.

up
0 users have voted.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020

PriceRip's picture

@ZimInSeattle

          No matter what we do the system has been driven too far. The anomalous behavior will continue for sometime, if I understand what the experts have been saying. Putting any faith in actually being able to reverse the problem is, in my opinion, foolish. At best we might be able to "soften" the impact, but I don't think we have any chance to stop the process. The system is non-linear and our models are not as clean is some would like to think.

          While this all many be very bad for some species others will do quite well. I have no idea as to how well (or how bad) we will fare this the coming decades, but I am sure that any die off will appear to be "random" and no one can be assured of survival. I doubt the claim that it is inevitable that we (in the dynamical sense of species) will disappear. Said another way: There is no reason to believe the future in this respect is any different than the past with respect to the scientific stuff.

          From a political and sociological side of the coin we have got to act fast. First do the obvious: Stop burning this stuff, stop making the situation worse. As that is implemented provide the resources to develop a different way to life. Most likely this will involve the need to reduce our numbers, that will be the hardest part as everyone here knows. Without a critical look at the Earth's carrying capacity we are doomed to dealing with die-offs coupled to the residual climatic oscillations.

          Obviously, I am of the opinion that we have exceeded the Earth's carrying capacity, so read anything I write with that bias in mind. The response to overpopulation inside a closed system will not be a pleasant thing to see or experience.

up
0 users have voted.