CO2 Electrolysis to CO (Carbon Monoxide) and then to Graphite

[Meredith Poor + 883]

CO2 Electrolyzers

https://dioxidematerials.com/technology/co2-electrolysis/

Carbon Dioxide Electrolyzers and Components

https://dioxidematerials.com/products/carbon-dioxide-electrolyzers-components/

Boudouard Reaction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudouard_reaction

Disproportionation of carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide and graphite or its reverse:

2CO ⇌ CO2 + C

 

Pumping CO2 underground is probably not a good idea. Graphite is a common mineral form of carbon in the earths crust. Reducing CO2 to graphite and then burying the graphite is essentially reversing the business of digging up coal or pumping oil out of the ground. Graphite could be landfilled in old or existing coal mines.

'Reducing' CO2 to CO, and then releasing the CO into a chamber where it spontaneously reacts to form CO2 and graphite, is all that's necessary to accumulate graphite for sequestration. The graphite takes the form of soot at that point, it needs to be compressed into something that won't blow around or get carried into groundwater.

The links at the top describe the efficiency and reliability of the technology for doing this.

This is one answer to large scale carbon sequestration. All that's needed is sufficient 'alternative' energy sources.

[notsonice + 1,068]

2CO ⇌ CO2 + C

'Reducing' CO2 to CO, and then releasing the CO into a chamber where it spontaneously reacts to form CO2 and graphite, is all that's necessary to accumulate graphite for sequestration??????????????

First to reduce CO2 to CO you need Carbon (graphite or coked coal) and the reaction only shifts to the left at high temps   

so you consume carbon and then you want to  inject Hot CO into a chamber ?(has to be hot because if you prematurely cool it the reaction shifts to the right and create CO2 and C before you get it injected). Upon Injection into a  chamber  you end up with what you started with CO2 and Carbon. In the end you get what you started with and also you are heating up the products and the heating up consume lots of ??? coal or nat gas???? Let nature do its job . That is, plants convert CO2 plus sunlight and water into complex Carbon based molecules  and Oxygen at room temperature......best way to sequester CO2????? Let nature do its job....Plant more trees.

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by notsonice

[Meredith Poor + 883]

2 hours ago, notsonice said:

2CO ⇌ CO2 + C

'Reducing' CO2 to CO, and then releasing the CO into a chamber where it spontaneously reacts to form CO2 and graphite, is all that's necessary to accumulate graphite for sequestration??????????????

First to reduce CO2 to CO you need Carbon (graphite or coked coal) and the reaction only shifts to the left at high temps   

so you consume carbon and then you want to  inject Hot CO into a chamber ?(has to be hot because if you prematurely cool it the reaction shifts to the right and create CO2 and C before you get it injected). Upon Injection into a  chamber  you end up with what you started with CO2 and Carbon. In the end you get what you started with and also you are heating up the products and the heating up consume lots of ??? coal or nat gas???? Let nature do its job . That is, plants convert CO2 plus sunlight and water into complex Carbon based molecules  and Oxygen at room temperature......best way to sequester CO2????? Let nature do its job....Plant more trees.

 

Did you read through the first two links above? They describe a CO2 electrolyzer that makes CO. The starting input is CO2 and water vapor.

[notsonice + 1,068]

10 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Did you read through the first two links above? They describe a CO2 electrolyzer that makes CO. The starting input is CO2 and water vapor.

The starting input is CO2 and water vapor??????. and lots lots lots  of energy . Again trying to turn CO2 into carbon should be left to plants. Better off not burning Carbon based fuels to begin with and let nature solve the spiked CO2 levels

•  

• Quote

[Meredith Poor + 883]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

The starting input is CO2 and water vapor??????. and lots lots lots  of energy . Again trying to turn CO2 into carbon should be left to plants. Better off not burning Carbon based fuels to begin with and let nature solve the spiked CO2 levels

•  

• Quote

The device claims to work at 98% Faradaic efficiency. It does require energy, which presumably would come from renewable sources. Obviously if we're going to return the last 200 years worth of 'excess' combustion back to minerals, it's going to take a lot of energy.

[Piotr Berman + 82]

At the first reading in seems absurd, O2 + C -> CO2 + energy, so we can perform reverse reaction: energy + CO2 -> C + O2, but I suspect lot of loss of energy.

However, the largest problem of "clean energy" is storage on the scale of seasons and years.  And C is easy to store.  When there is a surplus of "clean energy" you run CO2 -> C + O2, and when there is a deficit, you run a thermal power generator with C as the fuel.  The remaining problem of storing millions of tons of CO2 is perhaps identical to the storage of CH4, and this is done already, no new technology needed, and the current infrastructure can be converted to that use.   Moreover, storing CO2 (waiting for conversion into useful fuel later) seems easier than storing H2 which some countries contemplate.  

