How much of that is required to capture 1 year of CO2 output? There’s the rub.
I don’t mean to dunk on these scientists, they’re honestly doing really cool work. But all these techno-fixes are just slightly delaying the inevitable. We’re in a train hurtling towards a cliff, and people are trying to invent a more efficient engine. We need to be hitting the brakes.
COFs (this paper) and MOFs (other, similar molecules) are quite the hot new thing in chemistry at the moment, and for good reason. They are extremely powerful for sequestration, uptake, and catalysis/degredation of notoriously undesirable molecules.
IMO the major reason for the nature publication here is then *open air*, ambient condition CO2 uptake observed in this COF.
>- it can only hold 1-2 mmol CO2 per g of material, meaning 18-36 44-88 g CO2 per kg of material. you would have to cycle this many, many times to get the number they claim (ETA: in the headline).
>- the synthesis is a few steps long, and uses so much material and time and energy. it uses a staudinger reaction for example with a huge excess of PPh3, in 300 solvent volumes of methanol. as a process chemist this is laughably inefficient.
>- there’s not a chance this is carbon-neutral or carbon negative as it stands. like cloth or reusable plastic bags you would probably have to both cycle this almost indefinitely (the thousands of times they claim, maybe, would get you there) and get perfect recovery of the CO2 (i.e. no leakage or loss) in order for this to ever have a hope of being a net benefit.
>[…]the reporting is wildly overstating the capabilities of the material and giving a warped view of what the immediate potential of the material is.
Something like this could work. If it’s coupled with the new plasma based catalytic converter that is emerging we might make a little progress. I have hope.
7 comments
Tldr: it’s about that yellow powder.
How much of that is required to capture 1 year of CO2 output? There’s the rub.
I don’t mean to dunk on these scientists, they’re honestly doing really cool work. But all these techno-fixes are just slightly delaying the inevitable. We’re in a train hurtling towards a cliff, and people are trying to invent a more efficient engine. We need to be hitting the brakes.
COFs (this paper) and MOFs (other, similar molecules) are quite the hot new thing in chemistry at the moment, and for good reason. They are extremely powerful for sequestration, uptake, and catalysis/degredation of notoriously undesirable molecules.
IMO the major reason for the nature publication here is then *open air*, ambient condition CO2 uptake observed in this COF.
It’s too late.
[Necessary reading](https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/1gagad2/comment/ltdw7xv/) from another thread on this article:
>- it can only hold 1-2 mmol CO2 per g of material, meaning 18-36 44-88 g CO2 per kg of material. you would have to cycle this many, many times to get the number they claim (ETA: in the headline).
>- the synthesis is a few steps long, and uses so much material and time and energy. it uses a staudinger reaction for example with a huge excess of PPh3, in 300 solvent volumes of methanol. as a process chemist this is laughably inefficient.
>- there’s not a chance this is carbon-neutral or carbon negative as it stands. like cloth or reusable plastic bags you would probably have to both cycle this almost indefinitely (the thousands of times they claim, maybe, would get you there) and get perfect recovery of the CO2 (i.e. no leakage or loss) in order for this to ever have a hope of being a net benefit.
>[…]the reporting is wildly overstating the capabilities of the material and giving a warped view of what the immediate potential of the material is.
Something like this could work. If it’s coupled with the new plasma based catalytic converter that is emerging we might make a little progress. I have hope.
Comments are closed.