Nevertheless, I would like to compare capital investments needed for this scheme and for nuclear power, and the distribution of potential storage sites.

 

 

 

 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

19 minutes ago, Piotr Berman said:

At the first reading in seems absurd, O2 + C -> CO2 + energy, so we can perform reverse reaction: energy + CO2 -> C + O2, but I suspect lot of loss of energy.

However, the largest problem of "clean energy" is storage on the scale of seasons and years.  And C is easy to store.  When there is a surplus of "clean energy" you run CO2 -> C + O2, and when there is a deficit, you run a thermal power generator with C as the fuel.  The remaining problem of storing millions of tons of CO2 is perhaps identical to the storage of CH4, and this is done already, no new technology needed, and the current infrastructure can be converted to that use.   Moreover, storing CO2 (waiting for conversion into useful fuel later) seems easier than storing H2 which some countries contemplate.  

Nevertheless, I would like to compare capital investments needed for this scheme and for nuclear power, and the distribution of potential storage sites.

The point of storing graphite in old coal mines is to sequester it permanently. This will not be 'dug back up and burned' later.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

Except no one with more than 2 brain cells will do this unless someone wants nearly pure graphite.  Why?  The Tropical troposphere shows, in get this REAL data, not 'computer models", Global warming as a problem is completely overblown.

The real reason AGW is being pushed?  Europeans have run out of coal/ng/oil for their civilization to prosper. Only the French appear to have joined reality by still pushing nuclear energy. 

[notsonice + 1,068]

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

The point of storing graphite in old coal mines is to sequester it permanently. This will not be 'dug back up and burned' later.

you should invest in their BS, you will soon be parted with your money. They want you to buy their membranes and catalysts . They are not selling a working efficient process at all. Their statement , The idea is to capture CO₂ from the air and recycle it back to the fuels and chemicals that we use every day........ is a giant pipe dream. Why because the concentration of CO2 in the air is less than 450 ppm. Think of the volumes of air you have to handle to get any mass of CO2. You need large masses of air IE  to get 1 kg of CO2 from the air you need to process 2000 kg of air. Pumping C02 into solution is not easy on a mass scale. Their process is in a electrochemical cell with a cathode and an anode and a separation membrane (I bet you the membrane alone costs $1000 per square meter). Pump 2000 kg of air (yep you have to compress it to pump it into solution) to get 1 kg in solution.  The energy alone to move/pump the air will drain your bank account fast. Lots of snake oil being sold with their statement The idea is to capture CO₂ from the air and recycle it back to the fuels and chemicals that we use every day..

You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about .....storing graphite in old coal mines.....Whew you really are dreaming up something big.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Except no one with more than 2 brain cells will do this unless someone wants nearly pure graphite.  Why?  The Tropical troposphere shows, in get this REAL data, not 'computer models", Global warming as a problem is completely overblown.

The real reason AGW is being pushed?  Europeans have run out of coal/ng/oil for their civilization to prosper. Only the French appear to have joined reality by still pushing nuclear energy. 

People are such idiots. How is it all these numbskulls can fly around from one country to another and edit their selfies on their smart phones and post them to Facebook and invest money in the stock market and SCUBA dive in the Mediterranean? Oops, those are the rich people with their high powered university educations. Everyone else can't drive, can't type, can't handle a credit card, can't compose a valid English sentence, much less understand something like chemistry.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

14 minutes ago, notsonice said:

you should invest in their BS, you will soon be parted with your money.

Who is 'they'? The people selling these electrolyzers say they can make CO from CO2. They don't say anything about precipitating graphite out of CO, or burying graphite in landfills. Those are conclusions I reached by looking up something else.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

8 hours ago, notsonice said:

The starting input is CO2 and water vapor??????. and lots lots lots  of energy . Again trying to turn CO2 into carbon should be left to plants. Better off not burning Carbon based fuels to begin with and let nature solve the spiked CO2 levels

•  

• Quote

"Not burning carbon based fuels"?  That means ignoring 84% of the world's energy supply....madness. And all for nothing, the CO2 theory of climate change is a pile of nonsense to begin with. The models are flawed beyond belief.

[notsonice + 1,068]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

Who is 'they'? The people selling these electrolyzers say they can make CO from CO2. They don't say anything about precipitating graphite out of CO, or burying graphite in landfills. Those are conclusions I reached by looking up something else.

yeah so you made up the whole ......'Reducing' CO2 to CO, and then releasing the CO into a chamber where it spontaneously reacts to form CO2 and graphite, is all that's necessary to accumulate graphite for sequestration....... You basically took the Boudouard Reaction, spun it to something it cannot do ....... adding in electrolyzers........all a pie in the sky combo..........If you want to remove CO2 form the atmosphere, again plant trees.

[notsonice + 1,068]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

"Not burning carbon based fuels"?  That means ignoring 84% of the world's energy supply....madness. And all for nothing, the CO2 theory of climate change is a pile of nonsense to begin with. The models are flawed beyond belief.

2014 86.3 %....2019   84.3%.....2020   83.1 percent . Keep babbling bs about models being flawed and climate change is nonsense....only way to reduce CO2 is switching from carbon based fuels to renewables and nuclear energy. Rome was not built in a day and the switch will take time.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

11 hours ago, notsonice said:

If you want to remove CO2 form the atmosphere, again plant trees.

Instead of emitting CO2, 'we' (or our trees) emit terpenes (C5 molecules):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terpene

The actual better way to do this is via algae. They are way more efficient than trees in removing CO2.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The models are flawed beyond belief.

This is sort of like saying cars are flawed beyond belief. Certainly looking back over automobile production since the 1920's, most of them are ghastly pieces of work. That doesn't stop billions of people from using them anyway.

[turbguy + 1,398]

3 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

The actual better way to do this is via algae. They are way more efficient than trees in removing CO2.

Wait long enough, and then drill for petroleum, too!

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 11/30/2021 at 1:14 AM, Piotr Berman said:

At the first reading in seems absurd, O2 + C -> CO2 + energy, so we can perform reverse reaction: energy + CO2 -> C + O2, but I suspect lot of loss of energy.

However, the largest problem of "clean energy" is storage on the scale of seasons and years.  And C is easy to store.  When there is a surplus of "clean energy" you run CO2 -> C + O2, and when there is a deficit, you run a thermal power generator with C as the fuel.  The remaining problem of storing millions of tons of CO2 is perhaps identical to the storage of CH4, and this is done already, no new technology needed, and the current infrastructure can be converted to that use.   Moreover, storing CO2 (waiting for conversion into useful fuel later) seems easier than storing H2 which some countries contemplate.  

Nevertheless, I would like to compare capital investments needed for this scheme and for nuclear power, and the distribution of potential storage sites.

 

 

 

 

The principle underlying reaction for all such schemes is the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water–gas_shift_reaction

CO + H₂O ⇌ CO₂ + H₂

since it is an equilibrium reaction, there is not really a reverse, with specific conditions determining which side ends up winning. Ditto for

2CO ⇌ CO2 + C

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

8 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

This is sort of like saying cars are flawed beyond belief. Certainly looking back over automobile production since the 1920's, most of them are ghastly pieces of work. That doesn't stop billions of people from using them anyway.

No one is deciding to ban cars because they are not perfect now are they? 

When not ONE single model comes even close to matching the temperature/rainfall record, time to stop spouting Bull Shit about the Climate and its causes.  When the models supposedly are based on planet equilibrium with space, yet we THROW OUT THE TTO even though we have both balloon and satellite data for it, yet keep KNOWN FLAWED city data as the main driver of our "models"... you know the political whores have taken over science. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

23 hours ago, notsonice said:

2014 86.3 %....2019   84.3%.....2020   83.1 percent . Keep babbling bs about models being flawed and climate change is nonsense....only way to reduce CO2 is switching from carbon based fuels to renewables and nuclear energy. Rome was not built in a day and the switch will take time.

1980...84%.  2020...84%.

Some things never change, except the foolish behavior of governments.

The predictions from flawed climate change models will soon lead to the rejection of those models.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Meredith Poor + 883]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

When not ONE single model comes even close to matching the temperature/rainfall record, time to stop spouting Bull Shit about the Climate and its causes.  When the models supposedly are based on planet equilibrium with space, yet we THROW OUT THE TTO even though we have both balloon and satellite data for it, yet keep KNOWN FLAWED city data as the main driver of our "models"... you know the political whores have taken over science. 

https://www.nsnews.com/highlights/flooded-abbotsford-residents-told-to-evacuate-before-pump-fails-4765855

Someone at one point asked me why we shouldn't be punishing economists when they make bad projections. This was one of Margaret Thatcher's ideas, in particular. Even after a century of miserably 'wrong' projections, economists still have jobs and still make meaningful contributions. They can't necessarily tell you what works, but they can definitely tell you what won't work.

Climate projections might be wrong 99% of the time. Stand on at the edge of a cliff 100 times, and being 'right' 99% of the time won't help much. If you fool around with something long enough, it will break.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 11/29/2021 at 8:04 PM, notsonice said:

Why because the concentration of CO2 in the air is less than 450 ppm

I've always thought that CO2 capture from seawater would be more practical, but certainly not profitable. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 11/30/2021 at 5:30 PM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

The principle underlying reaction for all such schemes is the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water–gas_shift_reaction

CO + H₂O ⇌ CO₂ + H₂

since it is an equilibrium reaction, there is not really a reverse, with specific conditions determining which side ends up winning. Ditto for

2CO ⇌ CO2 + C

Which is exactly why we force it to one side, just like every other industrial reaction that has an equilibrium state.